Professional Cycling - Why Lance really came back (money & power)

Armstrong's comeback reasons reviewed by Walsh/Ballester (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2009/jun09/jun04news2)

The authors of "LA Confidentiel", a book published in 2004 alleging that Lance Armstrong used performance-enhancing substances, have hit out at the cyclist once again. In their latest book, "Le Sale Tour" ["The dirty Tour" - ed.], Pierre Ballester and David Walsh write about the return to competition of the seven-time Tour de France winner and his apparent ambition to enter US politics.

The former journalist of L'Equipe and his colleague working for The Sunday Times allege that Armstrong's comeback to the sport after three years of absence is not to promote his Livestrong foundation against cancer, but that his real reasons for it are those of a businessman. According to Ballester and Walsh, Armstrong, after unsuccessfully bidding for shares of the company holding the Tour de France, came back to cycling to increase his personal wealth.

"Since last summer, his [non-profit] Livestrong foundation has a lucrative segment," said Ballester. "And when Armstrong receives 200,000 Euro to host a conference, he puts it into his pocket - unlike the leading cancer experts, who will donate the money."

The authors also claim that Armstrong has a political objective: become the governor of Texas in 2014. In the second half of the Book, Walsh and Ballester ask sports politicians about Armstrong's return, with former French sports secretary Jean-François Lamour saying, "This comeback is not a very good sign. It's even a kind of a masquerade."

Moreover, Ballester accused the organisers of the Tour de France, ASO, to privilege their business over the sports aspect at the Grande Boucle. "ASO's new strategy is more turned towards business than the credibility of the sport," said Walsh. "In allowing Armstrong to come back to the Tour, will be coming back also the ghosts of the past: doping, scheming, bribery... They must have weighed pros and cons, more important and less important, and decided in favour of Armstrong's return."

:popcorn

thses Lance threads are :twitchy::crash:

whoosh.

Maybe they're right (Walsh, et. al.), maybe they're not.

My options: Not many.

My level of (deep) concern: Not much.

My opinion on the direction of this thread: Straight to flamer heaven (or is that hell?).

One thing I do feel pretty sure about is LA's political prospects in TX: Near zero. His sports hero status won't transcend issues such as religion, perceptions about his personal life and etc. with the electorate in that state, or many others. That's just political reality. Don't flame me b/c of it.


:beer:

Walter,

I don't disagree with your assessment of Texas voters but I think you under estimate the
pull that Lance has here in Texas. I think he could give it a credible run for the money (no pun
or double entendre ) hell, Kinky Friedman gave it a credible run.

In a similar vein I think that Messieurs Walsh and Ballester are most happy that Lance is making
a comeback as it allows them to write another book and sell it (as opposed to writing another book
about an ex-pro who no one wan't to read).

Marty

who really cares? The reason why Ballester and Walsh wrote the book was to ride the coat tails of LA. They hoped to cash in on LA's alleged drug use and infamous popularity with the TDF. The authors claim they just want the truth to come out but then again why not make a buck or two also....

Whether its for money, power, more fame, cancer awareness, fitness, etc. Who cares, just let him be and let him ride.

I wonder how much money will be made by selling this book. Will it go to a foundation?

Walter,

I don't disagree with your assessment of Texas voters but I think you under estimate the
pull that Lance has here in Texas. I think he could give it a credible run for the money (no pun
or double entendre ) hell, Kinky Friedman gave it a credible run.

In a similar vein I think that Messieurs Walsh and Ballester are most happy that Lance is making
a comeback as it allows them to write another book and sell it (as opposed to writing another book
about an ex-pro who no one wan't to read).

Marty

Perhaps. I'm only there for a couple of weeks each year visiting my in-laws. They're proud of LA even though that is the entire extent of their knowledge of pro cycling.

They wouldn't vote for him though. I can imagine the campaign tactics used against LA (Hollywood starlets, divorce, etc.) and my in-laws would turn off him in a heartbeat. I mean the voters take Rick Perry seriously nowadays. I find that more surprising than Friedman getting some votes. :innocent:

Now this could be completely irrelevant as, AFAIK, LA has not seriously proclaimed political ambitions.

You are 100% right about Walsh and Ballester. I have no idea what their net worth is but it's alot higher than it would've been if they had never heard of Armstrong to be sure. :p

:beer:

I wonder how many others who aspire to the esteemed governorship of Texas have finished 12th or higher in the Giro.

That's a pretty good masquerade if he's putting one on via cycling.

I wonder how many others who aspire to the esteemed governorship of Texas have finished 12th or higher in the Giro.

That's a pretty good masquerade if he's putting one on via cycling.

Does Andy Hampsten plan to move to TX and get into politics?

Ballester and Walsh have been, and likely always will be, fos. Some folks eat it up, though. Whatever.

Does Andy Hampsten plan to move to TX and get into politics?

The question here is: Would he consider a comeback to the professional peloton and train hard enough to hang with the baddest climbers on the planet to accomplish that goal?

And here I was thinking it was to pick up some more skinny blonde chicks.

Silly me.

The question here is: Would he consider a comeback to the professional peloton and train hard enough to hang with the baddest climbers on the planet to accomplish that goal?

You're not taking the Hampsten quip seriously, are you?

If you are I've got to let you into the fact that I wasn't. So far as I know Hampsten is quite happy living where he lives (Colorado and Tuscany).

Anyways, he's a bit older than LA and, regarding the Giro, has nothing to prove.

(You do know who he is? :rolleyes: )

(You do know who he is? :rolleyes: )
I'm pretty sure I know who he is. I'm wearing my Cinghiale boar-on-a-bike cycling socks as I type this.

Thanks for the history lesson. :)

Whatever any one thinks of Armstrong, the continued hard on these guys are showing for him is not doing much for their credibility.

And here I was thinking it was to pick up some more skinny blonde chicks.

Silly me.

:thumb: Never underestimate the obvious.

Walter,

I don't disagree with your assessment of Texas voters but I think you under estimate the
pull that Lance has here in Texas. I think he could give it a credible run for the money (no pun
or double entendre ) hell, Kinky Friedman gave it a credible run.

In a similar vein I think that Messieurs Walsh and Ballester are most happy that Lance is making
a comeback as it allows them to write another book and sell it (as opposed to writing another book
about an ex-pro who no one wan't to read).

Marty

Yeah, but Kinky Friedman is totally awesome. That he didn't win is yet another sad reflection on Texas.

who really cares? The reason why Ballester and Walsh wrote the book was to ride the coat tails of LA. They hoped to cash in on LA's alleged drug use and infamous popularity with the TDF. The authors claim they just want the truth to come out but then again why not make a buck or two also....

Yup.

Unless they're givng the book proceeds to cancer research, they need to STFU.

Unless they're givng the book proceeds to cancer research, they need to STFU.

Right, because thats the only worthy thing in the world. Do you donate your paycheck to cancer research?

He who has the power and money also gets the ......

Right, because thats the only worthy thing in the world. Do you donate your paycheck to cancer research?

No, nor do I expect anyone else to. That was my point--the hypocrisy is staggering. This book is going to make a lot of money for the authors and that's fine. Why is Lance not allowed to make money doing what he's good at?

He who has the power and money also gets the ......

Olson Twin? :D

Right, because thats the only worthy thing in the world. Do you donate your paycheck to cancer research?

My guess is that DrPete's comment was pointed toward their statement.

"Since last summer, his [non-profit] Livestrong foundation has a lucrative segment," said Ballester. "And when Armstrong receives 200,000 Euro to host a conference, he puts it into his pocket - unlike the leading cancer experts, who will donate the money."

Unless they're givng the book proceeds to cancer research, they need to STFU.

Why? Armstrong was rumoured to receive $2M Australian to ride the Tour Down Under. Not paid to his Cancer Foundation, paid to Armstrong directly as an appearance fee. It was never denied by Armstrong or the South Australian state government. LA supposedly received a similar start fee for the Giro. Is it really all about 'fighting cancer'?

Walsh and Ballester aren't claiming to fight some terrible disease, and are asking reasonable questions IMO.

Perception is reality.

And here I was thinking it was to pick up some more skinny blonde chicks.

Silly me.

+1 :thumb: Who really needs the headaches of politics?!

Why? Armstrong was rumoured to receive $2M Australian to ride the Tour Down Under. Not paid to his Cancer Foundation, paid to Armstrong directly as an appearance fee. It was never denied by Armstrong or the South Australian state government. LA supposedly received a similar start fee for the Giro. Is it really all about 'fighting cancer'?

Walsh and Ballester aren't claiming to fight some terrible disease, and are asking reasonable questions IMO.

I have no problem with LA getting appearance fees for racing his bike. Just because he has a foundation doesn't mean I or anyone else should expect him to forego personal income.

Walsh and Ballester seem to assert that "personal gain" is somehow wrong in Lance's case, and I disagree.

Armstrong was rumoured to receive $2M Australian to ride the Tour Down Under. Not paid to his Cancer Foundation, paid to Armstrong directly as an appearance fee.

So if you start a charity you aren't allowed to still have any personal income?



Walsh and Ballester aren't claiming to fight some terrible disease, and are asking reasonable questions IMO.

Actually I think they're jumping on their favorite hobby horse simply because the opportunity presented itself.

Why? Armstrong was rumoured to receive $2M Australian to ride the Tour Down Under. Not paid to his Cancer Foundation, paid to Armstrong directly as an appearance fee. It was never denied by Armstrong or the South Australian state government. LA supposedly received a similar start fee for the Giro. Is it really all about 'fighting cancer'?

Walsh and Ballester aren't claiming to fight some terrible disease, and are asking reasonable questions IMO.

reputably more. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/cycling/article6245104.ece)

Unless they're givng the book proceeds to cancer research, they need to STFU.

... Just like Lance did. Oh, wait....

(as others have already mentioned.)

... Just like Lance did. Oh, wait....

(as others have already mentioned.)

Instead of being the 3rd person to think that they're cleverly refuting what I'm saying, please feel free to actually read what I wrote in subsequent posts. Thanks.

So if you start a charity you aren't allowed to still have any personal income?


apparently :lol:

My guess is that DrPete's comment was pointed toward their statement.

"Since last summer, his [non-profit] Livestrong foundation has a lucrative segment," said Ballester. "And when Armstrong receives 200,000 Euro to host a conference, he puts it into his pocket - unlike the leading cancer experts, who will donate the money."

And you would be correct! Woohoo! Someone actually got what I was saying!

I have no problem with LA getting appearance fees for racing his bike. Just because he has a foundation doesn't mean I or anyone else should expect him to forego personal income.

Walsh and Ballester seem to assert that "personal gain" is somehow wrong in Lance's case, and I disagree.


So if you start a charity you aren't allowed to still have any personal income?

I have no problem with him receiving appearance fees either, but he isn't up front about it. The PR about him racing 'for free' and his comeback being purely for altruistic reasons is demonstrably nonsense, there is ambiguity (deliberate IMO) about whether the start money is for him or his foundation and the secrecy surrounding the expenditure of tax payers money on his TDU appearance from both the SA govt and the LA camp annoys me.

South Australia is well known for its God botherers, rabid parochialism, lack of potable water, its suitability as a nuclear test site, weird serial killers and now for questionable expenditure of tax payers money. Fortunately I don't have to live in South Australia, don't pay tax there and don't contribute to funding their early season training race, so maybe I should STFU about my whinging.:D

I tend to agree with what the authors are stipulating; however, I also argue that, on balance, Lance has also done more positive than negative--bringing a global awareness for the need to find the cure for cancer, increasing global interest in cycling (there is no argument that he is the most recognizable cyclist of all time; notice, I didn't say "best").

Now, whether or not Lance is really a stooge for the multinational pharma companies, really just wants to hook up with another blond bimbo, etc. is really conspiracy theory foo.

But what sort of value have the authors provided? It would appear that they are profiting at the expense of someone's reputation without hard facts--this is not cool IMO.

edit: I disagree /w the authors that making bucks, fame, power etc. are mutually exclusive from also promoting a foundation or charitable cause. One can do both at the same time. Better than being a hack writer and player-hater.

I have no problem with him receiving appearance fees either, but he isn't up front about it. The PR about him racing 'for free' and his comeback being purely for altruistic reasons is demonstrably nonsense, there is ambiguity (deliberate IMO) about whether the start money is for him or his foundation and the secrecy surrounding the expenditure of tax payers money on his TDU appearance from both the SA govt and the LA camp annoys me.

South Australia is well known for its God botherers, rabid parochialism, lack of potable water, its suitability as a nuclear test site, weird serial killers and now for questionable expenditure of tax payers money. Fortunately I don't have to live in South Australia, don't pay tax there and don't contribute to funding their early season training race, so maybe I should STFU about my whinging.:D

Tiger Woods makes no salary. His income comes from prize money and endorsements. If he went all season out of the money, technically he'd be playing "for free" too.

Plenty of examples of this in the real world. LA may not make a salary to race, but it doesn't change the fact that his name and face are worth a lot of money to race organizers who want to raise the profile of their event.

I have no problem with LA getting appearance fees for racing his bike. Just because he has a foundation doesn't mean I or anyone else should expect him to forego personal income.

Walsh and Ballester seem to assert that "personal gain" is somehow wrong in Lance's case, and I disagree.

+1. Well said.

Tiger Woods makes no salary. His income comes from prize money, appearance fees and endorsements. If he went all season out of the money, technically he'd be playing "for free" too.

Plenty of examples of this in the real world. LA may not make a salary to race, but it doesn't change the fact that his name and face are worth a lot of money to race organizers who want to raise the profile of their event.

Fixed that for you Pete. :)

It rubs me the wrong way because Lance has this enormous press conference to start the year, discussing how he's doing it solely to raise cancer awareness, won't be taking a salary from the team, etc. etc. And Lance gets a lot of (deservedly so at the time) positive press about riding because he wants to further the awareness of cancer research.

Then he goes out and take multi-million personal appearance fees for races that hardly need to raise their profile. (Honestly, where does the Giro go from where it is now? Bigger than the Tour?)
I don't mind him racing for personal gain, and selling the need for cancer research on the coattails along the way, but he hasn't exactly been transparent about it.

It rubs me the wrong way because Lance has this enormous press conference to start the year, discussing how he's doing it solely to raise cancer awareness, won't be taking a salary from the team, etc. etc. And Lance gets a lot of (deservedly so at the time) positive press about riding because he wants to further the awareness of cancer research.

Then he goes out and take multi-million personal appearance fees for races that hardly need to raise their profile. (Honestly, where does the Giro go from where it is now? Bigger than the Tour?)
I don't mind him racing for personal gain, and selling the need for cancer research on the coattails along the way, but he hasn't exactly been transparent about it.

He's not mother Teresa. He's a friggin cyclist for crying out loud. Why is this so hard to understand for so many people?

Think of it like the WWE but on bikes; it's just a big show with real-live suffering and soul crushing.

I have no problem with LA getting appearance fees for racing his bike. Just because he has a foundation doesn't mean I or anyone else should expect him to forego personal income.

Walsh and Ballester seem to assert that "personal gain" is somehow wrong in Lance's case, and I disagree.

Gotcha.

Um, Money and Power...isn't that part of human nature?

I have no problem with LA getting appearance fees for racing his bike. Just because he has a foundation doesn't mean I or anyone else should expect him to forego personal income.

Walsh and Ballester seem to assert that "personal gain" is somehow wrong in Lance's case, and I disagree.

Yet LA himself claimed in the beginning that a large part of his comeback was to raise awareness and money for his foundation, that he would not be taking a salary and most prize monies, etc would go to the LAF.

Regardless, nothing the man does will surprise me. He's kind of a DBag and I honestly think he got sad that he was slipping out of the limelight. It's the Lance Armstrong look at me comeback special.

Um, Money and Power...isn't that part of human nature?

Apparently, not for some high and mighty, former French "journalists".

Yet LA himself claimed in the beginning that a large part of his comeback was to raise awareness and money for his foundation, that he would not be taking a salary and most prize monies, etc would go to the LAF.

Riding in these events is what is raising awareness. He's not taking a salary and I don't know that he's not donated any prize money he may have received to date, if any. Where did he say he wouldn't take any money from any source?

He's not mother Teresa. He's a friggin cyclist for crying out loud. Why is this so hard to understand for so many people?

Think of it like the WWE but on bikes; it's just a big show with real-live suffering and soul crushing.

Sweet now I finally have a worthy quote for my sig....Thanks:thumb:

Who cares? Sounds like a good business plan to me. Stop whining....:cry: