Lance and Livestrong

Mike Murray

2012-08-29

I remember when Outside magazine reported about the GT-B track bike that the
best part were the "silky smooth" Suzue hubs. I was selling the GT-B at
that time and had several of them for rental bikes at the track. Although
Suzue makes some fine hubs, the ones on the GT-B were low end crap that did
not run well and easily came out of adjustment. They were the worst part of
the GT-B. I also remember an article that Outside did on the planned
construction of a velodrome in New Mexico. I believe I was actually in a
picture accompanying that article and I was at the meeting that the reporter
attended which was the basis of the article. There was not what I would
consider to be an accurate connection between what I knew about the subject
and what was in the article. I would definitely add Outside magazine, and
for that matter most media, into my previously stated list of entities to
not trust implicitly. I would like to suggest that Outside's reporting is
generally more for entertainment value.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
Behalf Of Kim Neve
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:23
To: obra@list.obra.org
Subject: [OBRA Chat] Lance and Livestrong

I'm going to add a sixth group. :-)

Regardless of how you feel about Lance as a cyclist (and I am basically an
admirer) there are those who aren't quite sure what Livestrong does.
There was a time when the organization supported cancer research but they
don't anymore, although they don't do much to correct the misconception that
they still do. Now Livestrong supports "cancer awareness" and
"survivorship", whatever those things mean, and also spends a lot of money
on PR and branding. I am not saying that it is a fraudulent organization or
that there is anything funny happening with money donated to Livestrong,
simply that I have many causes that I donate to that I think are more
important than "cancer awareness".

I am going to paste in a link, but I often notice that URLs are deleted by
this listserv for some reason, so just in case this gets deleted I refer you
to the February 2012 issue of Outside magazine which is where I, a
biologist, first learned that Livestrong hasn't funded research for years.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-
Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all

Kim

On 8/29/2012 9:59 AM, obra-request@list.obra.org wrote:
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:40:45 -0400 (EDT)
> From:"jeff@ultrafreaks.net"
> To: Jon Ragsdale,obra@list.obra.org
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance
> Message-ID:
>
> <1233070635.39053.1346254845447.JavaMail.vpopmail@mail.ultrafreaks.net
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Cutting it more finely, a fifth group:
> Those that admire his work off the bike, think that, while he may have
> been an a$$ at times, he was a tremendous athlete and competitor
> regardless of allegations, and that feel you cannot judge the past with
today's lens.
>
> Fact is he passed all of the tests and satisfied the requirements of
> the races he participated in. That is the only thing that matters
> with regards to his wins. He played by the rules of the time and he
> won. Whether or not he actually doped is immaterial at this point
> except as a social thought experiment.
>
> To do otherwise is revisionist history. Many things in athletic
> competition have changed in the last few decades: timing accuracy,
> starting guns, video analysis, clothing, etc. Would it be fruitful to
> go back and analyze track or swimming events to determine if the
> finishing order might be different if all the competitors had had the
> benefit of today's technology? Or, how about we start exhuming the
> bodies of former medalists and do chemical analysis to determine if
> they took illicit drugs, and strip them of their medals if they did?
> Drag out films of Wimbledon tennis tournaments and use digital analysis to
look for uncalled foot faults?
>
> Better for the FDA, WADA and UCI to spend their resources improving
> tests on a go-forward basis than to focus on the past with a stupid,
fruitless witch hunt.
>
> -j
>
>
> On August 29, 2012 at 1:41 AM Jon Ragsdale
wrote:
>
>> >There are also the 4th group. The group that doesn't care, his work
>> >off the bike is what's important.
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From:obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org]
>> >On Behalf Of olivier
>> >Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:09 PM To:obra@list.obra.org
>> >Subject: [OBRA Chat] Lance
>> >
>> >I figure there are three camps: First those who think Lance doped
>> >and deserves to be stripped of his Tour wins. Second those who
>> >think Lance doped but so did everybody else so what what's the big
>> >deal. Third those who still believe Lance was clean. Only the
>> >first two are relevant. The third is in LaLa land.
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >OBRA mailing list
>> >obra@list.obra.org
>> >http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> >Unsubscribe:obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >OBRA mailing list
>> >obra@list.obra.org
>> >http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> >Unsubscribe:obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org


Chris Cortez

2012-08-29

+1. Hard for me to believe cancer needs any help with awareness. My
dad and half my mom's side of the family died of cancer. I'm lock
limit up on awareness, thanks.

On Aug 29, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Kim Neve wrote:

> I'm going to add a sixth group. :-)
>
> Regardless of how you feel about Lance as a cyclist (and I am
> basically an admirer) there are those who aren't quite sure what
> Livestrong does. There was a time when the organization supported
> cancer research but they don't anymore, although they don't do much
> to correct the misconception that they still do. Now Livestrong
> supports "cancer awareness" and "survivorship", whatever those
> things mean, and also spends a lot of money on PR and branding. I
> am not saying that it is a fraudulent organization or that there is
> anything funny happening with money donated to Livestrong, simply
> that I have many causes that I donate to that I think are more
> important than "cancer awareness".
>
> I am going to paste in a link, but I often notice that URLs are
> deleted by this listserv for some reason, so just in case this gets
> deleted I refer you to the February 2012 issue of Outside magazine
> which is where I, a biologist, first learned that Livestrong hasn't
> funded research for years.
>
> http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all
>
> Kim
>
>
> On 8/29/2012 9:59 AM, obra-request@list.obra.org wrote:
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:40:45 -0400 (EDT)
>> From:"jeff@ultrafreaks.net"
>> To: Jon Ragsdale,obra@list.obra.org
>> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance
>> Message-ID:
>> <1233070635.39053.1346254845447.JavaMail.vpopmail@mail.ultrafreaks.net
>> >
>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Cutting it more finely, a fifth group:
>> Those that admire his work off the bike, think that, while he may
>> have been an
>> a$$ at times, he was a tremendous athlete and competitor regardless
>> of
>> allegations, and that feel you cannot judge the past with today's
>> lens.
>>
>> Fact is he passed all of the tests and satisfied the requirements
>> of the races
>> he participated in. That is the only thing that matters with
>> regards to his
>> wins. He played by the rules of the time and he won. Whether or
>> not he
>> actually doped is immaterial at this point except as a social thought
>> experiment.
>>
>> To do otherwise is revisionist history. Many things in athletic
>> competition
>> have changed in the last few decades: timing accuracy, starting
>> guns, video
>> analysis, clothing, etc. Would it be fruitful to go back and
>> analyze track or
>> swimming events to determine if the finishing order might be
>> different if all
>> the competitors had had the benefit of today's technology? Or, how
>> about we
>> start exhuming the bodies of former medalists and do chemical
>> analysis to
>> determine if they took illicit drugs, and strip them of their
>> medals if they
>> did? Drag out films of Wimbledon tennis tournaments and use
>> digital analysis to
>> look for uncalled foot faults?
>>
>> Better for the FDA, WADA and UCI to spend their resources improving
>> tests on a
>> go-forward basis than to focus on the past with a stupid, fruitless
>> witch hunt.
>>
>> -j
>>
>>
>> On August 29, 2012 at 1:41 AM Jon
>> Ragsdale wrote:
>>
>>> >There are also the 4th group. The group that doesn't care, his
>>> work off the
>>> >bike is what's important.
>>> >
>>> >-----Original Message-----
>>> >From:obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-
>>> bounces@list.obra.org] On
>>> >Behalf Of olivier
>>> >Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:09 PM
>>> >To:obra@list.obra.org
>>> >Subject: [OBRA Chat] Lance
>>> >
>>> >I figure there are three camps: First those who think Lance doped
>>> and
>>> >deserves to be stripped of his Tour wins. Second those who think
>>> Lance
>>> >doped but so did everybody else so what what's the big deal.
>>> Third those
>>> >who still believe Lance was clean. Only the first two are
>>> relevant. The
>>> >third is in LaLa land.
>>> >_______________________________________________
>>> >OBRA mailing list
>>> >obra@list.obra.org
>>> >http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>>> >Unsubscribe:obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>> >
>>> >_______________________________________________
>>> >OBRA mailing list
>>> >obra@list.obra.org
>>> >http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>>> >Unsubscribe:obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org


Kim Neve

2012-08-29

I'm going to add a sixth group. :-)

Regardless of how you feel about Lance as a cyclist (and I am basically
an admirer) there are those who aren't quite sure what Livestrong does.
There was a time when the organization supported cancer research but
they don't anymore, although they don't do much to correct the
misconception that they still do. Now Livestrong supports "cancer
awareness" and "survivorship", whatever those things mean, and also
spends a lot of money on PR and branding. I am not saying that it is a
fraudulent organization or that there is anything funny happening with
money donated to Livestrong, simply that I have many causes that I
donate to that I think are more important than "cancer awareness".

I am going to paste in a link, but I often notice that URLs are deleted
by this listserv for some reason, so just in case this gets deleted I
refer you to the February 2012 issue of Outside magazine which is where
I, a biologist, first learned that Livestrong hasn't funded research for
years.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all

Kim

On 8/29/2012 9:59 AM, obra-request@list.obra.org wrote:
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:40:45 -0400 (EDT)
> From:"jeff@ultrafreaks.net"
> To: Jon Ragsdale,obra@list.obra.org
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance
> Message-ID:
> <1233070635.39053.1346254845447.JavaMail.vpopmail@mail.ultrafreaks.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Cutting it more finely, a fifth group:
> Those that admire his work off the bike, think that, while he may have been an
> a$$ at times, he was a tremendous athlete and competitor regardless of
> allegations, and that feel you cannot judge the past with today's lens.
>
> Fact is he passed all of the tests and satisfied the requirements of the races
> he participated in. That is the only thing that matters with regards to his
> wins. He played by the rules of the time and he won. Whether or not he
> actually doped is immaterial at this point except as a social thought
> experiment.
>
> To do otherwise is revisionist history. Many things in athletic competition
> have changed in the last few decades: timing accuracy, starting guns, video
> analysis, clothing, etc. Would it be fruitful to go back and analyze track or
> swimming events to determine if the finishing order might be different if all
> the competitors had had the benefit of today's technology? Or, how about we
> start exhuming the bodies of former medalists and do chemical analysis to
> determine if they took illicit drugs, and strip them of their medals if they
> did? Drag out films of Wimbledon tennis tournaments and use digital analysis to
> look for uncalled foot faults?
>
> Better for the FDA, WADA and UCI to spend their resources improving tests on a
> go-forward basis than to focus on the past with a stupid, fruitless witch hunt.
>
> -j
>
>
> On August 29, 2012 at 1:41 AM Jon Ragsdale wrote:
>
>> >There are also the 4th group. The group that doesn't care, his work off the
>> >bike is what's important.
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From:obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
>> >Behalf Of olivier
>> >Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:09 PM
>> >To:obra@list.obra.org
>> >Subject: [OBRA Chat] Lance
>> >
>> >I figure there are three camps: First those who think Lance doped and
>> >deserves to be stripped of his Tour wins. Second those who think Lance
>> >doped but so did everybody else so what what's the big deal. Third those
>> >who still believe Lance was clean. Only the first two are relevant. The
>> >third is in LaLa land.
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >OBRA mailing list
>> >obra@list.obra.org
>> >http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> >Unsubscribe:obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >OBRA mailing list
>> >obra@list.obra.org
>> >http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> >Unsubscribe:obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org