Lance Admits the Money Situation is Getting Worrisome

I can't argue that one bit. Good point.

...but we can't compare cycling to baseball here in States.

We buy into comeback stories like his. But his involved sports. If an employee at your company had cancer, beat it, came back and extorted tons of money, is that acceptable too? Where is the entertainment value there?

Name:..: wrote:

My issue is the tunnel vision and vendettas from people like David Walsh who focus solely on Lance. 100's, hell, 1,000s of other peloton riders profited with "dishonest" prize earnings, contracts, and subsequent endorcement deals as well.

So it is not enough that Walsh's work was dead on accurate, and that he was just about the only one pursuing the truth through all those years, and that LA and Postal were at the fore of the doping culture, you feel he should also have bore the burden for going after all the others too? Like in his spare time, I'm guessing.

So if he couldn't get 'em all he shouldn't get any? Really?

Healthy way of thinking.

konami code wrote:

Still waiting for a source from the OP.

Aussi wrote:

It's pretty common knowledge at this point mate. Read the papers, open your eyes.

I have. And I'm still waiting for a source. Lance will use millions from this, but that doesn't mean he's near broke.

It may be true, I don't know. But the fact that nobody has posted an article makes me skeptical.

He should consider becoming a gay escort for on Craigslist. I'm sure they will love his ball.

Walsh seems to have some life mission schadenfreude pursuit of Lance.

If people like Walsh's objective is to truly clean up, reallocate unearned wages, and right the wrongs of doping in cycling then the witch hunt shouldn't start and end at Lance. In the U.S. alone riders like Vaughters, Andreau, Hincapie, Landis, Zabriske, Danielson, Vande Velde, and Leipheimer have already ADMITTED IT - no search necessary there but I don't see Walsh's article about 10 questions that Oprah should ask them. I think there is at least as much circumstantial evidence surrounding LeMond but he's left alone.

Take down Lance and make sure he's bankrupt living in a van by the river for the rest of his life, what do I care? I'm just saying if you stop there, to me it says you don't give two shits about cleaning up the sport, you're just jealous of his past fame or have some personal unresolved grudge against Lance and are masquerading it as some heroic, altruistic pursuit of justice.

when it all shakes out wrote:

In totality, the ONLY people harmed were the few bicycle riders who chose to not take peds.

Not by a long shot. MANY people, from the Andreus, Greg LeMond, Emma O'Reilly, Mike Anderson, Paul Kimmage, David Walsh, and others were harmed by Lance. In addition, the list of cyclists who chose not to dope or were driven from the sport by Lance is not insignificant or irrelevant.

I would love to read any articles or see anything whatsoever that implicates LeMond and PEDs. You "think there is at least as much circumstantial evidence?" Try again and get back to us.

None of the other riders you mentioned were the leader of arguably the most sophisticated doping program in cycling history. None of those riders ever won the Tour de France even once. If you are investigating/writing a major story, do you go after the underlings or the biggest fish? Any attempt to clean up the sport has to start at the top and Lance was certainly at the top.

when it all shakes out wrote:

the ONLY people harmed were the few bicycle riders who chose to not take peds

People actually agree with this????????

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

You've got it exactly bass ackwards.

My opinion of LeMond may be exaggerated. I've resented him because I feel he and others like Walsh's approach are missing the mark on what they claim to be achieving. Although I do find it curious that 2 years removed from a near fatal gunshot with metal still lodged in his heart/lungs LeMond can win a tdf, AND that even after a generation of doped riders has gone by he has the 3rd fastest Tdf ITT ever (albeit a shorter course).

Again, no argument about how Lance went above and beyond...my point with the other U.S. riders is this thread was started, and subsequent posts have asked for him to give up his earnings among other things. Are the same the same people asking C.V.V., Levi, or Tommy D to give up their top 10s and prize money? Those were all earned dishonestly too.

And what I keep getting at is stop fixating on the past. Bruyneel and Lance had their titles stripped, out of the sport, mission accomplished- now how about we look at F. Schleck doping- You think Andy's clean? Riis, an admitted doper is leading a convicted doper to a likely tdf podium this year...Thomas Voeckler was just 4th in the TDF, really?!? Are Walsh, LeMond and the like going to turn over every rock to expose the current crop?

Tor wrote:

when it all shakes out wrote:

In totality, the ONLY people harmed were the few bicycle riders who chose to not take peds.

Not by a long shot. MANY people, from the Andreus, Greg LeMond, Emma O'Reilly, Mike Anderson, Paul Kimmage, David Walsh, and others were harmed by Lance. In addition, the list of cyclists who chose not to dope or were driven from the sport by Lance is not insignificant or irrelevant.

Nowhere did I say the other cyclists were insignificant or irrelevant. Anyone else that you mentioned were only harmed because they viewed bicycle riding as more than pure entertainment and were doing the EXACT thing Lance was doing and that is trying to make money off of that entertainment. If there was no MONEY to be made, these people would be as unknown as you or I.

When's the interview coming on tv?

TLW wrote:

When's the interview coming on tv?

Jan 17 if you even get the Oprah network.

Also supposed to be online.

Actual interview is today I believe.

when--

"I don't know why anybody would put more importance in sports than just the entertainment value."

From a post I made at:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3823157&page=7

"Sociologically, sport has ALWAYS been important, in any culture, at any time you care to identify. Culturally speaking, it is non-trivial, and athletics, along with combat, forms the terrestrial core of sport. Like it or not, sport has historically been at least as important, culturally, as foreign aid. Activities that lift the spirit are worthwhile, no matter what the context. Even those in abject poverty play games and adorn themselves, unless their cognition is impaired, or unless they are very young children. If you think we should aspire to a future that differs from the past in that athletics should be considered less important, fine--but I don't. I understand why sport has been, and continues to be, at least as important as any other human endeavor, and I appreciate the weight given to it by history."

You might want to consult some of that history, and think about it.

The short answer to your question is: because that is what we do as human beings--we invest things with our humanity, which is not uni-dimensional.

I typed out a response but had to leave work before it was finished, and it was not there this morning. Since you were such a miserable person about it I thought it was worth a response.

Rather than a long-winded answer, look here:

IT explains a lot of things that you don't get.

1) My lawyer example was simplistic. I made it just as an example of how long it would take to run out of money. Of course I understand that he has a legal team. Don't know how much they cost but, yes my example was dumb.

2) HE does own part of TREK. He is a shareholder in Intrepid. Most of the others are the Burke family. This is well established. Neither Intrepid nor Trek are publicly traded, that much you could look up. But he is an owner. Has been since 2003. He doesn't have to say how much, because they are not public.

3) Can't tell you how much FRS and Honey Stinger make, but I am sure that LA invested in them himself because they make so little money ... right? I am sure he doesn't make much, but I am sure he didn't have to invest much either.

SRAM is a different matter, his last team rode SRAM and so just by racing he was promoting something he owned. Again, not sure how much money he makes off that, but you aren't either.

4) He was a day trader as early as 1996. Reason I brought it up is that he details in interviews back then that he was very active in the stock market and had a net worth over $10M ... so it's likely he has quite a bit more than that 15 yrs later.

5) Yeah, I have a net worth. IT is about $450,000. No big deal. I know people my age that make that in one year. Adn are therefore multi-millionaires, just like Armstrong. Although he made $30M a year for a while ... which is why we are arguing over what he might be worth now.

And as far as interest rates go: I have a large account with Ally Demand Notes which is currently paying 1.75% and was paying 2.25% very recently. I am sure LA can could put a large share of his funds into an account like this or ONE MUCH BETTER. So for the last few yrs, before all this unpleasantness, he could have been making ...

$100,000,000 X .02 per year = $2,000,000 per year with no risk.

Not sure about your investment skills if you believe that there are NO SOURCES of investments out there that have nay yield right now. They are out there. They may not be 6% but they are out there. Probably LA can find better opportunities than I can ?

6) Don't know if you are right about #6 but I would tend to agree with most of it and I can't tell you you're wrong either.

I didn't say that I KNEW his net worth, just that I had a lot of information about his business interests and income over a 20 year period that lead me to believe that $125 million is believable.

I fyou don't believe it that is fine, but there are team salaries, sponsorship salaries form Giro, Oakley, Nike, Trek, and others.

There was appearance money for every race that would allow it. There was prize money for every race he (or the team) ever rode in (over 20 yrs).

There was BOOK money for 2 or 3 books.

There were $1M, $3M, and $5M bonuses for winning Tours 5, 6, and 7.

At his peak (in 2001 to 2005) he was making $20-30M a year. And that is what was reported.

Are you starting to see why he could be worth $125 M now after 20 yrs?