Will Armstrong retire?

The statement that Discovery is owned by Disney is factually inaccurate.

Discovery Communications, which operates Discovery Channel, is owned by:

Liberty Media
Cox Communications
Advance/Newhouse Communications
John Hendricks, its founder.

From morningstar.com

Just wanted to set things straight.

Regards,

Joe Hurley

Laz said:

Discovery is owned by Disney- c'mon, "they don't have the money ?"-
Keeeee-rist !!!! they could do a Lance Armstong ride at Disney. A major
motion picture ( which I recall is actually in the works ). Lance doesn't
need the money, but he might want the passion to greet the challenge of TdF
again.

Laz

Quoted message said:

Manco" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:avdCe.3730$Zu1.2189@trnddc04...
after he wins his 7th straight TDF?

After the abuse he dished out on the field last year, I figured he had 2
more in him ('05 & '06). Barring crash or illness, he'll win this year, and
I do believe (given the current competition) that he would win again next
year if he entered. However, having said all that, I think he's mentally
set to retire after this year, and truly wants to move on to other things
(family, team director, sports legend celebrity, you name it - he can do it,
etc...).

I don't think he'll be back - especially if he wins this year. If he loses
because of a crash or illness??? Well, he might be back...
Jeff

"Colin Campbell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:53:36 -0400, "Laz" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It is possible that Discovery will cough up a significant cash inducement
as
they realize his marketing value compared to that of anyone else.

They dude made 30 million or so last year, and he'll keep making
millions without racing another day.

A story this week in the LA Times showed Lance Armstrong as one of the top
earning sports figures (the story was about Kobe Bryant getting another ad
for Nike - I guess his negative image is now cleansed).

The story showed a short chart of people, their endorsement income, and
their total income. Armstrong's numbers were $17.5 million and $18
million, respectively, indicating that he rides almost for free. One
could guess he rides just to get the endorsements.

Do you really believe that's why Lance rides? I'd say it's more a
combination of many other factors, endorsements not even being on the radar.
Jeff

Quoted message said:

If these figures are accurate, it seems unlikely that Discovery could
offer him enough to get him to ride, unless he decides he needs to keep
the endorsement money coming....

"Joseph J. Hurley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The statement that Discovery is owned by Disney is factually inaccurate.

Discovery Communications, which operates Discovery Channel, is owned by:

Liberty Media
Cox Communications
Advance/Newhouse Communications
John Hendricks, its founder.

From morningstar.com

Just wanted to set things straight.

Regards,

Joe Hurley

Laz said:

Discovery is owned by Disney- c'mon, "they don't have the money ?"-
Keeeee-rist !!!! they could do a Lance Armstong ride at Disney. A major
motion picture ( which I recall is actually in the works ). Lance

doesn't

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

need the money, but he might want the passion to greet the challenge of

TdF

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

again.

Laz

Ok. I'm sorry 'bout that. hmmm I wonder where I got that ?

Sincere thank you for the correction

Laz

"NobodyMan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Where's the proof - any proof - of the accusation you are making here?

Lance has been tested backwards, >forwards, sideways and upside-down for
drugs and has always came out clean.

You mean do we have video of Lance taking drugs? The answer is no. The
circumstantial evidence however overwhelmingly points to drug use.

1. 1996 Lance is diagnosed with testicular cancer a very unusual form of
cancer for someone Lance's age and a major side effect of steriod use/abuse.

2. 1999 amazingly less that two years after recovery from cancer treatment
that left Lance unable to ride his bicycle out of his driveway, he is
winning the TDF. Prior to cancer Lance was a moderately successful racer,
and many experts contended he would never be a great tour rider. Lance's
recovery is deemed "UNBELIEVEABLE" by most medical experts. Why? Because
it is UNBELIEVEABLE to think someone recovered so quickly and completely
without the use of steriods.

3. 1999 UHHH OHHH, Lance TESTS POSITIVE for steroids. His team quickly
comes up with a scheme to blame steroid creme used for saddle sores as the
culprit. Despite the fact that Lance doesn't have a perscription nor did
he notify the race doctors before hand (which is required), the TDF accepts
the explanation. Why? Because the TDF could not handle the LEADER of the
race being caught in a scandal, it would be too costly in the form of lost
sponsorship so it is overlooked.

4. Lance becomes a TDF only rider (with the exception of a few prep races
with horrible drug controls). Why? So the steroids he is using will be
completely out of his system by the time the TDF starts. With professional
supervision, Lance can keep his steroid burn going just long enough to
complete the TDF without having to "juice up" again. However, in order to
keep his form following the TDF, he would have to juice up again, hence the
reason we do not see Lance at any substantial races following the TDF.

So, there you have it. Lance uses performance enhancing drugs. Is he the
only one? NOPE! But he is clearly the best at it. Could Lance win without
the drugs? You bet, if the other racers stopped using them too!

I suspect the majority of the pro peleton use steroids at least during their
race preparation period. It's really a shame. I think post Indurain
(although Indurain is suspect) is all drug enhanced performances. Gone are
the studs like Lemond, Hinault, Roche, Zoetemelk who raced entire seasons
and performed well, I believe without the use of performance enhancing
drugs.

Quoted message said:

A sports physician friend of mine said that 5 to 7 years is the prescribed
maximum use of steroids for athletes because of the long-term affects.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

99% of doctors don't know squat about anabolics<<

And 99.99% of Usenet dorks know even less. But that doesn't seem to matter.

jj

Colin Campbell said:

A story this week in the LA Times showed Lance Armstrong as one of the
top earning sports figures

That's partly because Lance looks like the WASP neighbor next door,
which can't be said for Shaq, or Sammy Sosa, or 6-6 Payton Manning.

Rude said:

"NobodyMan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Where's the proof - any proof - of the accusation you are making here?

Lance has been tested backwards, >forwards, sideways and upside-down for
drugs and has always came out clean.

You mean do we have video of Lance taking drugs? The answer is no. The
circumstantial evidence however overwhelmingly points to drug use.

Lafferty does this much better than you.

BTW, any kind of cancer is unusual for someone Lance's age.
But if somebody gets cancer at that age, testicular cancer
is not that unusual.

A lot of the rest of what you wrote qualifies you to be the
doctor for a D3 team, or maybe certain S. American racing,
but not at the D1 level.

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:51:04 -0700, "Rude" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

A sports physician friend of mine said that 5 to 7 years is the prescribed
maximum use of steroids for athletes because of the long-term affects.

99% of doctors don't know squat about anabolics.

"J Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Colin Campbell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:53:36 -0400, "Laz" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

>It is possible that Discovery will cough up a significant cash
>inducement as
>they realize his marketing value compared to that of anyone else.
>

They dude made 30 million or so last year, and he'll keep making
millions without racing another day.

A story this week in the LA Times showed Lance Armstrong as one of the
top earning sports figures (the story was about Kobe Bryant getting
another ad for Nike - I guess his negative image is now cleansed).

The story showed a short chart of people, their endorsement income, and
their total income. Armstrong's numbers were $17.5 million and $18
million, respectively, indicating that he rides almost for free. One
could guess he rides just to get the endorsements.

Do you really believe that's why Lance rides? I'd say it's more a
combination of many other factors, endorsements not even being on the
radar.
Jeff

FWIW, in the Coyle book ( p 234):

"In 2001, after Armstrong had won his third Tour, he had approved a bonus
system for his Tailwind contract that called for escalating payments on each
Tour win...to be $10 million in 2004...'The stakes were very high,'
Armstrong said later...'Nobody knew how high; and it was on my mind for 365
days, aside from trying to make history. And regardless of of whether money
means anything to you or not, $10 million is a lot of money. I don't need
it, but just having that out there, I thought, God, what if I fall over and
break my collarbone. I'm lying there and thinking, I just lost $10
million.'"

Rude said:

Gone are
the studs like Lemond, Hinault, Roche, Zoetemelk who raced entire seasons
and performed well, I believe without the use of performance enhancing
drugs.

Zoetemelk got popped for dope in the Tour. Back then it was a 10 minute
penalty so he didn't lose is record of always finishing.

Bob Schwartz
[email hidden]

RJG said:

"J Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Colin Campbell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:53:36 -0400, "Laz" <[email hidden]>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>It is possible that Discovery will cough up a significant cash
>>inducement as
>>they realize his marketing value compared to that of anyone else.
>>
>
>They dude made 30 million or so last year, and he'll keep making
>millions without racing another day.
>
>
A story this week in the LA Times showed Lance Armstrong as one of the
top earning sports figures (the story was about Kobe Bryant getting
another ad for Nike - I guess his negative image is now cleansed).

The story showed a short chart of people, their endorsement income, and
their total income. Armstrong's numbers were $17.5 million and $18
million, respectively, indicating that he rides almost for free. One
could guess he rides just to get the endorsements.

Do you really believe that's why Lance rides? I'd say it's more a
combination of many other factors, endorsements not even being on the
radar.
Jeff

FWIW, in the Coyle book ( p 234):

"In 2001, after Armstrong had won his third Tour, he had approved a bonus
system for his Tailwind contract that called for escalating payments on each
Tour win...to be $10 million in 2004...'The stakes were very high,'
Armstrong said later...'Nobody knew how high; and it was on my mind for 365
days, aside from trying to make history. And regardless of of whether money
means anything to you or not, $10 million is a lot of money. I don't need
it, but just having that out there, I thought, God, what if I fall over and
break my collarbone. I'm lying there and thinking, I just lost $10
million.'"

LA is suing the insurance company that bought the policy- so he hasn't
seen it yet...

Lance Armstrong is suing an insurance company over a $5 million bonus
supposed to have been given for winning the Tour de France, the Dallas
Morning News reports.

The lawsuit - filed in Dallas Count on Tuesday by Armstrong and
Tailwind Sports Inc., which owns the U.S. Postal Service Pro Cycling
Team - reportedly asked that SCA Promotions Inc. fulfill the contract.

The company told the newspaper that it is withholding payment until it
has been given some reassurance that Armstrong has not used
performance-enhancing drugs as alleged in the book "L.A. Confidential:
The Secrets of Lance Armstrong."

"We're just asking the questions," SCA attorney John Bandy told the
newspaper on Wednesday.

Before this year's Tour de France, Armstrong failed in a legal attempt
to force publisher La Martiniere to insert a denial of the allegations
into the book.

The French-language book was written by David Walsh and Pierre
Ballester, and relies in part on allegations by former Armstrong
assistant Emma O'Reilly.

In it, she claims Armstrong once asked her to get rid of used syringes
and to give him makeup to conceal needle marks on his right arm. She
acknowledged that she didn't know what was in the syringes.

Armstrong has denounced the book's claims as "absolutely untrue."

-The Associated Press Oct 2004

J Jones said:

"Colin Campbell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:53:36 -0400, "Laz" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

>It is possible that Discovery will cough up a significant cash inducement
>as
>they realize his marketing value compared to that of anyone else.
>
>
>
They dude made 30 million or so last year, and he'll keep making
millions without racing another day.

A story this week in the LA Times showed Lance Armstrong as one of the top
earning sports figures (the story was about Kobe Bryant getting another ad
for Nike - I guess his negative image is now cleansed).

The story showed a short chart of people, their endorsement income, and
their total income. Armstrong's numbers were $17.5 million and $18
million, respectively, indicating that he rides almost for free. One
could guess he rides just to get the endorsements.

Do you really believe that's why Lance rides? I'd say it's more a
combination of many other factors, endorsements not even being on the radar.
Jeff

Quoted message said:

If these figures are accurate, it seems unlikely that Discovery could
offer him enough to get him to ride, unless he decides he needs to keep
the endorsement money coming....

Jeff,
Of course, I believe that Lance Armstrong loves to ride a bike, and
loves (probably even more) to win bike races. I'm simply quoting a
story that says he makes very little income from riding, and personally,
I have a hard time believing it is true. I believe it is more likely
that his contract is either confidential, or he is paid in other ways
than straight salary.

I know if I were demonstrably the best bicycle rider in the world (even
though I only show it once or twice a year), I would demand more than a
relative pittance for representing a profit-making business. It's kind
of like working for a certain chintzy company (initials C_C), which
expected me to pay for my company-ordered business trips, and then apply
for reimbursement. I told them I didn't finance multi-billion dollar
companies, which may be why I took relatively few business trips.

But I DO believe that endorsements ARE on Lance's radar. If they
weren't, why would he bother making the commercials for Subaru, Postal,
Nike, and the many others he has been seen in? It takes time away from
his other activities. Would he be more likely to enjoy making a
commercial, or spending time with his girlfriend and/or his kids? There
had better be some money involved if he gives up the free time to make
the commercial.

On today's OLN broadcast, the Trek guy that Frankie Andreu talks to
showed the stickers Lance puts on his bike for fun. One of them was a
representation of a trailer park, and they said that's because he was
born in one. I expect Lance is happy to have money, so that he doesn't
face a return to the trailer park after his riding days are over!

"Colin Campbell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

J Jones said:

"Colin Campbell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:53:36 -0400, "Laz" <[email hidden]>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>It is possible that Discovery will cough up a significant cash
>>inducement as
>>they realize his marketing value compared to that of anyone else.
>>
>>
>They dude made 30 million or so last year, and he'll keep making
>millions without racing another day.
>
>
>
A story this week in the LA Times showed Lance Armstrong as one of the
top earning sports figures (the story was about Kobe Bryant getting
another ad for Nike - I guess his negative image is now cleansed).

The story showed a short chart of people, their endorsement income, and
their total income. Armstrong's numbers were $17.5 million and $18
million, respectively, indicating that he rides almost for free. One
could guess he rides just to get the endorsements.

Do you really believe that's why Lance rides? I'd say it's more a
combination of many other factors, endorsements not even being on the
radar.
Jeff

Quoted message said:

If these figures are accurate, it seems unlikely that Discovery could
offer him enough to get him to ride, unless he decides he needs to keep
the endorsement money coming....

Jeff,
Of course, I believe that Lance Armstrong loves to ride a bike, and loves
(probably even more) to win bike races. I'm simply quoting a story that
says he makes very little income from riding, and personally, I have a
hard time believing it is true. I believe it is more likely that his
contract is either confidential, or he is paid in other ways than straight
salary.

I know if I were demonstrably the best bicycle rider in the world (even
though I only show it once or twice a year), I would demand more than a
relative pittance for representing a profit-making business. It's kind of
like working for a certain chintzy company (initials C_C), which expected
me to pay for my company-ordered business trips, and then apply for
reimbursement. I told them I didn't finance multi-billion dollar
companies, which may be why I took relatively few business trips.

But I DO believe that endorsements ARE on Lance's radar.

I'd say the endorsements are a by-product of his success - I'd be very
surprised if he subjects himself to such physical suffering "to get more
endorsements". Obviously, he has to manage the endorsements as one more
component of the Lance corporation/industry, but I have a difficult time
believing that endorsements are a major motivator as to why he gets on the
bike every day. Of course, I could be wrong, but I just think his
deep-rooted fire for competition, his post-cancer appreciation for life, and
his desire to be the best drives him more than any endorsement $$.
Jeff

Quoted message said:

If they weren't, why would he bother making the commercials for Subaru,
Postal, Nike, and the many others he has been seen in? It takes time away
from his other activities. Would he be more likely to enjoy making a
commercial, or spending time with his girlfriend and/or his kids? There
had better be some money involved if he gives up the free time to make the
commercial.

On today's OLN broadcast, the Trek guy that Frankie Andreu talks to showed
the stickers Lance puts on his bike for fun. One of them was a
representation of a trailer park, and they said that's because he was born
in one. I expect Lance is happy to have money, so that he doesn't face a
return to the trailer park after his riding days are over!

J Jones said:

"Colin Campbell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

J Jones said:

"Colin Campbell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

>[email hidden] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:53:36 -0400, "Laz" <[email hidden]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>It is possible that Discovery will cough up a significant cash
>>>inducement as
>>>they realize his marketing value compared to that of anyone else.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>They dude made 30 million or so last year, and he'll keep making
>>millions without racing another day.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>A story this week in the LA Times showed Lance Armstrong as one of the
>top earning sports figures (the story was about Kobe Bryant getting
>another ad for Nike - I guess his negative image is now cleansed).
>
>The story showed a short chart of people, their endorsement income, and
>their total income. Armstrong's numbers were $17.5 million and $18
>million, respectively, indicating that he rides almost for free. One
>could guess he rides just to get the endorsements.
>
>
>
Do you really believe that's why Lance rides? I'd say it's more a
combination of many other factors, endorsements not even being on the
radar.
Jeff

>If these figures are accurate, it seems unlikely that Discovery could
>offer him enough to get him to ride, unless he decides he needs to keep
>the endorsement money coming....
>
>

Jeff,
Of course, I believe that Lance Armstrong loves to ride a bike, and loves
(probably even more) to win bike races. I'm simply quoting a story that
says he makes very little income from riding, and personally, I have a
hard time believing it is true. I believe it is more likely that his
contract is either confidential, or he is paid in other ways than straight
salary.

I know if I were demonstrably the best bicycle rider in the world (even
though I only show it once or twice a year), I would demand more than a
relative pittance for representing a profit-making business. It's kind of
like working for a certain chintzy company (initials C_C), which expected
me to pay for my company-ordered business trips, and then apply for
reimbursement. I told them I didn't finance multi-billion dollar
companies, which may be why I took relatively few business trips.

But I DO believe that endorsements ARE on Lance's radar.

I'd say the endorsements are a by-product of his success - I'd be very
surprised if he subjects himself to such physical suffering "to get more
endorsements". Obviously, he has to manage the endorsements as one more
component of the Lance corporation/industry, but I have a difficult time
believing that endorsements are a major motivator as to why he gets on the
bike every day. Of course, I could be wrong, but I just think his
deep-rooted fire for competition, his post-cancer appreciation for life, and
his desire to be the best drives him more than any endorsement $$.
Jeff

Well said, and I agree that he rides because he loves it, loves the
competition, and loves to win. I'm sure you are right about the basics,
and that the endorsements are a secondary by-product of his drive and
success.

What I really started out trying to say is that he seems to have a
smallish income from cycling alone, if the figures in the LA Times story
are accurate (and I sort of doubt that). And, that would make the
relative importance of the endorsements greater.

Heck, Greg Lemond signed a three year $5.4 million contract way back in
the Dark Ages of sports salaries, if I recall correctly.
Colin

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 22:21:32 -0700, "Rude" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"NobodyMan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Where's the proof - any proof - of the accusation you are making here?

Lance has been tested backwards, >forwards, sideways and upside-down for
drugs and has always came out clean.

You mean do we have video of Lance taking drugs? The answer is no. The
circumstantial evidence however overwhelmingly points to drug use.

1. 1996 Lance is diagnosed with testicular cancer a very unusual form of
cancer for someone Lance's age and a major side effect of steriod use/abuse.

For somebody of Lance's age, THE cancer they are likely to be
diagnosed with is Germ Cell Carcinoma (testicular cancer). It's also
not caused by steriod use/abuse. I've taken care of many young men
with this cancer while working in a hospital. Not only is it deadly
if not caught early, but it also metastasize quickly if not dealt with
promptly...just as it did with Lance.

Quoted message said:

2. 1999 amazingly less that two years after recovery from cancer treatment
that left Lance unable to ride his bicycle out of his driveway, he is
winning the TDF. Prior to cancer Lance was a moderately successful racer,
and many experts contended he would never be a great tour rider. Lance's
recovery is deemed "UNBELIEVEABLE" by most medical experts. Why? Because
it is UNBELIEVEABLE to think someone recovered so quickly and completely
without the use of steriods.

Lance was a kick-ass Triathlete prior to focusing just on cycling. I
recall just as many experts who believed he would be the next "Lemond"
as those who felt he wouldn't be. He was in great shape and good form
as a Triathlete...so why is it so hard to believe that as soon as he
could, he got on the bike, focused and realized his dream without
using drugs? Oh, wait, I guess you believe in the alien conspiracy
too. Or, maybe you think it was the aliens who gave Lance drugs to
improve his performance?

Quoted message said:

3. 1999 UHHH OHHH, Lance TESTS POSITIVE for steroids. His team quickly
comes up with a scheme to blame steroid creme used for saddle sores as the
culprit. Despite the fact that Lance doesn't have a perscription nor did
he notify the race doctors before hand (which is required), the TDF accepts
the explanation. Why? Because the TDF could not handle the LEADER of the
race being caught in a scandal, it would be too costly in the form of lost
sponsorship so it is overlooked.

Whatever. Do you know this wasn't the case? Where's the proof?
Perhaps the team physician was an idiot. Maybe he/she didn't mention
the cream was steriodal, so nobody on the actual team knew to inform
the Tour?

Oh, and for the record, steroidal creams, applied externally (and in
very small amounts) will do very little to enhance performance. They
aren't even anabolic steriods.

Quoted message said:

4. Lance becomes a TDF only rider (with the exception of a few prep races
with horrible drug controls). Why? So the steroids he is using will be
completely out of his system by the time the TDF starts. With professional
supervision, Lance can keep his steroid burn going just long enough to
complete the TDF without having to "juice up" again. However, in order to
keep his form following the TDF, he would have to juice up again, hence the
reason we do not see Lance at any substantial races following the TDF.

So speaks a person who has no respect for anybody that focuses on just
one event. Lance is not a classics rider. He does best in lengthy
runs with climbs and time trials. What does that have to do with
anything? Just because he chooses not to participate in the smaller
races doesn't mean anything.

Quoted message said:

So, there you have it. Lance uses performance enhancing drugs. Is he the
only one? NOPE! But he is clearly the best at it. Could Lance win without
the drugs? You bet, if the other racers stopped using them too!

No, YOU suspect he uses them. That doesn't mean he does. Unless you
have solid evidence otherwise, then just stop your rant!

Quoted message said:

I suspect the majority of the pro peleton use steroids at least during their
race preparation period. It's really a shame. I think post Indurain
(although Indurain is suspect) is all drug enhanced performances. Gone are
the studs like Lemond, Hinault, Roche, Zoetemelk who raced entire seasons
and performed well, I believe without the use of performance enhancing
drugs.

I remember duing 89 and 90 all the suspicion of Lemond using drugs.
Same for Big Mig. Nothing was ever proven. The only thing ever
proven is that if you win and win big, then you must be guilty of
something as your native talent surely could not have been the reason.