Team Canada (Women) to wear Nike / Livestrong jerseys?

[Regulator75]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...ticle10609744/



I didn't know if this should be merged this the old Livestrong thread .

Yes I understand that Lance founded and generated a bazillion dollars for this charity, but why the hell is Team Canada wearing these Liestrong jerseys?
What a joke (if you ask me).

Lance has stepped down, but it still stinks.

There are many other charities to promote, including Cancer charities that aren't tied to Nike / Livestrong.

[PsYcNeT]

http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...ry&orgid=13379

LiveStrong has a 3 star financial rating and a 4 star accountability/transparency rating.

What other Cancer charities beat out LiveStrong?

[Senator Clay Davis]

The little checkmark on her jersey would be why they're rocking the Liestrong colours. Still don't get why anyone would want to even indirectly associate themselves with Lance, but money does talk.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Regulator75

There are many other charities to promote, including Cancer charities that aren't tied to Nike / Livestrong.

You do realize that Nike is the Hockey Canada sponsor right? So why should it be a surprise that they would want their sponsored charity to be part of this?

Just like the Tiger Woods thing people just need to let it go.

[undercoverbrother]

I totally would.

[valo403]

Terrible decision on the part of Hockey Canada. There's a reason LiveStrong gear is on clearance racks, it's not an organization they should be identifying themselves with.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by valo403

Terrible decision on the part of Hockey Canada. There's a reason LiveStrong gear is on clearance racks, it's not an organization they should be identifying themselves with.

The foundation needs a new name, new color schemes, total disassociation with Lance Armstrong, and an infusion of new more legitimate spokespeople (Maybe Mario Lemiuex or Saku Koivu would be good people to involve themselves in it). Once that happens then I might be able to get behind it.

[PsYcNeT]

I don't get it. I mean, if the charity was corrupt I could understand the hate, but despite Armstrong's idiocy, the charity itself is run well enough.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I don't get it. I mean, if the charity was corrupt I could understand the hate, but despite Armstrong's idiocy, the charity itself is run well enough.

It really doesn't matter, and this thread is evidence of that. Armstrong was far too strongly associated with the brand to have that taint vanish so easily. And with the years of deception and people aren't going to look at anything he was tied to as legitimate for a long time, which is a fair stance.

[Derek Sutton]

I thought they wore the Cooperall type long pants in ringette

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

I thought they wore the Cooperall type long pants in ringette

And the french shower award of the day goes to...

[octothorp]

I've got mixed feelings on it. I've made my thoughts about the LiveStrong well known in the other thread and it's still an organization that I intensely dislike for how they often functioned as an Armstrong PR campaign for many years, all the while calling these programs cancer awareness. However, they have a combination of infrastructure and awareness that they could shift into being a very effective charity, and I wish them all the best in trying to refocus their organization. One of the key parts of this transformation means channeling more money to programs that directly help survivors and victims, and rely on non-paying partnerships for their awareness goals (such as this partnership with Hockey Canada appears to be, if we believe HC's version of the story, re: making this decision on their own, not based on input/encouragement from Nike).

However, I'm skeptical that LiveStrong will ever be possible to escape the current stigma. When athletes wear pink, everyone knows that it's about breast cancer awareness, and people don't really ask what the relationship is between the sports organization and the charity, why the decision was made, was money involved, etc. And breast cancer awareness has so much good will that they don't need to spend much money on awareness, because other organizations are eager to partner with them. The Breast Cancer Foundation sells their gear and actually funnels a portion of that money back into research.
But people see yellow and black and think LiveStrong Foundation, and Lance Armstrong (possibly in reverse order). Cancer will always be the third thing that comes to mind after those two things. There will always be these questions and criticisms. So how does LiveStrong continue with the awareness part of their mandate when their entire message is compromised? Not an easy question.

I can't escape the fact that I feel revulsion at seeing Lance Armstrong's colours combined with our Canadian uniforms. I'm totally okay with women on the team been spokespeople for LiveStrong; these are exactly the sorts of athletes LiveStrong needs to partner with to start to create a new identity for themselves. Like I said, I've got mixed feelings. I want the organization to move past the Armstrong era, but I'm not ready to forget that history.

Call me stupid, but shouldn't Team Canada's uniform be red?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by octothorp

However, I'm skeptical that LiveStrong will ever be possible to escape the current stigma. When athletes wear pink, everyone knows that it's about breast cancer awareness, and people don't really ask what the relationship is between the sports organization and the charity, why the decision was made, was money involved, etc. And breast cancer awareness has so much good will that they don't need to spend much money on awareness, because other organizations are eager to partner with them. The Breast Cancer Foundation sells their gear and actually funnels a portion of that money back into research.

You do realize that the American Breast Cancer Foundation is literally one of the worst run charities in the world?

http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...ary&orgid=8004

The ABCF gave only 2% of it's 2011 takings to cancer research.

2%

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I don't get it. I mean, if the charity was corrupt I could understand the hate, but despite Armstrong's idiocy, the charity itself is run well enough.

I know, I mean it's really not fair to paint everyone who contributes support to that organization with the same brush just because there's a bad element associated with it... Some people might not even realize that there's a dirty understory to the organzation and still support it unknowing that the lies and destructive behaviour of Armstrong were integral to giving Livestrong the chance to develop into the powerhouse it is today. I'm glad to see a voice of reason here PsYcNeT. I'm glad to see you don't subscribe to hating on an organization for this type of thing...

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

I know, I mean it's really not fair to paint everyone who contributes support to that organization with the same brush just because there's a bad element associated with it... Some people might not even realize that there's a dirty understory to the organzation and still support it unknowing that the lies and destructive behaviour of Armstrong were integral to giving Livestrong the chance to develop into the powerhouse it is today. I'm glad to see a voice of reason here PsYcNeT. I'm glad to see you don't subscribe to hating on an organization for this type of thing...

There's a difference between a checkered past, and an ongoing problem.

But this isn't the thread for that.

[puckluck2]

He did steroids in a time where everyone did steroids. Who cares, he didn't harm anyone and helped raise millions upon millions for the greater good.

Don't punish the organization because of Armstrong. They still do a tonne of grea work and Armstrong isn't even a part of it anymore.

[FanIn80]

Support for the charity itself aside, I don't like it just for the simple fact that we're changing the color scheme. Why would we agree to this? If Nike wants to promote a charity, they do what is normally done and stick a patch on the jersey. We shouldn't sell out our country's colors just to appease a corporate sponsor.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

He did steroids in a time where everyone did steroids. Who cares, he didn't harm anyone and helped raise millions upon millions for the greater good.

Don't punish the organization because of Armstrong. They still do a tonne of grea work and Armstrong isn't even a part of it anymore.

Really?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

He did steroids in a time where everyone did steroids. Who cares, he didn't harm anyone and helped raise millions upon millions for the greater good.

Don't punish the organization because of Armstrong. They still do a tonne of grea work and Armstrong isn't even a part of it anymore.

That's great, he also spent a decade lying about it and throwing anyone who got in his way under the bus. Total scumbag.