Posts mit dem Label CCES werden angezeigt. Alle Posts anzeigen
Posts mit dem Label CCES werden angezeigt. Alle Posts anzeigen

Donnerstag, 30. Januar 2014

Why sport of triathlon can live without a Lance Armstrong, Chris McCormack 1:1

Chris McCormack, two time IRONMAN World Champion, Ambassador of Challenge Triathlon and full-time staff member of Thanyapura training resort is still juggling with a really stupid one on one "race" featuring Lance Armstrong and himself.

Lance Armstrong, doper, founder of a questionsble charity, which stands for "cancer awareness", donated only a tiny fraction of the collected money to cancer research. The foundation spent millions in advertising with his major testimonial: Lance Armstrong himself. A bully, cheater and a person who took drugs with cancerogen potential.

Regarding the promoted 1:1 between McCormack and Armstrong. Giving to charity doesn't change anything. There is a similarity, if some mobsters gives away money from illegal transactions to charity. It isn't softening the illegal behaviour at all. You can't justify something bad by doing something good utilizing and implementing the bad as core feature.

There is an underlying ethical discussion, than a practical or pragmatic issue. The Canadian centre for ethics in sport institute wrote one year ago a simple and solid comment with the same conclusion I've found for myself: "Doing the wrong thing for the right reason" is worth a read. [6, 7]

Lance serves a USADA penalty, Chris is a pro-athlete, who accepted the rules of the sport of triathlon. These rules included acceptance of WADA or national government body rulings. Why the heck is Macca promoting a "race", that wouldn't be sanctioned by feds in the first place. I'm aware, that this isn't a race. But Chris is - based on his role a stakeholder in the sport of triathlon - an ambassador of the integrity of the sport - or not.

Chris, I like, what you did for the sport. I respect your career. But now - I 'm feeling sorry for you. Sorry, that you don't respect why Lance Armstrong, at this point, shouldn't be around in sport. I can't respect you any more, because this "one on one idea" compromised various elements of triathlon's integrity.

Read his newsletter and some reactions below.

Chris McCormack's MaccaX newsletter 2014/01/30:

The "Last Dance with Lance"

Many of you have been waiting for an update on my challenge to Lance, whether you were for or against me racing him.

I've said that the only way I would race Lance Armstrong was if we did it for charity. I can tell you that we have talked about doing an event. He said to me, "I'm prepared to wear the losses on my athletic career. But the greatest thing I've ever done in my life which no one can ever take away from me is that I'm a cancer survivor and I've raised over 700 million dollars for a disease that nearly killed me... I'm not even allowed to do that anymore!"

So a match race could potentially happen. We're looking at proceeds going to cancer on his side and I'm looking at donating money to young kids. When you're cycling through the streets here in Thailand it's not like back home in Australia where kids have a chance to do sport and be educated. I'd like to put kids through school and show them the good of sports.

It's not about giving Lance a platform or a pedestal, but the potential to raise money for good causes, that's what motivates me. [8]

Editor's note:
Shortly after release of the news and a post on Chris McCormack's Facebook wall, he came back to me with insults. His counter on my facts backed opinion with aggressive, false and inappropiate claims without any facts stands for itself. It's is common behaviour to defend a weak position aggressively in absence of facts or evidence. Ironically, Lance Armstrong operated a similar way. He pushed pressure on the David Walsh's and Paul Kimmage's in the past. Bashed them, called them jerks and so on. Future told another story. No, I don't see Chris as a Lance. To be clear: his reaction was just astonishing similar. That's all, but again eye opening and disappointing on a personal level as I always enjoyed him as emotional and street smart interview partner in the last two decades.

Chris expressed in a personal discussion today, that the 1:1 was implemented in his newsletter as a FAQ item. A Q&A from his peers, that he just answered. I can live with this explanation, but it was not visible to me in first place. I still strongly believe he would jump onto that train again, as long the overall revenue, even for a good cause, is big enough.

The reason is simple. His decision to drop this idea was forced from third party. There was no intrinsic reasoning or change of mind. The push from Felix Walchshöfer ended the public discussion. But the idea and model behind never stopped working in Macca's mind. This is a little monkey on his back, the reason he's angry. One part of his personality may feel it's not right to promote the race with Armstrong. The other part tells him, "let's race, it's the best thing to do."  Before he bashes one's comments, he should consolidate his own position he really believes in, stand for it in public or let go.

I'm aware, the "one on one" is not a new topic. I was just puzzled, that he's - according to today's newsletter - still on it and in an 1:1 with Lance. I made my point pretty clear months ago, when the idea came up first. I approached both Lance and Chris, even on Twitter directly. A tool Chris highly engages in and encourages his followers and media to use it and open asynchronous, bi-directional communication channels.

In that private and personal discussion later that day we both agreed, that we just have different point of views on the whole topic and this is related to different cultural backgrounds: we simply agreed to disagree.

Please find below all articles regarding Lance Armstrong or Livestrong on DNF. All of them prove, that Chris is just wrong with his statements on Facebook. I never changed my position on Lance Armstrong. Even if this happend? Who cares, as long it is documented why a change occured. But this isn't the fact in my case. See below the raw status updates from Chris' Facebook as well. [1,3]

Facebook discussion, 30 JAN 2014:

Chris McCormack replies to an article, posted on on 30 JAN 2014. Screenshot: Facebook (friends list and mutual friends are garbled)

Chris McCormack: Kai, firstly this is old news and you should move on. Secondly, when looking for things to drive the gossip channels of your online world, at least go to the source and consult with me first. Then you have some idea as to what is going on and what you should report. What is so typical about much of the information you put out, you pull for a knee jerk reaction to a situation that you are ill informed on. This is so typical of your journalistic approach. You do no due diligence or have the manners to do so. On a final note, in my 20 years of racing I have never felt the need to no wanted to ever engage in any performance enhancing activities. It is just not in my psychological makeup to feel the need to cheat to win. I have always been the most outspoke about my feelings towards Lance Armstrong and these guys who opted to go about doing things a certain way. Unlike most of the triathletes in this sport, and yourself included, I failed to be a groupie to the Lance Armstrong move to Triathlon a few years ago. You ate this news up and loved it. I was very vocal about what I thought about it and was criticised for being so vocal. You have a very selective memory. I have been the most vocal about what I have thought about drug cheats in this sport and all sports for my entire career. It has not made me a lot of friends. My shift in focus in the later years of my racing career has not been about logging up more race wins for my own ego, as athletically I am content with my resume and what this sport has give me. My entire focus on Triathlon has been about engaging others to join this journey and working with the powers to be within this sport to better streamline the experience of newcomers to our sport and embrace everything that is whole about triathlon. when your mindset shifts this way, you become less self centred and selfish and realise that your biggest asset you can deliver is using your status within a sport to do things that are bigger than yourself. I formulated the MaccaX training system to do just that and have encouraged more than 3000 newbies to take up triathlon. We have donated over 1 million dollars to Breast Cancer and charity in the last 6 years as part of some of the programs we have initiated through this sport and my MaccaNow Foundation. See my difference now Kai is not what this sport can do for me, but what I can do for this sport and the people in it that have given me an amazing life. To call me a "Mobster" because discussing the possibility of racing an athlete like Lance Armstrong to potentially raise millions of dollars for charities that could do with this money is just ridiculous. As I said, had you contacted me to discuss this, you would have understood that we are no where near this, and the foundation for what I would want to achieve for a match race like this has been set. The irony on your end is that many sponsors would like to pay this money to charity to see this event unfold. Your attack on my integrity and the way I go about things is an embarrassment to yourself and all the gossip your online publications push out. They hold no substance and no credibility in their reporting. I will attest that if a match race like this could generate more than 1-2 million dollars (which is the figure I have asked for) to be donated to charities to help small children become educated and experience sport, in an environment that they would never have been able to access this, then I see real value in this beyond anything on my end. I don't need this at all, and I don't search for justification of myself as a triathlete by racing Lance Armstrong. What I see is the potential to possibly educate and give access to sports and show kids the "right way" to do things, for almost 2500 kids as something worth considering. What I would like to ask is what anything you have reported or done has done for anyone besides yourself. Your an attention seeker and this is sad. Next time pick up the phone and ring me and get the "foundation" on what is actually going on. We are nowhere near a race nor is one close. I have made what I would want to see happen clear to everyone and only under these circumstances would anything like this happen. Next time mate, before you go for the big Headlines to drive traffic to your site for purely capitalistic reasons, how about a bit of due diligence and facts before you blurt out half truths. Report on a story with the full facts and not just your opinion. I will accept your opinion but highlight where your agenda is first. [2]
Kai Baumgartner: Chris, the mail just came in. This is strange. I appreciate your feedback. I came BTW back to you, when it first came up. [2]
Chris McCormack: I did notice that the mail points to your website. CAPITALIST looking for unique visits to drive up your advertising value to your site. I know how this game works mate. SEO is part of what I know very well and tagging is something that I am fluent in. Again, lets talk AGENDAS when posting things to sites. I am annoyed at myself for giving you any platform to build momentum on with this statement. [2]
Kai Baumgartner: Chris, don't try to attac me or change the topic. Don't kill the messenger
This doesn't work. I'll fwd you the MaccaX Mail from 30 JAN 2014. You can check with your tech department. Later today, I can put up a screenshot showing this mail. 
Regarding Lance Armstrong: My position was always clear: "Interesting to see his performance BUT unethical". Please don't mix it up with a April fools news, I posted years ago. You should do your research on your end, before assaulting my integrity or talking Agendas. I did mine. 
The 1:1 is just a stupid idea. Yes, I've got a European/German point of view. I understand, that other countries do have other pov's. 
P.S.: Please, don't play this "capitalistic/drive traffic" game. I dropped the link, to avoid duplicate content/cross postings. Both are nono's in online world, as you know. [2, 4, 5]

  1. All articles on Lance Armstrong on DNF
  3. All articles on LIvestrong on DNF
  8. E-Mail Screenshot Composition, 2014/01/30 see below
Email screenshot composition with "Q&A" sent 30 JAN 2014.

Samstag, 29. September 2012

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport betrachtet die trotz Sperre geplanten Triathlon-Starts von Lance Armstrong

Das Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) hat eine interessante Betrachtung der aktuellen Entwicklung zur lebenslangen Sperre von Lance Armstrong durch die USADA (United States Anti Doping Agency) publiziert. Hintergrund des kurzen Artikels* der Ethiker über den Fall Lance Armstrong und seiner gemeinnützigen Stiftung Livestrong für mehr Aufmerksamkeit gegenüber von Krebs betroffenen Familien sind aktuelle Entwicklungen bei verschiedenen us-amerikanischen Triathlon-Events.

Auf der Überholspur weiter sportlich unterwegs - Lance Armstrong. Photo: Daniel Norton
Vor die Frage einer Priorisierung gestellt, ob Fundraising oder die Ausführung eines sportlichen Wettkampfes nach den gültigen Regeln der sanktionierenden Verbände, wie etwa USA Triathlon (USAT) und USADA für die Ausrichter entscheidender seien, haben sich erste Triathlons für das Fundraising und damit ein Ausscheiden aus dem organisierten Sport entschieden. Ein ähnliches Bild ergibt sich für den in der Vergangenheit noch nie unter Aufsicht von USAT stattfindenden Superfrog Triathlon von San Diego, der durch Lance Armstrong immerhin innerhalb kurzer Zeit 200 neue Starter begrüßen konnte.**

Selbst gestandenden Profi-Triathleten wie Matthew Reed oder Richie Cunningham rollen sich die Fußnägel hoch während sich die Zunge analog dazu löst. Cunningham, immerhin ein vom Veranstaler Rev3 direkt unterstützter Athlet sieht sich in einem Interessenskonflikt, hat aber dennoch deutliche Kritik in den passenden Worten gefunden: "I completely disagree with Half Full/UCF's decision to unsaction this event and disregard USADA by letting Lance race. I'm not buying the 'ends justify the means' argument. There are more positive ways to raise money that don't hurt the sport of triathlon and offend athletes by ignoring a life ban handed down by a governing body." ***

Die USA mögen sehr weit weg sein, das Beispiel zeigt aber einmal mehr, wie fragil der organisierte Sport in den Randsportarten ist. Gerade unter dem Aspekt, dass USAT der weltgrößte Triathlonverband ist und bereits anderweitig unter Druck steht ein beachtenswerter Schritt der Veranstalter. Für den ganz großen Schritt, einer eigene Livestrong-Triathlon Serie, scheint aber ein Faktor gegen Lance Armstrong zu sprechen: der ehemalige siebenfache Tour de France Champion ist ein gereifter Athlet, dessen Zenit bereits 4-6 Jahre zurückliegt.

Welche Lehre lässt sich aus dem Verhalten der Veranstalter ziehen? "I Am Not Banned From Life" pflegt Lance Armstrong seit seiner lebenslangen Sperre durch die USADA zu sagen. Dies stimmt. Jetzt liegt es an jedem einzelnen Publisher und Chefredakteur zu entscheiden, wie viel Raum Lance Armstrong und seine Charity in Ihrer Berichterstattung einnehmen sollen. Auf war es der letzte Artikel über den texanischen Selbstvermarkter. Events, bei denen er als Partner auftritt schauen zukünftig auch in die Röhre.

Der Original-Artikel des CCES vom 28.09.2012:

Doing the wrong thing for the right reasons?
Recently, the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) asserted a number of anti-doping rule violations against Lance Armstrong and proposed the appropriate sanctions for these violations as provided for under the World Anti-Doping Code. Mr. Armstrong had the right to contest these assertions and the proposed sanctions at an independent hearing conducted by three independent arbitrators certified by the United States Association of Arbitrators. Mr. Armstrong chose to waive his right to this hearing. Mr. Armstrong’s decision to waive his right to the hearing meant that he would be subject to the violations and sanctions asserted by USADA. The sanctions against Mr. Armstrong include a lifetime ban from participation in all sporting activities that fall under the jurisdiction of the World Anti-Doping Code. In the United States, this would include any sporting event which occurs under the auspices of a World Anti-Doping Code-compliant sport governing body.
We saw this play out recently when Mr. Armstrong sought to participate in the Chicago Marathon. The Chicago Marathon is a sporting event certified by USA Track & Field. Hence, the organizing committee for the Chicago Marathon were obliged, under the terms of his lifetime sanction, to deny Mr. Armstrong entry as a participant.
Mr. Armstrong has now sought to enter the Half Full Triathlon of Maryland on October 7, 2012. The Half Full Triathlon of Maryland is an event certified by USA Triathlon – whose events are subject to the World Anti-Doping Code. Therefore, as with the Chicago Marathon, the Half Full Triathlon should deny Mr. Armstrong entry into their event. If they choose to allow Mr. Armstrong to compete in their certified event, they may be subject to discipline imposed by USA Triathlon.
The Half Full Triathlon of Maryland has chosen to become a non-certified event to allow Mr. Armstrong to compete. The loss of the certification by USA Triathlon appears to be of little consequence to the Half Full Triathlon, while the added revenue generated by having Mr. Armstrong compete is of great value to the event. The mission of the Half Full Marathon is to raise money for cancer. Mr. Armstrong’s Livestrong Foundation has raised millions of dollars for cancer research and Mr. Armstrong himself is a cancer survivor.[***]
No one is against raising money to fight cancer. But, by finding a way to skirt the doping sanction that Mr. Armstrong is under, is the Half Full Triathlon potentially doing more harm than good? The reason doping is banned in sport is simple. The use of banned substances is potentially harmful to the health of athletes who choose to use them. If athletes, who choose to take this health risk by doping, are allowed to do so with impunity, then this places pressure on all athletes to use doping substances and methods and to place their own health at risk. The overwhelming majority of athletes do not want to take that risk. They want clean sport and they want to compete against clean athletes. Perhaps even more disturbing, is the impact on young children if doping is seen to be implicitly condoned by athletes and event organizers. Young children would understand that doping is one way to succeed in sport. And being young, they would not have the necessary maturity to be able to make their own informed decision to dope or not. The health consequences of doping for young children can sometimes be even more catastrophic than they are for adult athletes. 
By allowing Mr. Armstrong to compete in their event, the Half Full Triathlon is putting the extra money they will take in (admittedly to help in the fight against cancer), ahead of the health and welfare of the children of their state and country.
*: Doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, CCES

**: Triathlons Part Waters for Armstrong: Despite a Doping Ban, His Presence Sends Enrollments Soaring, WSJ

***: Just want to clarify a few things about Half Full & Rev3, Richie Cunningham

****: Editor's note: Livestrong's mission is to "fight to improve the lives of people affected by cancer". There is currently no evidence, that Livestrong or Lance Armstrong have donated significant amounts of USD ("millions") for cancer research.