Rise and fall of an ICON

Geneva: Chronology of Lance Armstrong's career and doping accusations that on Monday led to the confirmation of a lifetime ban for the US cycling icon and the loss of his record seven Tour de France titles:

1992: Armstrong competes in Barcelona Olympics, turns pro.

1993: Wins world championship, USPRO championship and a stage in his first Tour de France.

1996: Enters year as world's top-ranked cyclist. In October, has surgery and chemotherapy to treat testicular cancer that has spread to lungs and brain.

1997: Forms charitable foundation to benefit cancer research, resumes training.

1998: Wins Tour de Luxembourg, Rheinland-Pfalz Rundfahrt and Cascade Classic

1999: Wins first Tour de France title riding for US Postal Service team -- just second American to win the Tour.

2000: Wins second Tour de France title. Publishes "It's Not About the Bike" about return from cancer.

2001: Wins third Tour de France title.

2002: Wins fourth Tour de France title.

2003: Wins fifth Tour de France title.

2004: Armstrong accused of doping in book written by David Walsh and Pierre Ballester. Wins sixth Tour de France title.

2005: Wins seventh Tour de France title and retires.

In August, French sports daily L'Equipe reports tests on urine samples allegedly taken from Armstrong during the 1999 Tour and frozen were positive for erythropoietin (EPO). Armstrong denies doping.

2006: Armstrong cleared of allegations stemming from a 1999 drug test. In July, Floyd Landis wins the Tour but is stripped of title after failing a drug test.

2008: Armstrong says he'll return to pro cycling.

2009: Breaks collarbone in first-stage crash of the Vuelta a Castilla y Leon in March. In April, French anti-doping agency says Armstrong failed to co-operate with drug-tester. Finishes third in the Tour de France.

2010: Landis admits he doped when riding with USPS team and accuses team-mates including Armstrong of doping. Armstrong denies the allegations.

2011: January Sports Illustrated article quotes Armstrong's 1995 team-mate Stephen Swart as saying Armstrong was "the instigator" of EPO use by some team members. Armstrong lawyer denies allegation.

After competing in Australia's Tour Down Under, Armstrong again retires.

In May, former team-mate Tyler Hamilton tells CBS News that he and Armstrong took EPO during the 1999, 2000 and 2001 Tours de France.

2012: In February, US prosecutors drop criminal probe into Armstrong and other cyclists without bringing charges.

On June 29, US Anti-Doping Agency officially charges Armstrong with doping and trafficking of drugs, suspends him from competing.

In July, Armstrong files lawsuit in federal court in Texas against USADA.

On August 20, federal judge dismisses Armstrong's lawsuit.

On August 23, Armstrong says he won't take case to arbitration. USADA chief Travis Tygart says Armstrong will be stripped of all of results dating back to August 1, 1998 and banned from cycling for life.

On October 10, USADA submits its report to the International Cycling Union, unveiling evidence collected in probe of Armstrong and the USPS team.

On October 17: Embattled Armstrong steps down as chairman of cancer charity Livestrong as sponsors Nike, Trek, Anheuser-Busch and others dump endorsement deals with him.

On October 22: world cycling's governing body confirm USADA ban. Stripped of Tour de France victories and other career wins.

Lance Armstrong has stepped down as chairman of his Livestrong cancer charity as Nike broke all ties with the disgraced cycling star over "seemingly insurmountable evidence" of doping.

Both developments came as the International Cycling Union (UCI) faced growing pressure to reveal how the 41-year-old, seven-time Tour de France champion had been able to escape detection for doping for so long.

In a statement on Livestrong's website, Armstrong said he would "conclude my chairmanship...to spare the foundation any negative effects as a result of controversy surrounding my cycling career."

Separately, sportswear giant Nike -- a major sponsor that had stuck firmly by Armstrong for months in the face of doping allegations -- issued a statement that accused him of years of deception.

"Due to the seemingly insurmountable evidence that Lance Armstrong participated in doping and misled Nike for more than a decade, it is with great sadness that we have terminated our contract with him," it said. "Nike does not condone the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs in any manner," the statement said.

It added: "Nike plans to continue support of the Livestrong initiatives created to unite, inspire and empower people affected by cancer."

Livestrong is one of the best-known cancer charities in the United States, having raised nearly $500 million since it was founded by Armstrong in 1997 as he recovered from testicular cancer. Its iconic yellow wristband was launched in 2004 in collaboration with Nike.

Armstrong always maintained he did not use banned substances, but in August he chose not to contest charges put forward by the US Anti-doping Agency (USADA) that he was a serial drugs cheat.

Last week the USADA, in a report supported by more than 1,000 pages of evidence, alleged that Armstrong was at the heart of what it called the biggest doping conspiracy in sports history.

"Lance Armstrong did not merely use performance-enhancing drugs. He supplied them to his teammates," it said. "He was not just a part of the doping culture on his team. He enforced and re-enforced it."

Lance Armstrong will be stripped of his seven Tour de France titles

 

Evidence included testimony from 11 of Armstrong's former US Postal cycling teammates, an expert's finding that Armstrong blood changes indicated doping and documents showing a payment to doping-linked doctor Michele Ferrari.

"The evidence of the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team-run scheme is overwhelming," USADA chief executive Travis T. Tygart said. "The evidence shows beyond any doubt that the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team ran the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."

Although fingers have pointed at Armstrong for years, the UCI, cycling's governing body, has never sanctioned him and it has since been suggested that some officials looked the other way.

Legal experts have said the sheer and unprecedented volume and detail of the USADA allegations could lead US prosecutors and companies to consider fresh criminal and civil actions.

Read more at:http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/lance-armstrong-livestrong-nike-doping-uci-usada/1/225157.html

Job & Responsibility of Sports Developer Officer

Sports development officers aim to provide opportunities for participation in sport for all sections of the community. They distribute information and organize sport-related projects, classes, programmes coaching, club development and training for those who want to participate for fun and those who are interested in competing at all levels, from local to national and international.

The central aim is to increase participation in sport of all kinds, but sports development officers also address issues of health, crime and social inclusion, often working with organisations such as the NHS, schools, charities, sport national governing bodies (NGBs) and regeneration initiatives. They work in partnership with government bodies to deliver government sports initiatives.

Gen Z will be new hope for India.

Nine sports to get special attention.Best of exposure,Foreign coaches for sub juniors.

This is (catch them young) programme .which has given fresh lease of life to sportsperson as well as to sports authority of India.Age category for this initiative is 12 to  17 years.Nine games have been shortlisted for this SHOOTING,WRESTLING,BADMINTON,BOXING,ATHLETICS,ARCHERY,WEIGHTLIFTING,HOCKEY AND JUDO.This number may go up in   other sports if results are positive.Funding for seniors to be continued but on lesser scale as to give equal amount of funds to age group athlete.Federations asked to submit plans to spot talent.Focus more on Asian Games and Olympic than SAF and CWG games.This nine games and their Aspirants have got fresh chance to full fill the dream and live up to the expectation of our Nation. Times of India..

Brand Building, Beyond Marketing

Consumers are becoming more suspicious of traditional branding. Here are five steps to regain their trust.

Not so long ago, brands were in the limelight. They were seemingly powerful, and virtuous. Any inconvenient truths were hidden by glossy packaging and one-way, big-bang marketing campaigns. Now, as organizations become ever more transparent, people can see behind the marketing facade and are questioning what they are told. Trust in brands has diminished and consumers are more likely to view brands cynically, and to feel uncomfortable with brands’ desire to control. This has created a challenge for many brand owners, because they are ill equipped to cope with greater openness. But the most innovative companies are recognizing the way perceptions are changing, and are adapting their branding strategies accordingly — in some cases, reinventing them entirely.

In the past, it was marketing departments that burnished the products the company produced and made them appealing to customers. But marketers are increasingly turning away from traditional advertising and focusing on direct communications with consumers. More broadly, many enlightened organizations are moving branding entirely away from communications and toward connecting strategy, culture, and a wider stakeholder involvement. They recognize that branding is a process that is too important to be left just to the marketing or communications department. These organizations have understood that brand building (even if the terminology of branding is not used) is a participative process involving the whole organization and is the responsibility of all employees. The Netherlands-based finance group Rabobank, for example, which operates in 48 countries and has nearly 60,000 people servicing 9.5 million customers, communicates through traditional media, but it also recognizes that its strength is rooted in its closeness to customers, that its brand is built primarily in the everyday contacts that people inside the bank have with members. It is in this continuous dialogue between customers and employees — both online and offline — that the company’s brand is always evolving. Even the company’s visitor policy for its new headquarters reflects this ideal: Anyone who is accredited by the bank is allowed to wander freely throughout the building.

Similarly, the Danish toy company Lego Group, which we have spent many years researching, has recognized that its brand is not created by the marketing department, but instead by the larger organization in its interactions with customers and other stakeholders who have become part of its community. Like many other organizations, Lego built its business through a controlled approach to intellectual property. It conducted market research to understand how its customers thought about it, developed innovative products based on the information it derived, and created marketing communications campaigns to build the brand. However, as computer games grew in popularity, the company feverishly tried to adapt to new trends and opportunities in the marketplace. The result was that the brand became increasingly irrelevant, as people lost track of what it stood for and confused employees struggled to deliver a trusted Lego experience.

The revitalization of the Lego brand was not a master stroke by the marketing department, but the result of a close dialogue with key stakeholders spearheaded by a new CEO, Jørgen Vig Knudstorp, who took office in 2004. He realized that customers, who were using and adapting — and in some cases infringing upon — the Lego Group’s intellectual property, were not threatening the brand, but were actually redefining it. One of the secrets of Lego’s ability to engage its stakeholders with the brand is that it took advantage of the small opportunities that emerged along the way: from giving consumers the “right to hack,” to inviting small groups of passionate consumers to headquarters to work with the designers on new ideas, to the new CEO accepting the invitation to talk to the brand community on their turf. Many of these small openings have later had significant implications. By opening itself up to an active involvement with these enthusiasts, the company has been able to tap into a rich vein of innovative thinking and has been able to once again make the brand relevant.

 

Hating Cricket

One Sport's loss is another Sport's gain? Cricket, in India, is more than just a religion. On a match-day, you will see a number of cricket enthusiasts flocked in front of shops and chai-wallas to catch a glimpse of the match. Many of them don't mind discussing the nit-wits of the sport with strangers. After-all  Every Indian is a cricket pundit from birth.

India finished with an all-time high medals tally of six medals. It was interesting to see how the down-trodden sports have come up against the odds at the Olympics. Many of the so-called pundits claimed that the sole reason behind India's failure is the lack of resources. Many of the Indians accepted it as well, but little do they know that the lack of resources is no more an issue in India. A state like Uttar Pradesh boasts of three world class shooting ranges. Yes, maybe the shooters have to travel a lot to get to the desired ranges but their complains about the lack of resources is ridiculous.You will often see Indian football fans blaming Cricket for the situation of football in India. Most of the football fans in India either support Manchester United or Barcelona or Liverpool. They can even tell you the names of every player in the respective squads. Ask them about any club in the i-league. The reason will become crystal clear. We prefer supporting a foreign club instead of supporting our own teams. The lack of motivation shows on the Indian players. No one wants to be the next Baichung Bhutia, instead, they want to be the next Messi. The debacle of Football vs Cricket is pointless.

Why is it so hard for Indians to accept that we lack the required talent to be the best in the world? People like to see and play a game they are good at and maybe that's why Cricket rules the roost in India. Instead of blaming a sport, shouldn't we be trying to better ourselves in other sports as well. Hating Cricket won't stop the problem but loving other sports will.

ELITE SPORTS DEVELOPMENT

What is the first word that comes to our mind when we hear the word 'ELITE'.Its exclusive,something at a highest level.In the same way if we want to make sports elite,certain points need to be kept in mind.In our country we will have to work very hard to take sports up to that level.India don't even have a separate sports ministry.In India 70% of the population is youth yet we lack in sports other than cricket.The problem is in the processing factors which contribute to the elite sports development.It is determined at three levels-Macro,Meso and Micro levels.Macro level involves strategic focus on athlete development,the Meso level involves direct policy interventions by sports governing bodies while micro level looks at the factors influencing individual athletes outside the control of policy makers.Elite sports development is not only necessary for sporting purposes but also for non sporting purposes like maintaining the international relationships with other countries.It provides a tool for identity projection,it boosts the tourism and hospitality industry of a country.Elite sports development is very important for any country and to achieve it there should be proper working at all the three levels.