Lance Armstrong appears finally to have run out of rope. (Read 2696 times)

    I don't think Livestrong even makes the claim that they raise money for cancer research, do they? Their mission is to provide "support" for people affected by cancer but I don't think they make any claims about funding research.

     

    "...the organization has raised more than $400 million for the fight against cancer"

     

    Don't know if it needs to be research to be an acceptable foundation.  But, I guess I read Spaniel's "myth" comment as an attack at the foundation for even existing.  He started it as an athlete.  Right now, he's not even on the "our team" or "our advisors" within the foundation's website.

    2014 Goals:

    #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

    #2: 365 Hours training

     

      I probably have not read every post in this thread, but I don't remember spaniel or anyone else saying that Livestrong was not an acceptable foundation--just that they don't raise money for cancer research, as many people assume.

      Runners run.

        I probably have not read every post in this thread, but I don't remember spaniel or anyone else saying that Livestrong was not an acceptable foundation--just that they don't raise money for cancer research, as many people assume.

         

        He didn't say it.  I read between the lines, as he was explaining why a link that Nobby directed us to was "THE worst" article relating to the Armstrong situation.  I asked why that was the worst article, and Spaniel said it was because it "perpuates the myth that the foundation...".  I understood his comment to discredit the foundation as a whole (since he seemed to agree in part to how that article was "THE worst")....


        But, I'm beginning to understand what Spaniel is saying, I think.

        The author of the article says "Whatever you think of him and his athletic achievements, there’s no arguing with what Armstrong has accomplished as a cancer survivor and philanthropist, inspiring untold millions of people and raising some half a billion dollars for cancer research and treatment in poor communities.

        The article also has this from Armstong: "He is telling us now that this will be his focus going forward. 'I will commit myself to the work I began before ever winning a single Tour de France title: serving people and families affected by cancer, especially those in underserved communities,' he said yesterday.

         

        So, it appears as if the author misunderstands Lance's objective through the foundation.

        I didn't catch that portion on my first read through.
        I don't know much about the foundation, but I've never thought too much about Lance being "abusive" with the foundation.
        I don't think that Spaniel alluded to the foundation being bad.

        I see the distinction.

        Oops.

        2014 Goals:

        #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

        #2: 365 Hours training

         


        HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

          +1

           

          The article linked by Pauly, above, claims that they given very little to cancer research, and have quit giving anything to cancer research. Instead (so it says) they work on promoting their logo, and Lance, and Lance uses them to deflect questions about doping.

           

          I was going to write that the article claims they've given less than a tenth of that "half a billion" to cancer research, but went back to check the number -- here is the allegation from the article -- much less than a tenth, in fact:

           

          The foundation gave out a total of $20 million in research grants between 1998 and 2005, the year it began phasing out its support of hard science. A note on the foundation’s website informs visitors that, as of 2010, it no longer even accepts research proposals.

           

          It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

            The article linked by Pauly, above, claims that they given very little to cancer research, and quit giving anything to cancer research back in 2005. Instead they work on promoting their logo, and Lance, and Lance uses them to deflect questions about doping.

             

            ...

            The foundation gave out a total of $20 million in research grants between 1998 and 2005, the year it began phasing out its support of hard science. A note on the foundation’s website informs visitors that, as of 2010, it no longer even accepts research proposals.

             

             That +1 had a linky? wow... Smile 

            could have saved me some time and embarrassment... Smile

             

            MTA:

            http://www.livestrong.org/images/3-0/2011graphexpanded.png

            What's that $10MM grants in 2011 about?  Is that research?  Don't know.

            2014 Goals:

            #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

            #2: 365 Hours training

             

              There is a tendency in all of these cases to begin chopping away at the facts to try to fit them into overly simplistic categories: "good," "bad," "right," "wrong" so we can decide once and for all whether Lance is a good guy or a bad guy. Why do we need to make that decision? Isn't the truth more complicated? 

                I probably have not read every post in this thread, but I don't remember spaniel or anyone else saying that Livestrong was not an acceptable foundation--just that they don't raise money for cancer research, as many people assume.

                 +1

                 

                (I was one of the many who made that assumption).  

                "If you have the fire, run..." -John Climacus


                Feeling the growl again

                   Never would I have guessed that would have been the answer for why it was "THE worst" article ever regarding the Armstrong case.

                   

                  From their website:

                  Known for its iconic yellow wristband, LIVESTRONG has become a symbol of hope and inspiration to people affected by cancer around the world. Since its inception, the organization has raised more than $400 million for the fight against cancer.

                  Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/aboutus/#ixzz24lmLmWzF

                   

                  And, if there is general knowledge that they abuse the funds they've raised, then I guess that general knowledge is well founded?

                  How does it compare to Susan G Komen?

                  Or Ronald McDonald house?

                  Or United Way?

                   

                  Basically, I'm VERY surprised that it's so very well known by everybody that it's a myth that the foundation raises money for cancer research....

                  (Truth is, I'd like to get Nobby's thoughts as well for why he thought that it was the worst).

                   

                  Well, I hoped it would be obvious that I did not mean that this was the only reason it was a bad article, sorry if you were confused.  There are many reasons it's bad and I'm sure Nobby will come around again and point them out.

                   

                  The fact that articles and people regularly cite how much money Livestrong gives to cancer research -- when they don't give any -- is why I call it a myth.  I run into people who believe this with regularity.

                   

                  I'm involved with cancer on a day to day basis.  In the course of this I have and do interact with many organizations...some quite recognized, some quite obscure.  I can say that of all the well-known cancer-related non-profits, Livestrong is absolutely the one I have seen that has the smallest visible footprint in providing direct resources for the fight against cancer (ie research or clinical support) or direct help to patients.  This is not to say they do not provide anything, but for the massive amounts of cash they raise I just don't see the impact like I do with other organizations.

                   

                  I know people who have received support from Komen.  I know several people who have personally benefitted from both Ronald McDonald House and United Way when they were in need.  I do not personally know a single person who received support from Livestrong.

                   

                  I've read that Livestrong spends $45 to raise $100.  In general a lot of the famous charities (Komen, United Way) have high overhead and if you value the % of your money that reaches the cause you are better off elsewhere.  I do not know the exact expense ratios for any of the above although I'm sure they are publicly available.

                   

                  MTA:  Heh.  Lots of posts while I typed this during work breaks.  For clarity, I'm pretty neutral on the organization, though I would not donate personally since as I've indicated I just don't see the output like I do other organizations, and frankly it seems to be a lot more about marketing the brand than the output.  I can't say it's a "bad" charity though.  A quick google indicates its ratings are ok.

                  "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                   

                  xor


                    There is a tendency in all of these cases to begin chopping away at the facts to try to fit them into overly simplistic categories: "good," "bad," "right," "wrong" so we can decide once and for all whether Lance is a good guy or a bad guy. Why do we need to make that decision? Isn't the truth more complicated? 

                     

                     

                    Nah.  He's kind of a jerk.

                     

                    Ok, I base that on a very small number of interactions and perhaps the whole "cancer means he is good" angle which I've personalized.  I realize I'm not basing this in logic or anything that others should feel or think.  That's just me.

                     

                    Also, my direct interactions with livestrong, like national komen (NOT the seattle chapter specifically) have been less than positive.  Way more concerned about their color and their name than Getting Shit Done.

                     

                      Nah.  He's kind of a jerk.

                       

                      Ok, I base that on a very small number of interactions and perhaps the whole "cancer means he is good" angle which I've personalized.  I realize I'm not basing this in logic or anything that others should feel or think.  That's just me.

                       

                      Also, my direct interactions with livestrong, like national komen (NOT the seattle chapter specifically) have been less than positive.  Way more concerned about their color and their name than Getting Shit Done.

                       

                      Ha.

                       

                      But I think his sorta arrogance and brashness is actually one of his positive qualities as well. It's one of the reasons people love him, and it's also partly why he is successful. I think some people see it as "jerk" and other people see it as "unapologetic directness."

                       

                      Anyways, my own personal thing is that I find the Lance defenders to be more off base than the Lance accusers, but I guess I can still at least understand why people admired him and maybe even (though it's harder) understand why they continue to admire him.

                        +1

                         

                        Regarding link...

                        “The issue with Lance Armstrong isn’t whether he has done good for cancer victims,” accounting professor Mark Zimbelman wrote on his blog Fraudbytes, in a post comparing Mortenson to Armstrong, “but rather, whether he first cheated to beat his opponents, then used his fraudulent titles to help promote an organization that appears to do good but also enriches a fraudster.”

                         

                        Does Lance receive money from LiveStrong?

                        In looking at their tax reporting, he didn't receive a 1099. (1 hour / month, $0 reportable compensation).

                         

                        I really hate seeing the worst in anybody.  It seems like so many people sit on their perches and find the fault in people before looking at their own challenges. 

                        2014 Goals:

                        #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

                        #2: 365 Hours training

                         

                          I really hate seeing the worst in anybody.  It seems like so many people sit on their perches and find the fault in people before looking at their own challenges. 

                           

                          This sounds like a Lance-ism. 

                          xor


                            There are many ways an organization could "enrich a fraudster" beyond providing him money in such a way that a 1099 is required.

                             

                            For the record, I am not calling Lance a "fraudster", I am speaking to the hazy wavy language.  It does, however, seem like common sense that indirectly (and perhaps directly), the existence of Livestrong and The Mystique of Lance absolutely have put money into his pocket.  And enriched his reputation.

                             


                            Feeling the growl again

                               

                              Does Lance receive money from LiveStrong?

                              In looking at their tax reporting, he didn't receive a 1099. (1 hour / month, $0 reportable compensation).

                               

                              I really hate seeing the worst in anybody.  It seems like so many people sit on their perches and find the fault in people before looking at their own challenges. 

                               

                              In re-reading that article a realization hit me as to why the link you sent confused me, Brian.  There is both livestrong.org and livestrong.com.  The link you sent was to one, and I backed into the other in my confused effort to find any cancer-supporting resources.

                               

                              As it turns out, one is nonprofit....the other for-profit.  Armstrong got money "as a spokesman", in that licensing deal.  So while he did not get money directly from the non-profit, he did get paid when they licensed the almost-identical domain name.  Neat little trick there.

                               

                              I never knew this before, and it strikes me as a highly questionable arrangement.

                               

                              Aside from that, it's about more than simply dollars.  One has to look no further than the posts in this thread to see that the whole cancer thing is one of the most frequent references brought to Armstrong's defense.  In this way he profits from the actions of the non-profit through goodwill, even if he never takes a cent from them.  Is the charity dirty because of that?  No, not necessarily.  But I think it's easy to see how a lot of people don't like the relationship.

                              "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                               


                              Fast is better than long

                                ...  I do not know the exact expense ratios for any of the above although I'm sure they are publicly available...

                                 

                                 

                                http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6570

                                 

                                Charity Navigator has a massive criteria for ranking charities and teh site is interesting, but probably too overwhelming to actually gleen info from it.

                                2014 Goals: 2500 miles / sub 2 800m / 4:30 mile / sub 16:30 5K

                                 

                                Give a man a fire and he'll be warm the rest of the night;
                                Set a man afire and he'll be warm the rest of his life.

                                What in the Jehu?