How Good Is The Lance Armstrong Charity? - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-30-09, 02:18
Cozy Beehive's Avatar
Cozy Beehive Cozy Beehive is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 217
Exclamation How Good Is The Lance Armstrong Charity?

That's upto you to judge. For a start, Charitywatch.org doesn't recognize it in its list of top cancer charities with their AIP ratings. Charity Navigator, on the other hand, gives it 2 stars for efficiency rating. In 2008, the same was just 1 star, as I documented here. As you can note from both records, CN's overall rating for LAF has dropped from 52.49 in 2008 to 51.40 in 2009. Is that drop significant? Up to you to decide.

Now some of you might say stars don't say much, rating systems are flawed etc etc. So I delved into LAF's financial statements for the past 4-5 years and plugged all numbers into Excel, making log plots of the consolidated dollars.

Some interesting tidbits noted were :

1) The 2007-2008 report isn't very inclusive about where it's program expenses are going, unlike past years where audits stated explicitly how many x and y dollars went for research, education, community, survivorship etc. Not sure why there is inconsistency is the categorizations of the reportings.

2) An Investment Income Loss of $8,873,485 in 2008.

3) In 2004-2005 report, the amount in revenue coming from "Contributions" for 2005 was $18,613,337. In the 2005-2006 report, the same was changed to $17,804,842 with no reasons mentioned, so I'm not sure what's going on.

4) Different from other years, the 2007-2008 report mentions $324,016 and $997,955 as going to expenses for "Government Relations" for 2007 and 2008 respectively. Again, I'm not sure what this 'relationship' consists of. It'd be kind of nice to know for donors and others alike.

5) "Entertainment" is among the things mentioned as Functional Expenses. As you can see in the graph attached , it seems like a decent figure is going every year for entertainment, although the trend is cyclic over the 5 year period. Is there any harm in breaking it down for the public? Was it for Food? Music? Alcohol?


Be merry. Here are the numbers, all sourced from LAF.org Feel free to point errors, flaws etc. What would be interesting is comparing these numbers to other prominent charities in the country. What would also be interesting is to see the numbers for 2009. From the way LAF has been making these records public, looks like that won't happen until late 2010!

Image of spreadsheet for the dollars : http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/1529/lafexcel.png
(Some data for certain items is excluded only because I did not see an explicit mention for the item in the statements for certain years.) If you want to play around with the spreadsheet yourself, let me know.







__________________
http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com

Last edited by Cozy Beehive; 12-30-09 at 02:48.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-30-09, 03:32
euphrades euphrades is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 181
Default

This has nothing to do with cycling nor the clinic.....

You sound like a troll.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-30-09, 03:41
Cozy Beehive's Avatar
Cozy Beehive Cozy Beehive is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 217
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by euphrades View Post
This has nothing to do with cycling nor the clinic.....
I appreciate the humor.

Considering the zeal with which LA and cancer and his foundation are discussed in the clinic, I don't think its apt to discuss it elsewhere.

Soon we'll be discussing the Mr.Testicles cancer foundation. Stay tuned...
__________________
http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-30-09, 03:42
sars1981's Avatar
sars1981 sars1981 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 327
Default

I dont know. But who cares? This is a doping forum, Armstrongs charity should be irrelevant.
__________________
I believe in miracles.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-30-09, 03:52
Cozy Beehive's Avatar
Cozy Beehive Cozy Beehive is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sars1981 View Post
I dont know. But who cares? This is a doping forum, Armstrongs charity should be irrelevant.
Agreed, all I will ask is to keep it in context. One of the BIG reasons Lance cited for his comeback was a global cancer awareness campaign. The LAF is part and parcel of said campaign. Cyclists in majority contribute to the fund because the messenger (& messiah) is a cyclist. It wouldn't hurt to know the money trail, both for givers and warring parties.
__________________
http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-30-09, 03:55
Dr. Maserati Dr. Maserati is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sars1981 View Post
I dont know. But who cares? This is a doping forum, Armstrongs charity should be irrelevant.
+1.

I have pretty strong views on the 'Livestrong' branding and Demand Media association - but I don't think there is anything wrong with the LAF.
I would assume its ratings fluctuate (somewhat) every year as various initiatives are funded and as contributions come in.

Perhaps it would have been better put in the General Section.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-30-09, 04:20
Race Radio's Avatar
Race Radio Race Radio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 10,630
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sars1981 View Post
I dont know. But who cares? This is a doping forum, Armstrongs charity should be irrelevant.
When Armstrong uses his Charity as a halo for his doping it is relevant
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-30-09, 04:22
Race Radio's Avatar
Race Radio Race Radio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 10,630
Default

Investment loss = Och not doing his job
Travel = jet fuel

A simple way to clear up this up is a better explanation of the program expenses...something you will never see.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-30-09, 04:26
Cozy Beehive's Avatar
Cozy Beehive Cozy Beehive is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati View Post
+1.

I have pretty strong views on the 'Livestrong' branding and Demand Media association - but I don't think there is anything wrong with the LAF.
I would assume its ratings fluctuate (somewhat) every year as various initiatives are funded and as contributions come in.
Whether revenues to LAF.org have increased in any manner from the Demand Media-LA partnership at LAF.com may be answered by looking at LAF.org's financial statements. Isnt this the reason often cited for the ".com" business - to divert traffic to the ".org" website.

Like it or not, cancer is big business for drug companies and "awareness" companies alike. If cancer is eliminated, what then I wonder... Fear not, there's different types of cancer to keep people employed for a long time. Why? The reality : Little has changed in cancer death rates from the 1950's while death rates from heart disease and stroke have dropped significantly.
__________________
http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com

Last edited by Cozy Beehive; 12-30-09 at 04:32.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-30-09, 04:35
Race Radio's Avatar
Race Radio Race Radio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 10,630
Default

here is an interesting program

Livestrong day: Wear Yellow Day on LIVESTRONGTM Day and encouraged friends,family, neighbors and coworkers to do the same.

Nike way to get people to buy Nike stuff

BTW, "Government Relations" is another word for Lobbying expenses. Good thing Lance has a great relationship with a nice company call Public Strategies. They did a great job making up dirt on Lemond and are in the same building as Armstrong's office.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 21:51.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.