The experts do agree on one thing, Livestrong is riddled with conflicts of interest. The bundling of Armstrong's personal financial interests with those of the foundation may not be an issue to the groupies but it troubled them.Bilirubin said:The experts seem to disagree.
"This blurs the lines between the foundation and its charitable mission, and the personal gain of its founder,'' said Ken Berger, president and executive director of Charity Navigator. "It's mixing two purposes in a way that smells of a conflict of interest. The most precious thing a charitable organization has is the public's trust, and things like this put a ***** in that.''
Daniel Borochoff, founder and president of the American Institute of Philanthropy in Chicago, said he was uncomfortable with the arrangement, especially because Armstrong remains chairman of the board of the foundation. "Nonprofits have to be concerned not only with actual conflicts of interest, but the appearance of conflicts of interest,'' Borochoff said.
All I know is that the LAF is a way to ride around on a private jet and never have to pay for it out of your own pocket. Fraud made him famous and fraud is used to convert that fame into a method of living higher on the hog (tax free).Race Radio said:The experts do agree on one thing, Livestrong is riddled with conflicts of interest. The bundling of Armstrong's personal financial interests with those of the foundation may not be an issue to the groupies but it troubled them.
No sh*t! WTF does 'cure the cancer system' even mean?TexPat said:Jesus H Christ, I wish I hadn't clicked on that link.
3 Months to "Cure Cancer"? A bit simplistic, eh?Race Radio said:Livestrong talks about how 60% of their donations go to "Programs".....This link is a good example of these programs, all fluff and hype and no results.
You are an excellent example of direct benefit and a lucky beneficiary of that information. You have every reason to be grateful and, hopefully; the tone of many that have researched into LA's involvement won't deter you from staying involved in the community. By community I mean the legitimate charity movements and to a much lesser degree; this navel gazing forum.richardp said:For me, it was seeing Lance's adverts on UK TV that made me aware I may have testicular cancer, and which prompted me to see my doctor immediately. Otherwise I may have just put the inflammation down to a cycling-related injury. As it was, within 3 weeks I had been operated on, had the cancer removed, and within a month completed the radiotherapy. Because I was made aware at an early stage, the cancer was "nipped in the bud", and there was no secondary cancer elsewhere.
I got off lightly, all things considered, so will always be grateful for the fact that I was made aware in this way, and I donated to Livestrong as a sign of gratitude.
But no, I don't think the worthy aims of the charity override whatever else Lance may have done. He isn't the first person to piggy back personal ambitions off the back of a charity, and sadly he won't be the last. I feel for the people within the charity though, and the people who have benefited from it.
I think Lance should have been careful what he wished for, because he certainly got it. Myself, I think I would have called it a day at "survival".richardp said:He isn't the first person to piggy back personal ambitions off the back of a charity, and sadly he won't be the last. I feel for the people within the charity though, and the people who have benefited from it.