Ok, someone just sent me an email. A friend whom I argue with about the validity of Livestrong.
They said that they were aware Smith was diagnosed in 1996 but were unsure of his remission date and when he required post cancer treatment and review. But unlikely it was after 2000.
(
http://www.instepboulder.com/about-step)
They said the LAF was founded in 1997 and intially very small and concentrated on research and grants. Later it moved to survivorship.
It wasn't till 2005 when they had enough money to offer the "navigation" services.
If Smith has called in when they were still a very young organisation he may not have been able to get the same level of service that you would get today. They said back then when they were based on research were forbidden by law to offer such services with the appropriate licences - I believe this to be a tax exempt law but don't really know - ie foundation, charity, non-profit etc, authorised counselling service etc.
I did take the time to cross referenda this with Gifford's article from Outside magazine.
They also said whilst Livestrong could never divulge confidential information on individuals and what assistance they received they would ask someone in LS for a comment on the youtube video and the statements made within.
They also stated they do not cover medicated treatment as they are not authorised to. It would be against the law to do so. They also said they everyone on their contacts lists receives information on how to donate and it's not unusual to be asked to make donations or to join fundraising programs.
I'm still not enamoured by Livestrong but I get the feeling if Smith did call them he called a foundation who at the time was very young, it's objective was grants and research and didn't have the dedicated help assistance they have today.
To be honest, I don't know. Perhaps he called in prior to 1999? I have no such information.
Only he can provide the full story. If it turns out he received bad information or was hit up for money without assistance then I'll happily join him in the condemnation LS.
There's still that nagging question on insurance. Did he have it, did he not, was he denied insurance due to his previous illness? That part doesn't add up.
I guess his soundbite got the desired attention.