How does a Charity sponsor a team?

[kurtinsc]

Yes, they do have a different focus. All one need do is look at their promotional materials, and I mean look at the actual physical promotional materials, to see what their real point is.

As for where to send money, I worked for 5 years with several charities, 2 of which were cancer charities. I don't need suggestions, nor do I need to be told about their individual focus.

Good for you.

But as YOU pointed out, for someone who doesn't have that knowledge, Charity Navigator is a good way to get information about charities before donating.

YOu seem to imply a 3-star rating is bad... and that's simply not the case. If you don't have inside information, I'd say the best way to judge is to look at the stated goal of the charity... then look at a 3rd party analysis of how well they put money toward that goal.

The LAF does a solid job at doing that according to that particular site. Not as good at some at meeting their stated goal... but pretty good. If you're more concerned with helping survivors of cancer and increasing the availability of cancer screenings then finding a cure, the LAF is a good charity. If that's not where you want your donations to go... it's not the charity for you.

People downing a good charity because they don't like Lance Armstrong is a bit over the line in my opinion.

 

[Race Radio]

I have asked this question a few times but it seems to be easy to ignore.

Some have made a big deal about how 70% of LAF's funds go to "Programs". If one of those "Programs" is promoting the Armstrong brand I think we can all agree that this is a conflict.

It was hard not to attend the ToC and see that LAF was spending charity funds promoting the Armstrong brand. It is also not hard to see that Armstrong has used a LAF asset to make money for himself (Livestrong.com). He has also has taken money to appear on behalf of the LAF. While this may be a grey area in charity circles it is very unusual.

Also unusual it how the media was told that the $1,000,000 given to Armstrong by the Australian government to ride the TdU was going straight to the charity. This was a lie, it all went to Lance. Illegal, no, Misleading yes.

 

[fatandfast]

I have asked this question a few times but it seems to be easy to ignore.

Some have made a big deal about how 70% of LAF's funds go to "Programs". If one of those "Programs" is promoting the Armstrong brand I think we can all agree that this is a conflict.

It was hard not to attend the ToC and see that LAF was spending charity funds promoting the Armstrong brand. It is also not hard to see that Armstrong has used a LAF asset to make money for himself (Livestrong.com). He has also has taken money to appear on behalf of the LAF. While this may be a grey area in charity circles it is very unusual.

Also unusual it how the media was told that the $1,000,000 given to Armstrong by the Australian government to ride the TdU was going straight to the charity. This was a lie, it all went to Lance. Illegal, no, Misleading yes.

please don't run a company or the Australian government. Armstrong needs to spend money to "intentionally" promote himself, his brand and his other companies that promote research and philanthropy. His start money is easy to trace ,they either wired the money in a bank transfer,or wrote a check to Lance or an organization that was agreed to in a written contract. He didn't fly or ride on a hand shake. I am sure no cash changed hands. When the NFL wore pink to raise awareness of breast cancer,does it matter who paid for the pink items? No. You are mislead because you didn't find out in advance. Should Lance work on word of mouth or blogs to promote his causes. Your premise that there are finite monies to be contributed is absurd, many people who had never given a coin to anybody changed their habits and gave to something that Armstrong promoted

 

[Anonymous]

Good for you.

But as YOU pointed out, for someone who doesn't have that knowledge, Charity Navigator is a good way to get information about charities before donating.

YOu seem to imply a 3-star rating is bad... and that's simply not the case. If you don't have inside information, I'd say the best way to judge is to look at the stated goal of the charity... then look at a 3rd party analysis of how well they put money toward that goal.

The LAF does a solid job at doing that according to that particular site. Not as good at some at meeting their stated goal... but pretty good. If you're more concerned with helping survivors of cancer and increasing the availability of cancer screenings then finding a cure, the LAF is a good charity. If that's not where you want your donations to go... it's not the charity for you.

People downing a good charity because they don't like Lance Armstrong is a bit over the line in my opinion.

I never said anything other than there are far superior places to send you money regardless of your chosen purpose. That is a fact.

People worshiping a narcissistic *** just because he had cancer is a bit funny in my opinion. You must think this is my first rodeo with the "you can't say anything bad about him because he has a cancer charity" crowd, and you would be in error. Last year during the Tour of California, who was on the promotional material for the LAF? Cancer patients? Uh, no. Then when the year was all about cancer awareness, who quit talking to the media? Same answer. Then, when we got the Nike advertising campaign about all of the bad things people say about Lance interspersed with images of people on chemo, who was the commercial about? I'll give you 3 guesses and the first two don't count.

 

[fatandfast]

I never said anything other than there are far superior places to send you money regardless of your chosen purpose. That is a fact.

People worshiping a narcissistic *** just because he had cancer is a bit funny in my opinion. You must think this is my first rodeo with the "you can't say anything bad about him because he has a cancer charity" crowd, and you would be in error. Last year during the Tour of California, who was on the promotional material for the LAF? Cancer patients? Uh, no. Then when the year was all about cancer awareness, who quit talking to the media? Same answer. Then, when we got the Nike advertising campaign about all of the bad things people say about Lance interspersed with images of people on chemo, who was the commercial about? I'll give you 3 guesses and the first two don't count.

I followed part of his career because not long after riding with Tinley,Molina,Pigg and Souza he took up cycling and won worlds. The death and back thing can get annoying but I am sure the guys who wanted to stand on the TDF podium probably hate the fact that they got beat by a hick with 1 ball and movie star running partners.

 

[Anonymous]

I followed part of his career because not long after riding with Tinley,Molina,Pigg and Souza he took up cycling and won worlds. The death and back thing can get annoying but I am sure the guys who wanted to stand on the TDF podium probably hate the fact that they got beat by a hick with 1 ball and movie star running partners.

I am willing to bet the guy on the second step usually has some ire for the guy who stands above him regardless of his testicular count. Imagine if you had gotten beat by this guy:

 

[fatandfast]

I am willing to bet the guy on the second step usually has some ire for the guy who stands above him regardless of his testicular count. Imagine if you gotten beat by this guy:

Armstrong played out the his tour result like a page from women's racing. Many crossover and elite level woman can jump into the sport and get great results even placings at elite races with little to no experience. Men's racing was always thought to be so much deeper in talent. This guy goes on tour with a rock star girlfriend,rolls in the hay with 10 more. Goes on a talk show circuit,get paid to do motivational speaking all over the world,ball removed, helps out at functions and money raising organizations,then on a whim comes back and rides a couple of GT's and get a 3rd, all while having a cat fight with another ego baby, lots of guys wish they were this good at hobbies. Or did everybody in the bunch let him win ? People better hope Longo and Armstrong don't go to a clinic.

 

[Anonymous]

Actually, I won't expand on the myriad of problems with your premise. I will however ask you one question. Two people come to you and say that they are taking up money for cancer. One says that they are in the business of cancer, and that some of your money will go to cancer research, and the rest is profit, salary, and commission. The other guy is from a non-profit (which means that they spend all of the money they take in, keeping none as profit), and that they spend only 20% of their money on administrative necessities, and everything else goes to cancer research. Who do you send your money to?

The thing is that is not even the most illogical part of your "for profit because it is the greatest thing since sliced bread" thought process.

I'll answer your question when you answer mine. Back up what your saying, don't ignore it. Ignore a question is too easy.

Actually, i'll answer your question. neither. I have one designated charity (it's not a cancer charity) that I like to give to and the CEO receives a paycheck of $300,000. I have no issue with that becoz the charity does a good job. its a well run organisation that provides a large benefit to a large number of people. the point is that this organisation does it efficiently, and if a few guys up on the top rung pocket some money for their work then so be it, they deserve it. If you took that profit away from them, would they work as hard to deliver results? Answer = NO

Just because a charity says they break even so as to deliver as many funds to the needy as possible, certainly does not mean they are doing a good job at it. They are potentially wasting more money than a for-profit charity is.

In some cases profit does mean exploitation. Marxism claims that capitalist society has certain characteristics which means that employers can get away with paying minimal wages to workers, exploiting them. Dubai is a good example of a society that mostly fits Marx's definition of a capitalist society and in which (foreign) workers are exploited quite badly. However, in the 1st world, our societies are mostly (no longer) like this, due to democracy, unions, better education, welfare, etc. Arguably, our western societies are not purely capitalist, but capitasocialist. IMO, this balance between capitalism and socialism is what makes our societies work.

This need for balance is why I disagree with people who advocate an extreme position. People who claim that profit is bad are just as wrong as the people who claim that non-profit & government cannot do anything right and unlimited freedom for business interests is needed.

I'm afraid I disagree with our interpretation of the word exploitation. It has negative connotations that make it sounds worse than it is. Workers that are paid low wages have many reasons all pointing to it being the most efficient. That's life. That's why we have choices.

I also don't agree with what you said about democracy, unions, education etc. Take democracy for example and as a result of democracy a hypothetical country has a minimum wage of $10/hr. Now somewhere out there, there is a worker willing to work for $9. He is currently unemployed and can't find a job. If a company were allowed to pay him $9 to work they would, but instead the guy remains unemployed becoz govt regulations state he must be paid $10. Forcing companies to pay a minimum wage increases unemployment.

Sure wages increased, but at what cost? Minimum wage regulation is not the best idea, IMO

Points:

Capitalism is about efficiency... but it's about efficiently MAKING MONEY. That's the key thing you have to understand when applying capitalism to any concept. If you apply it to something like medicine, capitalism will NOT find the best answer solution for an individual... it will find the most profitable one. The two are NOT necessarily the same thing.

Second, altruism is NOT part of capitalism. An individual can be altruistic in a capitalist society, but the basic economic framework is based SOLELY on greed. Altruism actually breaks the economic model capitalism provides.

I completely disagree. In a standard economics textbook the argument that altruism breaks the model of capitalism may be seen, but that model is growing old now.

Modern analysis suggests that players in the capitalist model are indeed altruistic. Search any economic database to find numerous references on this. I'm not trying to prove your view as incorrect, but my point is merely that the "capitalist = greedy" argument is slowing making its way out the door and into the abyss. It's an outdated and ridiculous heavy assumption and its implications are too generalised and rigid.

The economic framework is not based on greed, it's based on utility.

Fair enough if that's your contention that capitalist = greed but again, i'll disagree.

 

[Anonymous]

I'll answer your question when you answer mine. Back up what your saying, don't ignore it. Ignore a question is too easy.

Actually, i'll answer your question. neither. I have one designated charity (it's not a cancer charity) that I like to give to and the CEO receives a paycheck of $300,000. I have no issue with that becoz the charity does a good job. its a well run organisation that provides a large benefit to a large number of people. the point is that this organisation does it efficiently, and if a few guys up on the top rung pocket some money for their work then so be it, they deserve it. If you took that profit away from them, would they work as hard to deliver results? Answer = NO

Just because a charity says they break even so as to deliver as many funds to the needy as possible, certainly does not mean they are doing a good job at it. They are potentially wasting more money than a for-profit charity is.

Oh, and since you appear to be one of those new found Libertarians, do me a favor: Name me one single major industrialized nation that has used your principles alone to achieve prosperity. Then, just for fun, name me one major industrialized nation that used your your Libertarian ideas to get out of the Great Depression.


I'm afraid I disagree with our interpretation of the word exploitation. It has negative connotations that make it sounds worse than it is. Workers that are paid low wages have many reasons all pointing to it being the most efficient. That's life. That's why we have choices.

I also don't agree with what you said about democracy, unions, education etc. Take democracy for example and as a result of democracy a hypothetical country has a minimum wage of $10/hr. Now somewhere out there, there is a worker willing to work for $9. He is currently unemployed and can't find a job. If a company were allowed to pay him $9 to work they would, but instead the guy remains unemployed becoz govt regulations state he must be paid $10. Forcing companies to pay a minimum wage increases unemployment.

Sure wages increased, but at what cost? Minimum wage regulation is not the best idea, IMO




I completely disagree. In a standard economics textbook the argument that altruism breaks the model of capitalism may be seen, but that model is growing old now.

Modern analysis suggests that players in the capitalist model are indeed altruistic. Search any economic database to find numerous references on this. I'm not trying to prove your view as incorrect, but my point is merely that the "capitalist = greedy" argument is slowing making its way out the door and into the abyss. It's an outdated and ridiculous heavy assumption and its implications are too generalised and rigid.

The economic framework is not based on greed, it's based on utility.

Fair enough if that's your contention that capitalist = greed but again, i'll disagree.

Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about, and I am not your research assistant. Suffice to say that reading this drivel, not only are you ignorant of charitable organizations, but capitalism also. Based on utility...thats funny!

 

[kurtinsc]

I never said anything other than there are far superior places to send you money regardless of your chosen purpose. That is a fact.

People worshiping a narcissistic *** just because he had cancer is a bit funny in my opinion. You must think this is my first rodeo with the "you can't say anything bad about him because he has a cancer charity" crowd, and you would be in error. Last year during the Tour of California, who was on the promotional material for the LAF? Cancer patients? Uh, no. Then when the year was all about cancer awareness, who quit talking to the media? Same answer. Then, when we got the Nike advertising campaign about all of the bad things people say about Lance interspersed with images of people on chemo, who was the commercial about? I'll give you 3 guesses and the first two don't count.

Well I hate to be picky... but Lance IS a cancer survivor and former cancer patient. So assuming he was on the cover of the promotional materials at the TOC... then yes a cancer patient WAS on the cover.

I don't give to the LAF. I'm not an Armstrong fan particularly... I like seeing him in races because that means I get more coverage in the US... and I like seeing cycling coverage. And I think his presence in races often does make them more interesting. But I really don't care if he wins or not... if anything in the last Tour I was cheering for the biggest underdog in the competition... Wiggins.

But I respect the LAF as a charity. THey do a good job at their stated goals... helping cancer survivors move on with their lives, increasing the availability of screening, and providing support to those getting treated for cancer.

Just because Lance is the face of the charity, that doesn't mean the charity is bad. They are NOT poorly rated by the different unalligned rating services. Their overhead isn't the lowest out there... but it's not high either... they score pretty well in that area.


I don't care if you attack Lance. Have at it. He dopes. I think everyone else of note in the peloton dopes as well, but if you think it's just Lance you can go right ahead. He's a jerk. I don't disagree with that either.

But attacking an effective charity because you don't like a bike rider is just petty. Yes, they use Lance's celebrity to bring in donations. Guess what? In the US, that's an effective strategy.

 

[Race Radio]

Well I hate to be picky... but Lance IS a cancer survivor and former cancer patient. So assuming he was on the cover of the promotional materials at the TOC... then yes a cancer patient WAS on the cover.

I don't give to the LAF. I'm not an Armstrong fan particularly... I like seeing him in races because that means I get more coverage in the US... and I like seeing cycling coverage. And I think his presence in races often does make them more interesting. But I really don't care if he wins or not... if anything in the last Tour I was cheering for the biggest underdog in the competition... Wiggins.

But I respect the LAF as a charity. THey do a good job at their stated goals... helping cancer survivors move on with their lives, increasing the availability of screening, and providing support to those getting treated for cancer.

Just because Lance is the face of the charity, that doesn't mean the charity is bad. They are NOT poorly rated by the different unalligned rating services. Their overhead isn't the lowest out there... but it's not high either... they score pretty well in that area.


I don't care if you attack Lance. Have at it. He dopes. I think everyone else of note in the peloton dopes as well, but if you think it's just Lance you can go right ahead. He's a jerk. I don't disagree with that either.

But attacking an effective charity because you don't like a bike rider is just petty. Yes, they use Lance's celebrity to bring in donations. Guess what? In the US, that's an effective strategy.

So you are OK with the fact that LAF uses charity fund to promote the Armstrong brand?

 

[Anonymous]

Well I hate to be picky... but Lance IS a cancer survivor and former cancer patient. So assuming he was on the cover of the promotional materials at the TOC... then yes a cancer patient WAS on the cover.

I don't give to the LAF. I'm not an Armstrong fan particularly... I like seeing him in races because that means I get more coverage in the US... and I like seeing cycling coverage. And I think his presence in races often does make them more interesting. But I really don't care if he wins or not... if anything in the last Tour I was cheering for the biggest underdog in the competition... Wiggins.

But I respect the LAF as a charity. THey do a good job at their stated goals... helping cancer survivors move on with their lives, increasing the availability of screening, and providing support to those getting treated for cancer.

Just because Lance is the face of the charity, that doesn't mean the charity is bad. They are NOT poorly rated by the different unalligned rating services. Their overhead isn't the lowest out there... but it's not high either... they score pretty well in that area.


I don't care if you attack Lance. Have at it. He dopes. I think everyone else of note in the peloton dopes as well, but if you think it's just Lance you can go right ahead. He's a jerk. I don't disagree with that either.

But attacking an effective charity because you don't like a bike rider is just petty. Yes, they use Lance's celebrity to bring in donations. Guess what? In the US, that's an effective strategy.

No, I am addressing the idea that he is untouchable because he had cancer and has a cancer charity. The fact is that there are better organizations to send your money to regardless of your desire for how it is spent. See, the emotional appeal is used to somehow shun people who dare question him or his charity. I do not find him to be a genuine person. I do not find his statements regarding his motivation to be genuine. I believe he is a narcissist who needs adulation, and his charity is an extension of that. Doesn't mean the LAF does bad things. Doesn't mean people don't benefit. Just means that I don't find his story, nor his charity compelling enough to send them money, and when the topic comes up, I believe drawing people's attention to the fact that there are better places to send their money is perfectly fine. You don't get the yellow wrist band when you donate somewhere else, but hey, they have jumped the shark anyway.

 

[kurtinsc]

I have asked this question a few times but it seems to be easy to ignore.

Some have made a big deal about how 70% of LAF's funds go to "Programs". If one of those "Programs" is promoting the Armstrong brand I think we can all agree that this is a conflict.

It was hard not to attend the ToC and see that LAF was spending charity funds promoting the Armstrong brand. It is also not hard to see that Armstrong has used a LAF asset to make money for himself (Livestrong.com). He has also has taken money to appear on behalf of the LAF. While this may be a grey area in charity circles it is very unusual.

Also unusual it how the media was told that the $1,000,000 given to Armstrong by the Australian government to ride the TdU was going straight to the charity. This was a lie, it all went to Lance. Illegal, no, Misleading yes.

For charity rating sites "Programs" are defined as money spent toward directly reaching the stated mission or goals of a charity. Fundraising, promotions, salaries, etc are not included.

Their stated mission is:

"Our mission is to inspire and empower people with cancer to live strong. We serve our mission through education, advocacy, public health and research programs."

Would "hyping Lance" be included in that? I don't think most of the ratings agencies would think so.

 

[Race Radio]

For charity rating sites "Programs" are defined as money spent toward directly reaching the stated mission or goals of a charity. Fundraising, promotions, salaries, etc are not included.

Their stated mission is:

"Our mission is to inspire and empower people with cancer to live strong. We serve our mission through education, advocacy, public health and research programs."

Would "hyping Lance" be included in that? I don't think most of the ratings agencies would think so.

I would doubt that the expenses of these programs are itemized for the rating agencies.

I do not see how hiring a person to drive a car before the field with a loudspeaker asking for people to "Get ready to cheer for Lance" does anything for Cancer awareness.

 

[Publicus]

I would doubt that the expenses of these programs are itemized for the rating agencies.

I do not see how hiring a person to drive a car before the field with a loudspeaker asking for people to "Get ready to cheer for Lance" does anything for Cancer awareness.

LOL. Having been present at this past year's Tour of California, I can co-sign this 100%. I still have my chalk! Hope RIDES AGAIN!!!! I have to say my cancer awareness had never been any higher than at that point!

 

[Race Radio]

LOL. Having been present at this past year's Tour of California, I can co-sign this 100%. I still have my chalk! Hope RIDES AGAIN!!!! I have to say my cancer awareness had never been any higher than at that point!

What the rating agencies do not measure is the effectiveness of the "Programs". It is hard to believe that chalk, posters, and loudspeakers do anything to raise awareness of anything but the Armstrong brand. Even the most die hard fans should have trouble with the charity wasting money on this.

This raised awareness was good for Armstrong. $1,000,000 from the TdU, $2,000,000 from the Giro. New 3 year sponsorship deals with a crap beer company and a battery store.

 

[eleven]

What the rating agencies do not measure is the effectiveness of the "Programs". It is hard to believe that chalk, posters, and loudspeakers do anything to raise awareness of anything but the Armstrong brand. Even the most die hard fans should have trouble with the charity wasting money on this.

This raised awareness was good for Armstrong. $1,000,000 from the TdU, $2,000,000 from the Giro. New 3 year sponsorship deals with a crap beer company and a battery store.

you don't think that the exposure they gain increases awareness? People think those yellow bands indicate the fight against....breast cancer?

 

[Publicus]

you don't think that the exposure they gain increases awareness? People think those yellow bands indicate the fight against....breast cancer?

I'm not sure how chalk, loudspeakers, etc., raise awareness of cancer. They raise awareness of Armstrong, the Livestrong brand, Armstrong and . . . Armstrong.

How about this, what other programs does the LAF sponsor? Serious question that I don't know the answer to (my only exposure to LAF is through the bands, advertisements and at ToC).

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

I do not see how hiring a person to drive a car before the field with a loudspeaker asking for people to "Get ready to cheer for Lance" does anything for Cancer awareness.

Really? Did they actually do that? haha

 

[kurtinsc]

I'm not sure how chalk, loudspeakers, etc., raise awareness of cancer. They raise awareness of Armstrong, the Livestrong brand, Armstrong and . . . Armstrong.

How about this, what other programs does the LAF sponsor? Serious question that I don't know the answer to (my only exposure to LAF is through the bands, advertisements and at ToC).

Well, they have the "survivorcare" program. That provides cancer survivors with access to counseling, support groups, financial assistance for those uninsured or underinsured, legal insurance for those facing job descrimination due to cancer, financial management counselors to help manage the expense of cancer treatment, treatment of cancer and cancer treatment symptoms and matching people to clinical trials of new medicine.

The LAF also have other programs that provide help with survivors preserving fertility, provide resources to doctors treating cancer patients, and provide information on things like treatment options for those being treated for cancer.

The LAF also spends money on grants for cancer research, grants for community action programs to help survivors of cancer, and provide funding to 8 "survivorship centers" nation wide (for example, the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center). They also spend money on lobbying governments for the benefit of those who have cancer.

They also have a strong social networking base that is used to pressure governments about cancer related issues. Not sure if anything really gets spent on this, but it can be effective in shaping public policy.

 

[Race Radio]

Well, they have the "survivorcare" program. That provides cancer survivors with access to counseling, support groups, financial assistance for those uninsured or underinsured, legal insurance for those facing job descrimination due to cancer, financial management counselors to help manage the expense of cancer treatment, treatment of cancer and cancer treatment symptoms and matching people to clinical trials of new medicine.

The LAF also have other programs that provide help with survivors preserving fertility, provide resources to doctors treating cancer patients, and provide information on things like treatment options for those being treated for cancer.

The LAF also spends money on grants for cancer research, grants for community action programs to help survivors of cancer, and provide funding to 8 "survivorship centers" nation wide (for example, the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center). They also spend money on lobbying governments for the benefit of those who have cancer.

They also have a strong social networking base that is used to pressure governments about cancer related issues. Not sure if anything really gets spent on this, but it can be effective in shaping public policy.

You forgot about the "Hope rides again" poster program and the "Cheer for Lance" Megaphone project and the "Jet fuel" program.

 

[Publicus]

Well, they have the "survivorcare" program. That provides cancer survivors with access to counseling, support groups, financial assistance for those uninsured or underinsured, legal insurance for those facing job descrimination due to cancer, financial management counselors to help manage the expense of cancer treatment, treatment of cancer and cancer treatment symptoms and matching people to clinical trials of new medicine.

The LAF also have other programs that provide help with survivors preserving fertility, provide resources to doctors treating cancer patients, and provide information on things like treatment options for those being treated for cancer.

The LAF also spends money on grants for cancer research, grants for community action programs to help survivors of cancer, and provide funding to 8 "survivorship centers" nation wide (for example, the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center). They also spend money on lobbying governments for the benefit of those who have cancer.

They also have a strong social networking base that is used to pressure governments about cancer related issues. Not sure if anything really gets spent on this, but it can be effective in shaping public policy.

Thanks Kurt. Seems to me that they should be getting info about these programs out at races, rather than chalk. All sounds worthwhile to me.

 

[Race Radio]

Really? Did they actually do that? haha

Yes, they did. Great use of funds

 

[kurtinsc]

I would doubt that the expenses of these programs are itemized for the rating agencies.

I do not see how hiring a person to drive a car before the field with a loudspeaker asking for people to "Get ready to cheer for Lance" does anything for Cancer awareness.

First of all, I would think something like that would fit under "advertising" or "fundraising"... not "programs".

Second... do you have information that the LAF paid for that? I can't find anything one way or another on it (not even a picture of the car). The only things I can find with that race relating to the charity was the whole Bob Roll shaving his head if 5 grand were donated thing.

 

[Race Radio]

Thanks Kurt. Seems to me that they should be getting info about these programs out at races, rather than chalk. All sounds worthwhile to me.

Exactly. At the ToC I saw lots to educate the public about Lance, little to educate them about cancer.