How should cancer charities prepare?

If you know how to find this forum, you know we're on the verge of the largest doping and fraud case in cycling at least since Festina.
If Amstrong is found guilty of perjury, just about the PED part of his business, and he is treaed equally to a much lesser offender Marion Jones (didn't lead a whole team to dope and role), he's going to do 6 months behind bars. No kidding he's cancelling bike races to spend time with his family, WHILE HE CAN.

Anyway, on my own topic then.
Everyone in cancer charities in the US seems to step forward in concern of what might happen to donations when Armstrong is to look bad because of all this. "He's done so much more good than anyone could ever do wrong". Putting ethical pressure on the justice system, while they still can.
But when the word comes out, or Lance sees himself forced to admit in hope of minimizing his inevitable pinishment...what do the charities do?

In my opinion, cancer is an over-funded disease compared to other killers. Doesn't mean I want to deny it's severity, just stating that it's already got the strongest lobby and PR of all the medical world. How much is there to be lost really, on such a huge disease, with Livestrong bringing $31M annually (gross or nett) for cancer charities? I bet Armstrong had years where he made more for himself. One person. One cheater.

In my opinion, the charities should take their hands off him. Saying that he disguished his guilt behind his charities, and was wrong to do so. That the message still stands, even without Armstrong leading the way. Funding is still needed, healthy living is still key, personal worship is not of this time. Go to church for worshipping, WYSIWYG. No good will ever compensate a bad. Doing good is not a plus behind your name, it is your personal task to do the best you can. Armstrong used his fame to put a charity in the spotlight, and generate donations from cycling fans. He should not have used this word as a verbal shield to cover his sport ethics and practices, as he's clearly been doing.

Livestrong may need to offer their resources to a more reliable charity, funds and manpower. Just liquidate themselves. Not a dime will be lost for cancer this way. There will be more heroes to support them, without the urge to monopolize.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Cloxxki said:
If you know how to find this forum, you know we're on the verge of the largest doping and fraud case in cycling at least since Festina.
.

If I recall correctly, Festina the Company had STRONG sales the year or so folowing the scandal. Many were suprised. Increased sales, not decreased sales.

And Festina the Company did not have any sales from Sympathetic Fans or backlash sales from angry anti-WitchHunters.

Combine those extra revenue streams with the fact that Lance will be out in FORCE campaigning for LAF.org, and I would wager 2011 will see increases over 2010. He met with Nancy Pelosi yesterday BTW...
 
Jul 2, 2009
1,079
0
0
the whole story is quite sad, when you really think about it :confused:


the just believe in miracles' ended during the hollywood years. jmo

thumbnail.aspx
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Polish said:
If I recall correctly, Festina the Company had STRONG sales the year or so folowing the scandal. Many were suprised. Increased sales, not decreased sales.

And Festina the Company did not have any sales from Sympathetic Fans or backlash sales from angry anti-WitchHunters.

Combine those extra revenue streams with the fact that Lance will be out in FORCE campaigning for LAF.org, and I would wager 2011 will see increases over 2010. He met with Nancy Pelosi yesterday BTW...

Not knowing what portion of funds LA raises on LAF.org actually goes to other charities that impact would be in scale. I agree with the relative Festina argument with a twist: more people might actually contribute to charities not involved with Lance as a result. They'll just be more careful about donation/benefit results than the celebrity shill factor.
 
Jun 15, 2009
353
0
0
Oldman said:
Not knowing what portion of funds LA raises on LAF.org actually goes to other charities that impact would be in scale. I agree with the relative Festina argument with a twist: more people might actually contribute to charities not involved with Lance as a result. They'll just be more careful about donation/benefit results than the celebrity shill factor.

As all of us should be when we decide how to allocate our charitable funds. Especially in this age of ubiquitous access to information, it's a shame so many people don't!
 
Jul 23, 2010
18
0
0
I don't think charities need to prepare at all. People who want to donate to cancer because it effects their lives are going to donate. LA being exposed wouldn;t change that. They just might have to get a different color bracelet.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
cyclestationgiuseppe said:
"He met with Nancy Pelosi yesterday BTW... "

Maybe he wanted "witch-hunt" advice from the wicked Witch of the west.

Maybe he wanted advise on how he could get that "impeachment is off the table" kind of thing going that was provided to his idol and mentor GW SFB(your hero)
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,035
0
0
Polish said:
If I recall correctly, Festina the Company had STRONG sales the year or so folowing the scandal. Many were suprised. Increased sales, not decreased sales.

And Festina the Company did not have any sales from Sympathetic Fans or backlash sales from angry anti-WitchHunters.

Combine those extra revenue streams with the fact that Lance will be out in FORCE campaigning for LAF.org, and I would wager 2011 will see increases over 2010. He met with Nancy Pelosi yesterday BTW...


Exactly - I don't know whether I did it intentionally or not but over 10 years later 2 of my 3 watches are Festinas and one of my cycling kits is the 1998 Festina kit.

oh but wait....
Now that I think about it, the cycling kit I bought in 1999 was THE cheapest in the shop. About half the price of the other options they had.

but back on the positive - the Festina watches were pretty highly priced compared to others in the store..so perhaps its just that the team imploded but the company came out even stronger.

(of course, at the time there was no suggestion that the sponsor was involved in the team doping was there?)
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
I hope that this does not mean that Lance will actually have to start paying for the fuel for his jet instead of charging it to Livestrong.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Race Radio said:
I hope that this does not mean that Lance will actually have to start paying for the fuel for his jet instead of charging it to Livestrong.


Welcome back to commercial air travel. Perhaps, if there is any justice, he will have to give up his NetJets deal because of his time at Club Fed.