Interesting piece on Livestrong

[MacRoadie]

I think it is about Lance, because here (i.e. in the cycling word) it's about whether or not Lance can be forgiven for being doper, sociopath, fraud etc etc (whatever people want to call him) because of all the "good work" done by the charity he established.

That is it in a nutshell.

If there weren't so many people using the "but look at all the good work he's done" rationale (including the man himself), then the charity wouldn't be part of this discussion.

Even if there were some underhanded goings-on with the charity (which I am not asserting), those would still be the topic of another discussion and not part of this dialog.

As long as the charity is proferred as a character rebuttal or as some sort of balance to the scales of justice re: Armstrong and the current Federal investigation, then the charity, it's operation, and Armstrongs relationship with the charity (and all that entails) are an integral part of the conversation.

The references to Bill Gates are also valid. If the argument is that the more good you do, the more we should be willing to overlook the bad stuff, then it begs the question: how far does it go? What kind of offset do you get by donating a million dollars, how about a billion?

 

[python]

I think it is about Lance, because here (i.e. in the cycling word) it's about whether or not Lance can be forgiven for being doper, sociopath, fraud etc etc (whatever people want to call him) because of all the "good work" done by the charity he established. ...snip

here's another example...how come this was not mentioned already ?…
http://www.tuttobiciweb.it/index.php?page=news&cod=34797&tp=n

was livestrong promoting cancer awareness in iraq ? really ?

 

[thehog]

How much have the Gates given from their own pocket over the years? tens, hundreds of millions?

How much has Lance given to the LAF/Livestrong?

I think if Lance was actively funding his charity then it might ease some of the criticism. Especially if he was giving more in financial terms than he was taking out from Livestrong branding revenues, travel expenses etc.

The Gates analogy is an interesting one. In my mind the Gates foundation has zero link to Microsoft and Bill the man himself does not promote himself via the foundation. The foundation goes about its work in separate from Bill and Microsoft. In fact the bulk of the work and publicity is done by his wife Melinda.

As you state he personally has donated substantial amounts to the foundations programs. So Bill may have been a business driven rascal during his regin at Microsoft but there is no conflict between him being an ars!hole in business and the Foundation he runs personally. They are completely separate. The day I type "The Gates Foundation" into Google and Microsoft.com comes back I'll be worried.

 

[patricknd]

Again - you have avoided answering the question, do you want me to write it again?

Yes - Floyd has said he will payback those that made contributions..... again it was in that ESPN piece that although you have not read it you are already trying to thrash.

No, I have not seen the FFF accounts (nor did I suggest I have) - but again do you have anything to provide to suggest that BDFs article was wrong?

the fff was a fraud from it's inception. it was founded on a lie, and was for the benefit of one person. comparing it to any charity is a joke.
if you believe that flandis will repay contributors you are a fool. your canonization of landis to further the demonization of armstrong is like putting ted bundy on a pedestal to make charles manson look bad.

 

[Anonymous]

No, it's not the same as that at all.

It really is possible to think the LAF is a decent charity and that Lance doped and cheated. I know some of you seem to think it's against the laws of nature to do so... but it is in fact possible.

I'm beginning to come around to the idea that Lance's input into the LAF is such that it's NOT doing what it is supposed to based on their mission statement. The Haiti thing was stupid, and the focus away from helping cancer survivors and more toward Lance's nebulous "awareness" goal is not good either.

Look... I'm not a huge Microsoft fan and I don't really like Bill Gates... but I think much of what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does is excellent. I don't secretly own microsoft stock and have Bill Gates pictures with hearts surrounding his face just because I like what his charity does.

Bill and Melinda don't use their foundation as a shield against criticism of their business. Mr. Armstrong does. Bill and Melinda don't use their charity to put gas in their G5. Mr. Armstrong does. Bill and Melinda don't use their foundation to make a for profit BillandMelindaGates.com that offers advice (the best advice costs) and advertising for their "partners." Mr. Armstrong does.

Nobody is saying that LAF has not helped anyone. Clearly it has. However, the reality is that Mr. Armstrong could have become the unpaid spokesman for another charity that provided services for cancer patients (there were countless ones to choose from when he created LAF). Instead, he created his "cancer awareness" charity that has siphoned off money that used to go to other charities, and also generated millions in extra donations that went for services that I submit are less helpful to the cancer community than things like research for cures and/or alternative treatments.

LAF has been an extension of his ego more than anything. Look at all of the marketing materials with his face all over them. (a significant expense for the charity), and all of the travel expenses for him (I wonder if that G5 ever took him to give a paid speaking engagement using fuel paid for by LAF?). I am sure Mr. Armstrong cares about other people with cancer. There are cases of dogs reacting to their owners getting cancer, so you will have to excuse me if I fail to see how that is anything but ordinary.

Mr. Armstrong is a fraud. Mr. Armstrong's charity has become an extension of that fraud by his prostitution of it and cancer patients in his effort to cover his doping.

Send your money to another charity.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes it did.
It was closed by a mod because of the volume of post reports that we all started getting in our inboxes an hour or two ago.

The mod that did it hadn't realised that I had already gone in and pruned out the relevant posts (as well as posting a request to get back on Topic).

So I reopened it.

The request should really be a warning though - to ALL involved - please play the topic and not the man and please keep within the forum rules or there will be ramifications.

I am guessing that milo sent the bulk of the reports...hmm....I wonder which forum troll would be familiar with every mod here?...Well, I have another BPC sock puppet to ad to my ignore list. Man, that is one long list.

 

[ultimobici]

You've got it in one. And I agree with what you said just above as well.

It is hard to seperate Lance and the charity as he has deliberately entrenched the charity and his own financial future together. The charity is ALL about him. Which would be fine if it werent for the fact that the charity is paying a lot of his expenses.

The charity promotes Lance ... a GREAT deal. when you do work for a charity - its supposed to be the celebrity that promotes the charity. Not the other way around.

Mainly the issue I dislike the most is the way he promotes his return as being 'for cancer'. The livestrong.com v livestong.org stuff .... proves beyond doubt for me that its NOT about cancer.

Livestrong developed their brand name ..... brilliantly so. The marketing ideals behind it are fantastic. They built this brand name - and then it was decided that they would licence their name to a for-profit business to market lifestyle type products (healthy living etc). It was a good fit ... all is good. Livestrong got a share of the equity in the company ..... all great.

Except - that Lance got a good share of the equity too. For what?

The company (Demand Media) then developed the Livestrong.com website .... and gained substantial revenue from advertising on the site, considering their main advertising was traffic from Lance posting his video's on this site.

Lance buying a domain, starting a healthy lifestyle program and promoting it - and making a profit is absolutely fine. Doing a dodgy deal with his own charity to ride on the coat-tails of their brand success is NOT.

If Livestrong wanted a lifestyle program - they could (and should) have developed it themself .... easy enough to do and they had the executvie ability to do it. But they chose not to ... they chose to allow a company associated with the charities prime sponsor to trade off its reputation for their financial gain instead of the charity's.

If Lances return was actually all about cancer and raising awareness (and funds) for cancer .... he would have posted his videos on the charity website itself. Instead he chose to set up a for-profit web site, riding off the underlying charitable principles of Livestrong and make substantial personal profit.

It is misleading. That is what I object to.

This!!

But your argument is far too rationally and calmly presented to be in the Clinic!!

 

[Anonymous]

Did this thread just close for about 5 minutes and then reopen or have I consumed too much Ommegang Abbey Ale whilst preparing payroll this evening?

Not to worry HJ, this happens to me all the time. Just make sure you don't add one too many zeros to somebody's paycheck.

 

[Anonymous]

Bill and Melinda don't use their foundation as a shield against criticism of their business. Mr. Armstrong does. Bill and Melinda don't use their charity to put gas in their G5. Mr. Armstrong does. Bill and Melinda don't use their foundation to make a for profit BillandMelindaGates.com that offers advice (the best advice costs) and advertising for their "partners." Mr. Armstrong does.

Nobody is saying that LAF has not helped anyone. Clearly it has. However, the reality is that Mr. Armstrong could have become the unpaid spokesman for another charity that provided services for cancer patients (there were countless ones to choose from when he created LAF). Instead, he created his "cancer awareness" charity that has siphoned off money that used to go to other charities, and also generated millions in extra donations that went for services that I submit are less helpful to the cancer community than things like research for cures and/or alternative treatments.

LAF has been an extension of his ego more than anything. Look at all of the marketing materials with his face all over them. (a significant expense for the charity), and all of the travel expenses for him (I wonder if that G5 ever took him to give a paid speaking engagement using fuel paid for by LAF?). I am sure Mr. Armstrong cares about other people with cancer. There are cases of dogs reacting to their owners getting cancer, so you will have to excuse me if I fail to see how that is anything but ordinary.

Mr. Armstrong is a fraud. Mr. Armstrong's charity has become an extension of that fraud by his prostitution of it and cancer patients in his effort to cover his doping.

Send your money to another charity.

Good post.

It appears to me Lance thinks he can do anything he wants AND his celebrity to be untouchable. Any and all criticism can be deflected by him & his entourage by the mere mention of "all the good work his charity does."

By design, this cuts off all debate. Until recently.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

the fff was a fraud from it's inception. it was founded on a lie, and was for the benefit of one person. comparing it to any charity is a joke.
if you believe that flandis will repay contributors you are a fool. your canonization of landis to further the demonization of armstrong is like putting ted bundy on a pedestal to make charles manson look bad.

Kindof sortof.
The FFF was set up on a lie, but the money collected was used for it stated purpose.
The LAF was set up for a worthwhile purpose, but closer scrutiny appears to show it is used to deflect a lie.

Some who have contributed to the FFF don't feel they were defrauded - while I am sure there are many smaller contributors who feel let down I think many of them should not be repaid and who should accept it as a form of idiot tax.

I don't canonize FL and demonize LA, I am highlighting 'Milomans' hypocrisy that FL should repay to all who donated and then give the rest to charity.
Amazingly when asked if the same criteria should be used on LA if he is found to be a fraud 'Miloman' falls silent.

 

[BotanyBay]

LAF has been an extension of his ego more than anything. Look at all of the marketing materials with his face all over them. (a significant expense for the charity), and all of the travel expenses for him (I wonder if that G5 ever took him to give a paid speaking engagement using fuel paid for by LAF?).

An excellent overall post, BTW.

The beauty of the LAF fraud (on top of all the other fraud) is that no matter where in the world he wants to aim that G5, a hospital bed with a sick kid is always within a 15 minute radius of the airport. That recent trip down to Cabo? If he stops for 15 minutes to either talk about cancer or visits a kid, that trip is then "LAF Qualified". While he's off getting laid worldwide, he gets to grab credit for his tireless crusade against cancer.

He's been busy crusading his brains out.

 

[VeloCity]

Who exactly did Lance defraud again?

Portraying yourself as something you are not in order to get people to give you money is by definition fraud.

 

[thehog]

Portraying yourself as something you are not in order to get people to give you money is by definition fraud.

It is as simple as that. Thank you.

 

[BotanyBay]

Who exactly did Lance defraud again?

 

[Digger]

If the comeback was really about awareness etc, why not race in any developing countries? Tour of the Phillipines maybe....African races....instead he races for hundreds of thousands and millions in countries where the level of 'awareness' is pretty damn high.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

[edited by mod]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VfiXAaEQiY

He prostitutes cancer patients to talk about how wrong those people who accuse him of being a "doper" are. He prostitutes his foundation and cancer patients to suggest that he didn't dope. He is a disgusting piece of ****, and deserves prison time for the fraud he perpetrated. Suck it!

"you sopranos,,,,you go to far"

Everyone has an opinion but your posted position takes it a bit far in my opinion. I can understand that it is shameful to influence people’s opinions by playing on a weakness or during weak times. These folks who choose to support Lance Armstrong and his fight against the witch hunter have opinions that they are freely expressing. I do not think they are coerced into any statements on the internet.

 

[miloman]

Kindof sortof.
The FFF was set up on a lie, but the money collected was used for it stated purpose.
The LAF was set up for a worthwhile purpose, but closer scrutiny appears to show it is used to deflect a lie.

Some who have contributed to the FFF don't feel they were defrauded - while I am sure there are many smaller contributors who feel let down I think many of them should not be repaid and who should accept it as a form of idiot tax.

I don't canonize FL and demonize LA, I am highlighting 'Milomans' hypocrisy that FL should repay to all who donated and then give the rest to charity.
Amazingly when asked if the same criteria should be used on LA if he is found to be a fraud 'Miloman' falls silent.

And finally, if Armstrong's charity is found to have committed fraud, then yes, he/they need to pay. But as far as I know, he never raised money for any legal defense fund through his charity while proclaiming his innocence.

I believe I answered that several pages ago. Just to clarify, Floyd admitted he lied, so we don't need to waste time proving it. If and when there is proof that the LAF is on the wrong side of the law, they should pay whatever penalty is exacted upon them – including the board, and Armstrong, whoever is culpable. Other than the lawyers, do you really think anyone is going to get money out of Floyd? What are the chances anyone would see anything from LAF or Lance? I think it is awfully naive to think any money will be collected from either party.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

An excellent overall post, BTW.

The beauty of the LAF fraud (on top of all the other fraud) is that no matter where in the world he wants to aim that G5, a hospital bed with a sick kid is always within a 15 minute radius of the airport. That recent trip down to Cabo? If he stops for 15 minutes to either talk about cancer or visits a kid, that trip is then "LAF Qualified". While he's off getting laid worldwide, he gets to grab credit for his tireless crusade against cancer.

He's been busy crusading his brains out.

"walking together" ---"talking together"-------"Love and Happiness"

cancer Awareness....."what ever you want to"""cause you,,,,make me feel so brand new"""""""""""Lets stay together""""""""""

 

[BotanyBay]

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I believe I answered that several pages ago. Just to clarify, Floyd admitted he lied, so we don't need to waste time proving it. If and when there is proof that the LAF is on the wrong side of the law, they should pay whatever penalty is exacted upon them – including the board, and Armstrong, whoever is culpable. Other than the lawyers, do you really think anyone is going to get money out of Floyd? What are the chances anyone would see anything from LAF or Lance? I think it is awfully naive to think any money will be collected from either party.

Well you just called yourself naive - as you were the one to bring up that Floyd should payback everyone and then give the rest to charity.

No, you did not answer it, you bring up some BS about if the 'charity' is found to be a fraudulent which has nothing to do with anything.
If Lance is shown to have used PEDs then his legacy as a champion will be viewed as a fraud - things like his book will be viewed as fiction and people (like FFF contributors) might feel angered........ should Lance pay back those people in the same way you suggest Floyd does?

 

[kurtinsc]

Bill and Melinda don't use their foundation as a shield against criticism of their business. Mr. Armstrong does. Bill and Melinda don't use their charity to put gas in their G5. Mr. Armstrong does. Bill and Melinda don't use their foundation to make a for profit BillandMelindaGates.com that offers advice (the best advice costs) and advertising for their "partners." Mr. Armstrong does.

I've still not seen the jet fuel thing proven, but aside from that the other examples aren't big issues. The LAF makes money from livestrong.com as well... they were given ownerhsip in demand from the deal that gave them the right to the livestrong name as well as lance. How big each stake is hasn't been released, but that is part of their fundraising. The rest is DEFINITELY a reflection on Lance, but not necessarily a reflection on the charity. As I said... I DON'T particularly like Lance, and I don't think his charity work is a defense for his actions. But I don't think the charity has been all bad either (though they are moving in a bad direction).

Nobody is saying that LAF has not helped anyone. Clearly it has. However, the reality is that Mr. Armstrong could have become the unpaid spokesman for another charity that provided services for cancer patients (there were countless ones to choose from when he created LAF). Instead, he created his "cancer awareness" charity that has siphoned off money that used to go to other charities, and also generated millions in extra donations that went for services that I submit are less helpful to the cancer community than things like research for cures and/or alternative treatments.

Are there other charities who focus on providing assistance to those with cancer? There are tons that seek to cure cancer, and some that might provide some information about cancer as a secondary function. I'm not fond of the idea that "awareness" of the general public is a big aid for cancer survivors... but "in theory" their whole purpose is to spend the money on issues that benefit cancer survivors. What other charities have that focus?

LAF has been an extension of his ego more than anything. Look at all of the marketing materials with his face all over them. (a significant expense for the charity), and all of the travel expenses for him (I wonder if that G5 ever took him to give a paid speaking engagement using fuel paid for by LAF?). I am sure Mr. Armstrong cares about other people with cancer. There are cases of dogs reacting to their owners getting cancer, so you will have to excuse me if I fail to see how that is anything but ordinary.

I believe Lance started the LAF for his ego. I believe the LAF has used Lance's image to raise funds. I really don't care about if Lance cares or not because I'm not changing my opinion on him one way or another based on the charity. If the charity is in fact spending huge sums on Lance then it's fair to view the charity quite poorly for that. But if they are getting his image for free or for paltry sums, and are turning that into fundraising dollars... I don't see that as a problem. Again to the Gates Foundation... they are getting a ton of money in Microsoft stock. I dont' like Microsoft... but I really don't care about where the Gates Foundation gets their funding or who's name is on the charity. I care about what they DO.

Mr. Armstrong is a fraud. Mr. Armstrong's charity has become an extension of that fraud by his prostitution of it and cancer patients in his effort to cover his doping.

Send your money to another charity.

I agree he's a fraud. I don't send my money to them... I give charitiably to diabetes related charities, not cancer related ones (for very obvious and selfish reasons). But if I DID want to give to a charity supporting cancer survivors and helping them through the process of dealing with the issuues a cancer patient has to deal with... is there another option?

I don't CARE that Lance is trying to use his connection to the LAF to get leniency or cover up his doping charges. I think that makes him look bad and it lowers my already tepid opinion of him, but if the charity isn't what impacts my judgement of the charity itself. What would impact/has impacted that are:

1 - are they directly giving him large sums of money or in fact paying for non-charity related travel for him. If they are... that IS a black mark on the charity.

2 - the Haiti donation. While that was a horrible thing and I have no problem with PEOPLE directing contributions there... that's not what people donated to the LAF for.

3 - the apparent shift in focus from helping survivors to raising "awareness". While this isn't necessarily against there stated focus... I think this is just a bad decision.

My view of the LAF is NOT related to how Lance is trying to spin his charitable work. That impacts my view of LANCE. I can seperate the two.

I can seperate Bill Gates from his foundation. If he kills someone and tries to say he should get leniency because of charity work... I can despise him more without hating his charity more.

 

[BotanyBay]

Gates -vs- LAF.

Bill made his money a long time before the B&MGF began. They began that foundation as part of Bill's intention to give the vast majority of his wealth to charity. The foundation was started specifically to help figure out the best ways to do precisely that. They've done such a good job, Warren Buffet's already pledged the vast majority of his own fortune to the B&MGF.

Bill quit his career and became an advocate of charitable giving. He's been pestering the nation's wealthiest people to pledge at least half of their fortunes to charitable giving, and it's having a huge effect. Most of them are choosing to get on board.

In contrast, many celebrities start foundations more as a tax shelter and PR engine for themselves and their futures. When they don't have a red-carpet going to keep themselves relevant, they can always attend a foundation event to get press. I think Lance uses the LAF as an amplifier for his TDF celebrity status.

Just wait and see. As Lance retires from cycling, he already has a potential FT job as a cancer-dude. But that's not what we're going to see happen. The LAF will be used to keep him relevant for his next big ego-driven adventure.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree he's a fraud. I don't send my money to them... I give charitiably to diabetes related charities, not cancer related ones (for very obvious and selfish reasons). But if I DID want to give to a charity supporting cancer survivors and helping them through the process of dealing with the issuues a cancer patient has to deal with... is there another option?

http://www.cancercare.org/

If you would open your eyes, you would see that much of what you write is ignorant (not an insult. I mean only that you are not informed, and in no way am denoting stupidity). There are plenty of charities that help cancer patients. The one above is much higher rated than LAF. BONUS: They don't have a .com funneling off money to support an jet set lifestyle for their founder.

Sorry, but you really need to research if you want to keep doing this. I worked for years with a cancer charity, and I assure you that they didn't have anyone flying around the world to raise "cancer awareness." Like I said, I am sure there have to be 10 or so people who became aware of cancer who were not so already since LAF made that their mission.

 

[Anonymous]

"you sopranos,,,,you go to far"

Everyone has an opinion but your posted position takes it a bit far in my opinion. I can understand that it is shameful to influence people’s opinions by playing on a weakness or during weak times. These folks who choose to support Lance Armstrong and his fight against the witch hunter have opinions that they are freely expressing. I do not think they are coerced into any statements on the internet.

Noted...

 

[Anonymous]

Good post.

It appears to me Lance thinks he can do anything he wants AND his celebrity to be untouchable. Any and all criticism can be deflected by him & his entourage by the mere mention of "all the good work his charity does."

By design, this cuts off all debate. Until recently.

You will also note that is a favorite tactic used by the left...