Interesting piece on Livestrong

[kurtinsc]

Given this is my first post here ("first time caller, long time listener, Mr. King, How are you?") I figured I'd address something on this forums about which I have some knowledge: working with the Lance Armstrong Foundation.

First off, this IS Armstrong's and Stapleton's show. They are calling the shots no matter who is listed as the CEO. This shift to 'focus on raising cancer awareness' baffles me. It is so vague and unmeasurable that it could mean anything. Case in point, they claim:

"over the course of only one year, the global cancer community of LIVESTRONG Commitment Makers has:

* Directly affected over 1.5 million lives through services, programs and trainings
* Indirectly affected over 200 million lives through education and awareness messages"

at

http://livestrongblog.org/2010/12/14/an-update-on-the-global-campaign/

I have no idea what criteria they used and how they can make such claims with a straight face.


As for some of the 'highly compensated' LAF Staff:

Doug Ulman, is a great guy, and three time cancer survivor. He and his family have put their money where there mouth is in terms of supporting cancer organizations. I think he truly believes in helping people who have been diagnosed with cancer. Also, I do think he is more politician than activist at this point and, like the rest of the Foundation, has lost sight of the forest for the trees.
I view him as teh "Zaphod Beeblebrox" of the Foundation.

Betty S Otter-Nickerson, truly a smart and no nonsense person. They really needed her drive and focus. Sadly, for whatever reason (choosing to leave or forced out) she left the organization in Spring 2010.

I've had dealings with several other people listed, and their main qualifications for getting hired at the LAF seem to be: a) they had cancer, survived it, and gain some small bit of WWW fame in 'blogging" about it, or b) plain old nepotism.

Item "b" goes for Chris Brewer (someone who has let the whole "livestrong" meme" go completely to his ego). Once a level headed guy, now lost in the 'wave of cancer/Lance awareness' that pays his salary.

"College" a complete knee-biting spiteful walking ego, at least he was when involved with the Foundation.

They have a HQ staff of cute, mostly clueless former sorority girls in their mid-20s to mid-30s who spend most of their days in self-worship, navel-gazing, and receiving a very respectable salary.

It did not used to be this way. "Comeback 2.0" took an organization of semi-respectable goals and achievement and drove them right off the road of reality over the "cliffs of insanity".

I final response to Polish's earlier comment about donations to the LAF dropping in 2006. THAT was mostly because they did everything in their power to all but unintentionally KILL their major cycling/fundraising events. (Handed the events off to an unqualified third party organizer, distance themselves from participants and have the cyclists ride thru the slums of Philly, LA and Denver? Complete insanity, especially when Lance blew off his 2006 event in Philly to go hang out on the sidelines at the Texas/OSU football game with his 'bromance' Matthew McConaughey in Columbus, OH)

Jim... do you know anything about the jetfuel thing that's been thrown around?

Is the LAF (in your experience) doing unethical things with their money in terms of compensating Lance... or are they just a charity that seems (based on your story) to have once been a decent charity but is now becoming pretty ineffective?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Beware the troll...

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

We won't be insulted. After the the economic meltdown, everyone here has accepted that the country is hopelessly corrupt. Conflicts of interest are standard operating procedure.

So removal from Charity Board and public ridicule isn't the standard reaction then.....bummer - I always assumed that once all the conflict of interest stuff was understood publicly, especially the personal endorsement deals for Livestrong products, that would be the end of the uniballer worship.

 

[Barrus]

Beware the troll...

Is miloman in this thread again?

 

[kurtinsc]

So removal from Charity Board and public ridicule isn't the standard reaction then.....bummer - I always assumed that once all the conflict of interest stuff was understood publicly, especially the personal endorsement deals for Livestrong products, that would be the end of the uniballer worship.

That wouldn't do it.

If the end result of the Novitsky investigation results in very strong proof he doped while winning his tours... the fact he's lied about it for so long would take away a big chunk of his supporters.

But the more doubt left... the less support he loses and the more militant those who believe he was clean would become.

Business misdeeds... while they might cause him to go to jail, would do little to blunt his popularity. And something like having personal endorsement deals coincide with they charity deals really would barely register as business misdeeds in the public conciousness.

I'd guess the primary reaction would be more along the lines of: "So what? He started the charity... if he gets some extra cash while helping the charity get money from companies like Nike... more power to him."

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, but I think to put on a conference, with all the setup, planning meetings, contract signings and such, along with the speakers and panel members, it's reasonable to assume 100 TRIPS to Dublin would be paid for.

I don't think it's reasonable to assume people who were coming to speak paid there own way.

Again... I didn't go, and I don't know how many sessions they had... but the last 3 day conference I went to (a technical education conference) had 75 presenters, and another 100 employees of the hosting organization who weren't presenting there to help with other aspects of the conference.

If you want to suggest more realistic numbers for the big dublin conferences and the smaller events in Mexico, Italy, France, etc... by all means feel free. But the point is that most of these are transatlantic travel and one would assume some significant Livestrong presence was sent. It doesn't take that many flights to get to BIG expenses when doing that. 200 business class transatlantic flights = a million dollars. 650 economy class transatlantic flights = a million dollars. And for all I know they wrap up hotel and food expenses for employees on those trips in the general "travel" umbrella when reporting.


I'm NOT saying that's what happened. I have NO idea. As you've admitted, there's basically no way to tell where that money went. But you have to admit that doing that sort of thing DOES add significant travel cost, don't you?

I don't even think it's a particularly good idea to spend money on all these silly conferences. I just think the whole "they're spending a million dollars for Lance to fly around in a jet" is kind of ridiculous.

As for the cost... I just took what came up with google when I searched for "how much jet fuel to fly a G-5". It said 3000 pounds for the first hour and 2000 pounds for each hour in flight. I used the 2000 pound number. Forgive me if it was incorrect.

Again - you keep saying its "reasonable to assume" based on.....assumptions!

A quick search shows that Irish Cancer Society were doing a lot of the organizing at a local level for the Global Campaign in Dublin. Also there were 250 volunteers brought in to help with the summit - so few Livestrong personnel would have been needed to be flown in.

As for these other events in Mexico, Monaco, Italy etc - they appeared to involve LA meeting with a politician, so lots of talk and a photo oppurtunity.

 

[miloman]

Just for the record, I didn't start this thread, I never titled it "interesting piece on Livestrong," I simply responded to another post in another thread and a Mod moved everything over here and gave it a title. So, don't blame me for that. That being said, some interesting things have come to light. However, the bias here, as in most threads about Armstrong, is incredible. Without proof I am not about to buy into all the anti-Armstrong rhetoric until something is proved.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Is miloman in this thread again?

That was more in regard to kurtinsc's seemingly innocuous leading questions.

I think he may have proved my point already...

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think you are absolutely correct Glenn. Too many 'athlete fundraisers' do these things with the 'free trip'/'registration fee waiver' being much too important to them. These people are doing it for the wrong reasons and overall not really helping the charities in question in the big picture.
"Donate $395 more dollars and I get a free trip to X!", blah.

I also believe that many other people feel this way; but speak up about it, even on WWW forums, and you are labeled an 'evil hater, athletic purist snob who HATES these charities'.

Sure I've run many marathons, and pedaled hundreds of miles to raise money for NPOs. I've always paid my own way for all expenses and/or donated a VAST majority of the total monetary funds raised, out of my own pocket.

Jimbob you just reminded me about something I wanted to post before. Here in this part of Texas there is a multiple sclerosis ride from Houston to Austin every year. It is called the BP-MS150. We all probably have a friend or friends friend who is effected by MS, so I feel sympathetic to the cause. The problem I have is …..for example …here at my office these guys spend all year (year around) trying to fundraise within the company for the cyclist pledges. It is all a giant scam. They have asked me before why I never join the team. I have said it to them and do not mind giving my opinion about the ride. If I was to do the ride I would pay the full amount of pledged money from my pocket. But since I do not have the excess of money to do that I will just donate directly to the charity of my choice. (American Lung Association). I can only hope they put the money to good use and someone can make it another day because of my simple and small donation.

If I continue I will start to rant and end up more bitter towards the LAF.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Kudos to Dr. Mas, though.

There's a man with more patience than common sense (no insult implied).

Keep it up, buddy. You've chosen a tough row to hoe...

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

If I continue I will start to rant and end up more bitter towards the LAF.

Welcome to your soap box...

I think being bitter may be a prerequisite for this forum. At least it may help you find your muse and make your posts more interesting...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Precisely. The point of this was to make themselves immune from any and all accountability in the public eye. And it's serving its purpose right now as we speak. So if anyone tries to allege fraud or misrepresentation in regards to fund-raising, they can always go back and say "We never said we're about funding research". They can point to the lame PR stunt on the TDF final podium as an "awareness move that directly affected millions".

Clearly, the LAF is an organization that exists to hold events that raise money, so that they'll have the funds needed to hold more events that raise money (and so on):

That is exactly what I took when I did a search of the CVs of all the paid members - those that had experience with non-profits appeared to specialize in 'fundraising'.

Given this is my first post here
<snipped for brevity>

Thanks for that - it ties in with what I had heard about the personnel involved.
I had always heard that Doug was a great guy so I was always curious as to why he had let the LAF go in a different direction.

 

[D-Queued]

I tend to think that any charity doing things for "awareness" is a scam. ...

I respect your point, and agree with much of what you said. There are at least a couple of 'awarness' causes that made a difference, and that folks like Lance are trying to rip off. Terry Fox and Rick Hansen made a difference. Rather than jet fuel, they used their own blood and sweat to show up for an appearance.

I share your perspective on conflicts of interest in general, although I actually think there is a worse conflict of interest between Lance and LAF than you have listed.

Can I ask if your perspective on conflict of interest is an American one? ...

I think BroDeal already provided an eloquent response. Conflict of interest is arguably a laissez-faire.

On a charity board, it is a kiss of death, though, in terms of trying to reassure contributors. How can the message be of sincere charity when the spokesperson isn't sincere?

I don't think my view is particularly American, however. Even though there are some notorious corporate frauds, the US press and market analysts do help communicate a desired standard (e.g. corporate reporting, conflicts of interest, etc.). The legal profession makes it 'practice' and typically does a good job - or face disbarrment.

Wikipedia has an excellent section on CoI, including this 'conflict':

In fact, for many professionals, it is virtually impossible to avoid having conflicts of interest from time to time. A conflict of interest can, however, become a legal matter for example when an individual tries (and/or succeeds in) influencing the outcome of a decision, for personal benefit. A director or executive of a corporation will be subject to legal liability if a conflict of interest breaches his Duty of Loyalty.

Trying to deal with the unavoidable conflict(s) is why recusing from committees, boards, etc., during debate and decision-making is so frequently practiced.

I don't know about everyone else, but flying in a Gulfstream as opposed to coach starts to cross over the line towards personal benefit. When that is done in the name of charity - and for cancer nonethless - it is even more extreme.

Dave.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I don't know about everyone else, but flying in a Gulfstream as opposed to coach starts to cross over the line towards personal benefit. When that is done in the name of charity - and for cancer nonethless - it is even more extreme.

Dave.

Or even business-class... Mind you, with an ego that big and an entire pseudo-charity on your shoulders, one might actually need an entire plane to themselves.

That's a huge freaking head to have to haul around...

 

[D-Queued]

Or even business-class... Mind you, with an ego that big and an entire pseudo-charity on your shoulders, one might actually need an entire plane to themselves.

That's a huge freaking head to have to haul around...

Apparently the guy doesn't believe in miracles like himself. Otherwise, he would just teleport instantly to wherever anyone was trying to suppress cancer awareness.

Dave.

 

[BotanyBay]

Or even business-class... Mind you, with an ego that big and an entire pseudo-charity on your shoulders, one might actually need an entire plane to themselves.

That's a huge freaking head to have to haul around...

Sometimes you need a plane all to yourself when you need to train a bunch of new assistants that you'd just hired

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Apparently the guy doesn't believe in miracles like himself. Otherwise, he would just teleport instantly to wherever anyone was trying to suppress cancer awareness.

Dave.

That cartoon is perfect! Although you may want to watch your step... the yellow army may try to catch you on the copyright front.

'Awareness' is not for all...

 

[BroDeal]

Jimbob you just reminded me about something I wanted to post before. Here in this part of Texas there is a multiple sclerosis ride from Houston to Austin every year. It is called the BP-MS150. We all probably have a friend or friends friend who is effected by MS, so I feel sympathetic to the cause. The problem I have is …..for example …here at my office these guys spend all year (year around) trying to fundraise within the company for the cyclist pledges. It is all a giant scam. They have asked me before why I never join the team. I have said it to them and do not mind giving my opinion about the ride. If I was to do the ride I would pay the full amount of pledged money from my pocket. But since I do not have the excess of money to do that I will just donate directly to the charity of my choice. (American Lung Association). I can only hope they put the money to good use and someone can make it another day because of my simple and small donation.

If I continue I will start to rant and end up more bitter towards the LAF.

When I have done the MS150 in the past, I always paid out of my own pocket. It seems pretty lame to get people to donate so that you can do something for fun.

I am cynical about all these recreational rides that have allied themselves with charities over the last decade. I cannot help but think that organizers of a century are thinking, "Hey, we can jack the entry fee by ten dollars if we tell everyone we will give five dollars to charity X."

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

I'm not "slamming" them for doing the charitable work, but any of us "regular schmoes" that do such work have nothing "media-related" to gain from it.
That's a tear-jerking shot of White with the kid playing foosball. And you must ask yourself, what if the photographer had to go home, would he keep playing? I'm not saying that he wouldn't, but I'm willing to bet that he's got a foundation of his own.

I have no problem with celebrities pulling publicity stunts that enhance their public image and help charitable causes attract donations. I don't even mind if they disappear as soon as the camera goes. If everyone with the power to make a big difference with only a small effort actually did it, that would be a good thing.

What I do object to is when they double dip, and get paid appearance fees for attending the photo-op events that "regular schmoes" will assume they are donating their time to. When they misrepresent themselves as acting out of the goodness of their hearts, they get paid indirectly by getting popular support that leads to lucrative product endorsement and public speaking deals. Surely I'm not the only niaf who used to think celebs DONATED their time to the charities they founded in their own name?

 

[BotanyBay]

Surely I'm not the only niaf who used to think celebs DONATED their time to the charities they founded in their own name?

Apparently I'm just waking-up. Please don't give me more reasons to hate my fellow man ;-)

I figured he donated the time, but enjoyed free time that was pure luxury.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

That wouldn't do it.

If the end result of the Novitsky investigation results in very strong proof he doped while winning his tours... the fact he's lied about it for so long would take away a big chunk of his supporters.

But the more doubt left... the less support he loses and the more militant those who believe he was clean would become.

Business misdeeds... while they might cause him to go to jail, would do little to blunt his popularity. And something like having personal endorsement deals coincide with they charity deals really would barely register as business misdeeds in the public conciousness.

I'd guess the primary reaction would be more along the lines of: "So what? He started the charity... if he gets some extra cash while helping the charity get money from companies like Nike... more power to him."

Fascinating. I think that if he tried the same business/charity tricks in NZ and the public found out, he would be alternately lambasted and lampooned in the press. Following a NZ charities commission inquiry, a new dry and terminally scathing quip like "orchestrated litany of lies" would enter the NZ lexicon. By contrast, I don't think lying to cover sport doping would be taken as seriously.

Edit: D-Queued, the laws and practices you describe aren't so different to NZ, but the importance placed on conflicts of interest by "regular schmoes" seems to be higher. Perhaps there will be some kind of legal consequences, even if there aren't PR consequences. I guess it's too much to hope that the focus on Lances doping activities might direct a little media attention to the latest high-fashion celebrity charity rort.

 

[miloman]

When I have done the MS150 in the past, I always paid out of my own pocket. It seems pretty lame to get people to donate so that you can do something for fun.

I am cynical about all these recreational rides that have allied themselves with charities over the last decade. I cannot help but think that organizers of a century are thinking, "Hey, we can jack the entry fee by ten dollars if we tell everyone we will give five dollars to charity X."

I don’t think that you are getting the whole picture. I have had some experience with one kind of event, and let me share with you, how it works. Say there is a popular century event that sells out every year. The organizers will usually be contacted by xyz charity about the possibility of getting several entries into the event. The event organizers will agree to either give or sell a decided number of entries to the charity. Since there is a waiting list to participate in the event, there is a high demand for the spots the charity has. The charity in turn offers the spots to public at a set price with the addition of a fundraising goal included benefitting the charity. The participant either raises money for the charity -- however they decide-- or pays it themself. At the event, they are usually distinguished from other participants with clothes or something like that. The charity will usually provide support etc. for their participants. In brief, that is how it works.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I don’t think that you are getting the whole picture. I have had some experience with one kind of event, and let me share with you, how it works. Say there is a popular century event that sells out every year. The organizers will usually be contacted by xyz charity about the possibility of getting several entries into the event. The event organizers will agree to either give or sell a decided number of entries to the charity. Since there is a waiting list to participate in the event, there is a high demand for the spots the charity has. The charity in turn offers the spots to public at a set price with the addition of a fundraising goal included benefitting the charity. The participant either raises money for the charity -- however they decide-- or pays it themself. At the event, they are usually distinguished from other participants with clothes or something like that. The charity will usually provide support etc. for their participants. In brief, that is how it works.

Thanks for the explanation this is exactly why I do not like these types of "charity's".

 

[BotanyBay]

I always love entering bike races. Just last month I did the Tour-DAY-Tucson. Thank God for Aero bars, or that guy on the Kestrel might have smoked me.

 

[BroDeal]

Fascinating. I think that if he tried the same business/charity tricks in NZ and the public found out, he would be alternately lambasted and lampooned in the press. Following a NZ charities commission inquiry, a new dry and terminally scathing quip like "orchestrated litany of lies" would enter the NZ lexicon. By contrast, I don't think lying to cover sport doping would be taken as seriously.

If the media could find something that is easy to encapsulate in a sound bite, like Armstrong spending contributions on $500 bottles of wine, then there would be a scandal. That he is defrauding people with terminal diseases and their families would add to it considerably. But "conflict of interest" is a fuzzy term that most people won't take the time to figure out. It also has to be seen in light of people on Wall Street knowingly funneling billions of dollars to the crooks like Madoff while collecting hundreds of millions of dollars in fees, or executives making mega bonuses for bankrupting companies worth tens of billions by giving out loans that could never be repaid. In the overall scale of the criminal overclass, what Armstrong is doing is kids stuff.

I do think that if someone digs enough they will find all sorts of financial malfeasance at LAF. This is the guy who, despite making millions per year, cheated teammates out of a few thousands of dollars in prize money. It is hard to believe that he would not have saved himself money by expensing all sorts of things that he should not have.