Interesting piece on Livestrong

[Dr. Maserati]

Exactly what? “Exactly” that it is even more confusing? You think you are giving to a charity and they are profiting from you. At least when I give to a legitimate charity I get a receipt. Never got a receipt for blood indicating its value, have you? What appears fishy to you may not to me. They are seperate web sites. If I buy something from a charity, it recognizes the purchase as a partial donation. If they did that on the for profit Livestrong site, then they would have more to worry about than someone mistaking one for the other.

If I was giviing blood to Red Cross I am confident it will be used correctly, so I don't need a receipt.
If I was giving blood to Livestrong it probably would be added to Lances stash in Girona.

 

[miloman]

If I was giviing blood to Red Cross I am confident it will be used correctly, so I don't need a receipt.If I was giving blood to Livestrong it probably would be added to Lances stash in Girona.

Really, you need to do a little research!

 

[BotanyBay]

So, you resent his wealth then? The same rules can apply to you if and when you do what he does. Do you pay taxes? Do you look for every possible tax break? It is you right to legally pay as little as possible. Why would he be any different?

I don't have a bogus business set-up to allow me to keep "my" money all tucked away while using the tax-exempt status of the "foundation" to allow me to operate in a fully tax-free manner for most of my activities of daily living.

I resent him using his fame to "power" the foundation that allows this to happen. His "wealth" is tucked-away in a vault in Luxembourg. The LAF pays for his daily operations.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Really, you need to do a little research!

Actually I don't - because I don't give blood to the Red Cross, I give it to our local blood bank.

But you need to a lot of research on the LAF, Livestrong and how Lance (& his buddies at CSE) profit directly from the Livestrong name.

 

[Polish]

Wait, let me get this straight...
LAF gets 50% of the Blue Line?
And Lance only gets 42.5%?

That hardly seems fair.

 

[Oldman]

Actually I don't - because I don't give blood to the Red Cross, I give it to our local blood bank.

But you need to a lot of research on the LAF, Livestrong and how Lance (& his buddies at CSE) profit directly from the Livestrong name.

Milo knows enough to determine the difference. He still feigns surprise that the USPS investigation is tied to current doping practices and doubts it would improve cycling's lot today. I guess if it didn't happen today it's not relevant.

 

[red_flanders]

Right, but the model doesn't work without the avaricious, or selfish, for profit side. Mind you, I'm not defending it, just explaining it.

I know! Just agreeing with ya.

 

[miloman]

Actually I don't - because I don't give blood to the Red Cross, I give it to our local blood bank.

But you need to a lot of research on the LAF, Livestrong and how Lance (& his buddies at CSE) profit directly from the Livestrong name.

LAF is unique in that it has a superstar founder and an on call celebrity. Look into charities fundraisers more closely. Take for example a celebrity golf tournament. How do you generate interest in the event? You get celebrities. How do you get all those celebrities to one place at one time? They fly. Where do you think they stay when they are in town, the Motel 6? No, they stay at the best hotel or resort in town? Do they eat at Burger King? Nope they eat the same food that donors spend $500 to $1000 a plate for. So who covers all these expenses? The charity, of course. Why would they spend so much money for celebrities? Simple, celebrities will pay for themselves in that they generate interest and increase donor dollars. Before this mess, how much do you think a charity would have been willing to pay to have Lance at their event? What is his fee on the lecture circuit? I have seen reports that it is 6 figures. For charities, the ideal mark is for fundraising expenses not to exceed 10 – 20%. That combined with administrative costs should not exceed 50%. From what I have read, LAF meets those criteria. So harsh him because you don’t like him and hate him for being a doper, but from what I have read, the charity more than meets the minimum requirements.

 

[JRTinMA]

What? You wrote



I was showing that there are indeed targets ads all over the site

Right but Dr. M and I had already discussed the ads captain slow. Read a little before you comment, its not a normal requirement of a receptionist but expand your horizons.

 

[Anonymous]

LAF is unique in that it has a superstar founder and an on call celebrity. Look into charities fundraisers more closely. Take for example a celebrity golf tournament. How do you generate interest in the event? You get celebrities. How do you get all those celebrities to one place at one time? They fly. Where do you think they stay when they are in town, the Motel 6? No, they stay at the best hotel or resort in town? Do they eat at Burger King? Nope they eat the same food that donors spend $500 to $1000 a plate for. So who covers all these expenses? The charity, of course. Why would they spend so much money for celebrities? Simple, celebrities will pay for themselves in that they generate interest and increase donor dollars. Before this mess, how much do you think a charity would have been willing to pay to have Lance at their event? What is his fee on the lecture circuit? I have seen reports that it is 6 figures. For charities, the ideal mark is for fundraising expenses not to exceed 10 – 20%. That combined with administrative costs should not exceed 50%. From what I have read, LAF meets those criteria. So harsh him because you don’t like him and hate him for being a doper, but from what I have read, the charity more than meets the minimum requirements.

Yeah. LA was neither of those things when LAF was founded.


Minimum Requirements is an interesting term when used regarding anything LA is involved with.

 

[miloman]

Yeah. LA was neither of those things when LAF was founded.
Minimum Requirements is an interesting term when used regarding anything LA is involved with.

Not to the extent that he became, but don't forget, he won some very important races and was the youngest ever world champion. Still pretty impressive stuff!

 

[runninboy]

Go to an oncology office or cancer resource center and take a look around and tell me what you see.

this really gets my blood boiling, I have been to many oncologists offices in large cities, small towns as several members of my family slowly passed. NOTHING from Livestrong, no support, no awareness, no materials. My father spent almost a decade getting treatment not once in all those years did i ever see anything from Livestrong. Not even Lances friggin book. It takes hours to get a chemo drip, i read every piece of paper as i kept my father company.
It would have been nice if they had some encouraging reading material.

this is why i am ticked off, i would estimate i have been in dozens of offices, as well as major hospitals, all for cancer treatment and i think
"where exactly does all this money to Livestrong go?" Millions and they can't even hang up a poster with a phone number and a message like"you are not alone?"
friggin *******!

 

[D-Queued]

LAF is unique in that it has a superstar founder and an on call celebrity. Look into charities fundraisers more closely. ... from what I have read, the charity more than meets the minimum requirements.

Thought this was/has been hashed out in other threads?

I agree with you. Doing a great job of gathering conflict of interest attention while just clearing those minimum requirements. If this is a race, it looks a bit like a race to the bottom doesn't it?

What charity fundraisers were you looking at? What celebrities? Don't these celebrities know it is a charity? Oh, sorry, the celebrity who doesn't get it is the same guy with his name on the charity.

Was Paul Newman a celebrity? Did he make his charity pay him appearance fees?

If you want to win this argument, then demonstrate that Lance is setting a higher standard than did Paul Newman. Unless you want to argue that Paul Newman was not a celebrity.

Otherwise, give it a rest.

"According to news sources, Newman has donated over $120 million to his Foundation between 2005 and 2006".

How much has Lance donated? How much has Lance received for his appearances?

Donations from Paul Newman/Newman's Own were routinely made to charities with four star ratings at Charity Navigator.

Why doesn't Livestrong have a four star rating?

Dave.

 

[thehog]

this really gets my blood boiling, I have been to many oncologists offices in large cities, small towns as several members of my family slowly passed. NOTHING from Livestrong, no support, no awareness, no materials. My father spent almost a decade getting treatment not once in all those years did i ever see anything from Livestrong. Not even Lances friggin book. It takes hours to get a chemo drip, i read every piece of paper as i kept my father company.
It would have been nice if they had some encouraging reading material.

this is why i am ticked off, i would estimate i have been in dozens of offices, as well as major hospitals, all for cancer treatment and i think
"where exactly does all this money to Livestrong go?" Millions and they can't even hang up a poster with a phone number and a message like"you are not alone?"
friggin *******!

I had the same experience in 3 separate cases of cancer. Never saw anything related to LAF. But when shopping at Macey's in the same year I did see a lot of Nike's 10/2 range with Livestrong labels.

 

[Ecowarrior18]

I don't know if this has been seen by the Clinic, if it has apologies.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/150/can-livestrong-survive-lance.html

My thoughts are that this is the early plays towards a seperation of Lance the man and the Livestrong brand.

Interesting comment at the bottom about the tangled relationship with livestrong.org/livestrong.com and Lances financial rewards etc.

Again, feel free to delete this thread if it is duplicated.

 

[thehog]

It's around the 5th time it's been posted and discussed ad nauseam.

Do you think anyone on this forum would miss discussing advertising trash like this?

Well done.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This is comedy at its finest - the below is in answer to my comment which you even highlighted:
"But you need to a lot of research on the LAF, Livestrong and how Lance (& his buddies at CSE) profit directly from the Livestrong name'.

LAF is unique in that it has a superstar founder and an on call celebrity. Look into charities fundraisers more closely.

Unique you say? Well don't tell everyone this unique seeling point or it might tip off other charities like Michael J.Fox, Paul Newman etc.

Take for example a celebrity golf tournament. How do you generate interest in the event? You get celebrities. How do you get all those celebrities to one place at one time? They fly. Where do you think they stay when they are in town, the Motel 6? No, they stay at the best hotel or resort in town? Do they eat at Burger King? Nope they eat the same food that donors spend $500 to $1000 a plate for. So who covers all these expenses? The charity, of course. Why would they spend so much money for celebrities? Simple, celebrities will pay for themselves in that they generate interest and increase donor dollars. Before this mess, how much do you think a charity would have been willing to pay to have Lance at their event? What is his fee on the lecture circuit? I have seen reports that it is 6 figures. For charities, the ideal mark is for fundraising expenses not to exceed 10 – 20%. That combined with administrative costs should not exceed 50%. From what I have read, LAF meets those criteria. So harsh him because you don’t like him and hate him for being a doper, but from what I have read, the charity more than meets the minimum requirements.

If we removed your 'golf tournament" and put in a bike event? Maybe call it the 'Ride for Roses' or somesuch? No, I don't expect Eddy or Miguel to be given a blanket and some food coupons and dropped of at the nearest overpass.

But your above post still doesn't address the key point - indeed its unique point - why have a 'for profit' site that LA & his buddies profit from?

 

[Barrus]

Really, you need to do a little research!

I promised I would stay out of it, but this cannot stand.

The red cross does more good each year than the LAf will ever do

 

[JRTinMA]

I promised I would stay out of it, but this cannot stand.

The red cross does more good each year than the LAf will ever do

Charity Navigator gives them the same rating. Most of the so called informed in the clinic would say LAF is not good. You know, jet fuel blah blah blah.

 

[Race Radio]

Not to the extent that he became, but don't forget, he won some very important races and was the youngest ever world champion. Still pretty impressive stuff!

No, he wasn't....not even the 2nd youngest. Yet another lie spread by the Armstrong myth machine and eagerly repeated by his fans.

Next you will tell he is the most tested athlete ever......

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Charity Navigator gives them the same rating. Most of the so called informed in the clinic would say LAF is not good. You know, jet fuel blah blah blah.

Actually I don't believe I have read anyone say LAF is "no good" - but it has been said that the LAF absorbs a lot of LA's personal expenses.

Sure CharityNavigator give them the same 3 star rating - but a closer look between the two show the American Red Cross scored much higher.

But it does not take in to account the 'for-profit' website from which LA profits.
However the President of CharityNavigator did say:

"This blurs the lines between the foundation and its charitable mission, and the personal gain of its founder. It's mixing two purposes in a way that smells of a conflict of interest. The most precious thing a charitable organization has is the public's trust, and things like this put a chink in that.''

 

[JRTinMA]

Actually I don't believe I have read anyone say LAF is "no good" - but it has been said that the LAF absorbs a lot of LA's personal expenses.


Sure CharityNavigator give them the same 3 star rating - but a closer look between the two show the American Red Cross scored much higher.

But it does not take in to account the 'for-profit' website from which LA profits.
However the President of CharityNavigator did say:

To the bold. Start by reading this thread, plenty of negative comments right here and I have seen many stating it does no good at all. You spend a lot of time here so I'm sure you recall a thread where Aussie Goddess defended her experience with the foundation. If I recall that thread offered many negative opinions. In this thread alone you will find two typical posts. The "what about me" posts. What has LAF ever done for me. In one a poster describes their experience in oncology and never seeing a pamphlet or poster. Two individuals who presumably know how to find LAF for F's sake. Yet there obvious indolence had them expecting a personal invitation to all 28MM cancer patients, or probably just to them individually. If this were the case I'm sure they would be on here bemoaning the expense of printing such garbage and self promotion.

Regarding charity ratings 3 = 3.

To your last point on the sites. I don't believe this is really up for debate any longer. I already agreed with you that this naming issue appears deceitful.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

To the bold. Start by reading this thread, plenty of negative comments right here and I have seen many stating it does no good at all. You spend a lot of time here so I'm sure you recall a thread where Aussie Goddess defended her experience with the foundation. If I recall that thread offered many negative opinions. In this thread alone you will find two typical posts. The "what about me" posts. What has LAF ever done for me. In one a poster describes their experience in oncology and never seeing a pamphlet or poster. Two individuals who presumably know how to find LAF for F's sake. Yet there obvious indolence had them expecting a personal invitation to all 28MM cancer patients, or probably just to them individually. If this were the case I'm sure they would be on here bemoaning the expense of printing such garbage and self promotion.

Regarding charity ratings 3 = 3.

To your last point on the sites. I don't believe this is really up for debate any longer. I already agreed with you that this naming issue appears deceitful.

This is what you wrote:
"Most of the so called informed in the clinic would say LAF is not good".

I asked who said it was "not good" - now you have offered some have made negative comments about the LAF (which I don't believe you even challenged).

I'm having a coffee at the moment - it could have done with a little more sugar, maybe a little hotter - it doesn't mean it is "not good".

 

[jmax22]

My favorite quote from the article: "I don't like people", Amrstrong tells me.

Which is ok I guess. People don't like him either.

 

[JRTinMA]

This is what you wrote:
"Most of the so called informed in the clinic would say LAF is not good".

I asked who said it was "not good" - now you have offered some have made negative comments about the LAF (which I don't believe you even challenged).

I'm having a coffee at the moment - it could have done with a little more sugar, maybe a little hotter - it doesn't mean it is "not good".

I didn't include you in the so called informed but I will add your name if you like. I'm not sure what the hell you are getting at in point two, again two examples equals two examples, you + maff = struggle. To the coffee issues, give up coffee and get one of these, you will not be disappointed. Thank me later doc.

http://www.nespresso.com