Kennf1 said:
Although it may sound cynical, an athlete with a compelling human interest story is big business, and creates jobs and opportunities for a lot of people. There are hundreds of people involved in creating a marketing brand, targeting fundraising efforts, arranging meetings with politicians, arranging public speaking events, etc.
Ding ding ding ^^winner^^
Lance Armstrong may have had the original vision, but he also had the good sense to bring onboard a number of key advisors and personnel who have, over the years, worked together to raise LAF to a different level than most athlete/celebrity-founded charities will ever attain. The marketing, cross-promotion, sponsorships, etc. that his team has put together is very typical of large "cause" charities --- anyone been noticing all the pink "Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure" gear the NFL players, coaches and refs have been sporting this season? Anyone buy "Newman's Own" spaghetti sauce recently? Those are just a couple of examples. The fundraising field is full of them.
There is nothing wrong with raising awareness. As someone pointed out above, "awareness" in and of itself won't cure cancer, but it may well cause promising young researchers to enter the field or lead to increased funding from larger sources. Watching LA come out of retirement and return to cycling at his age may well inspire others to lead healthier lifestyles, thus lowering the incidence of cancer. I'm sure there are other examples, but you get the idea.
LA and the people advising him are smart enough to realize that LA's "competitive (marketing) advantage" lies in his personal cancer story and his cycling accomplishments. Hate the hype all you want, but it's a very calculated (and rather brilliant, IMO) strategy that was undoubtedly developed by a lot of people other than LA himself.
Yet, the strategy depends on LA's active involvement. He is the "face" of the cause. Given that, and considering the amount of travel, etc. he puts in on a weekly basis, I have no problem with LA drawing a salary or having an equity stake in the for-profit Livestrong merchandizing wing. But I seriously doubt that's where he makes most of his $$ from. Rather, I'd be willing to bet he makes a lot more through endorsements and shrewd investments or partnerships (like the recent commercial real estate project, which may or may not have actually required LA to put up a large monetary stake -- often, those types of deals look for a "face" that they can then use to convince others to invest).
So, continue to hate him as a cyclist, just please leave the silly "he's milking donors for his own benefit" argument alone. I'm sure you all have plenty of other reasons.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram