• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

LA's Financial Interests

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Tubeless said:
What stuff have I made up to support my argument? I've tried to be careful and only quote stuff you can verify - and provided links to prove that. In contrast, I suspect you made up your claim above that LAF helps cancer patients when they run into disputes with their insurance companies. There's no mention of this type of service on the LAF web site - and it would be rather strange if they did try to get into the middle of a private health insurance claim. That's business for the state attorney's office.

It just so happens that Lance Armstrong is under a microscope right now for having potentially skirted with the law in some of his dealings. LAF is his non-profit charity that's openly mixed with his commercial sponsorships. It would be warranted for the FEDs to have a look whether LAF is operating under the letter and spirit of the IRS guideline that governs these 501(c)(3) type organizations.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html



The angle of a claim here is that LAF stands to promote the LIVESTRONG brand which its founder then uses to sign up commercial sponsorships for his own benefit - while allowing the advertiser to use the foundation's trademark. A separate payment is made to the foundation for licensing the trademark and another to Lance Armstrong for appearing as the spokesperson. Tell me how these two are not connected and how the spirit of the IRS rule is not breached?

+7k

into the crucible and under the microscope?

Well said! & supported.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
Tubeless said:
What stuff have I made up to support my argument? I've tried to be careful and only quote stuff you can verify - and provided links to prove that. In contrast, I suspect you made up your claim above that LAF helps cancer patients when they run into disputes with their insurance companies. There's no mention of this type of service on the LAF web site - and it would be rather strange if they did try to get into the middle of a private health insurance claim. That's business for the state attorney's office.

It just so happens that Lance Armstrong is under a microscope right now for having potentially skirted with the law in some of his dealings. LAF is his non-profit charity that's openly mixed with his commercial sponsorships. It would be warranted for the FEDs to have a look whether LAF is operating under the letter and spirit of the IRS guideline that governs these 501(c)(3) type organizations.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html



The angle of a claim here is that LAF stands to promote the LIVESTRONG brand which its founder then uses to sign up commercial sponsorships for his own benefit - while allowing the advertiser to use the foundation's trademark. A separate payment is made to the foundation for licensing the trademark and another to Lance Armstrong for appearing as the spokesperson. Tell me how these two are not connected and how the spirit of the IRS rule is not breached?

You're still trying to manufacture some sort of conspiracy between the LAF and Lance for him to profit... and it frankly doesn't exist. There's no investigation on this issue. Nobody is discussing taking the LAF's charity status away. Everything is above board.

You are acting like the people who claim Obama is Kenyan. They have all sorts of evidence... but it's all stupid because HE HAS A US BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

The LAF HAS 501(c)3 STATUS. It's not a new charity. There's simply nothing to see here outside of your imagination.


That doesn't mean they are a great charity. Attack their programs all you want. But please quit manufacturing claims of conspiracies. It's just annoying. YOU think there's something shaky there... but without someone actually doing some kind of investigation you're just making up crackpot theories based on third hand evidence... just like those who think the CIA created AIDS.


Oh and as for "making stuff up"... if you actually take the time to look at the "get help/find one on one support" section of the LAF site... you'd see this:

http://www.livestrong.org/Get-Help/Get-One-On-One-Support

"Financial, Insurance and Job Concerns:
Accessing medical treatments and medical devices
Finding assistance for uninsured or underinsured
Finding assistance with insurance denials/appeals
Handling debt and financial management issues as they pertain to a cancer diagnosis
Learning about resources for financial assistance
Handling employment discrimination/retention issues
Applying for federal/state programs such as Medicaid, Social Security, Disability, etc."

And of course there's my friend who has testicular cancer and used that help (along with their help with fertility issues)... but I'm guessing you'd assume I made him up too.


You people just need to stop. I really don't like Jerry Lewis... but I don't go around slamming the MDA because of that. Perhaps you should restrict your hatred of Lance to Lance rather then attacking a charity just because he is connected with it.

Attack it for other reasons if you want... just like if I see something bad about the MDA I might attack them. But don't just go all attack dog because you don't like that Lance doped up and won 7 tours.
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
kurtinsc said:
You're still trying to manufacture some sort of conspiracy between the LAF and Lance for him to profit... and it frankly doesn't exist. There's no investigation on this issue. Nobody is discussing taking the LAF's charity status away. Everything is above board.

You are acting like the people who claim Obama is Kenyan. They have all sorts of evidence... but it's all stupid because HE HAS A US BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

The LAF HAS 501(c)3 STATUS. It's not a new charity. There's simply nothing to see here outside of your imagination.

That doesn't mean they are a great charity. Attack their programs all you want. But please quit manufacturing claims of conspiracies. It's just annoying. YOU think there's something shaky there... but without someone actually doing some kind of investigation you're just making up crackpot theories based on third hand evidence... just like those who think the CIA created AIDS.

Oh and as for "making stuff up"... if you actually take the time to look at the "get help/find one on one support" section of the LAF site... you'd see this:

http://www.livestrong.org/Get-Help/Get-One-On-One-Support

"Financial, Insurance and Job Concerns:
Accessing medical treatments and medical devices
Finding assistance for uninsured or underinsured
Finding assistance with insurance denials/appeals
Handling debt and financial management issues as they pertain to a cancer diagnosis
Learning about resources for financial assistance
Handling employment discrimination/retention issues
Applying for federal/state programs such as Medicaid, Social Security, Disability, etc."

And of course there's my friend who has testicular cancer and used that help (along with their help with fertility issues)... but I'm guessing you'd assume I made him up too.

You people just need to stop. I really don't like Jerry Lewis... but I don't go around slamming the MDA because of that. Perhaps you should restrict your hatred of Lance to Lance rather then attacking a charity just because he is connected with it.

Attack it for other reasons if you want... just like if I see something bad about the MDA I might attack them. But don't just go all attack dog because you don't like that Lance doped up and won 7 tours.

I would not call any of this a conspiracy - simply rather open skirting of the IRS rules, same way Lance has done in all his dealings, whether "donating" money to the UCI, or "encouraging" his associates to testify in a particular way under oath.

But I do take objection to your view that all is well with LAF and Lance is not deliberately using the foundation to advance his own objectives, whether trying to create an aura of cover for his indiscretions, or make himself more marketable as a commercial spokesperson. For example, you seem to believe that:

- there's nothing untoward about saying "cancer" in every other sentence when Lance defends himself against Landis' allegations?

- the RadioShack team show on the last day of TdF was done purely for reasons that Lance & his team care about cancer patients?

- it's pure coincidence that Nike would sponsor an ad where Lance denies using dope with images of sick cancer patients in the background, trying to shame people from criticizing him?

- Lance's comback 2.0 was all about raising awareness for cancer?

- his foundation exists solely for the purpose of giving back to the community, as fortunate as he's been to survive cancer himself?

There's an obvious personal commercial connection between LAF and LA. There is a "routine" IRS investigation already under way, disclosed in LAF's own annual report. This charity is unlike any other I have come across. Fooling folks with lies to give so that the foundation principal can enrich himself even more.

Tasteless.