Livestrong did you know ...

[Eva Maria]

Still not seeing what pays regarding the .com effort. Please dig a little deeper with educating me. I am very impressionable and curious.

Have you ever heard of advertising?

Take a quick look at the .com. Varian Medical Systems, FRS, Nissan, all are advertising....how do you think Cyclingnews or any other website makes money?

 

[ggusta]

Major motion pictures routinely show an operating loss. Even those mega-billion dollar movies often show a loss against expenses. I have no doubt a charity could easily abuse the system.

You make quite an assertion that the Livestrong organization does just this. Can you provide more detail and examples?

Can you provide details of your allegations above?

I have paid enough for bookkeepers and accountants in my life to know how the world of accounting works.

If they AREN'T doing it, they are probably incompetent. I would expect that many foundations execs have forgotten more bookkeeping schemes than I have ever known.

 

[scribe]

Have you ever heard of advertising?

Take a quick look at the .com. Varian Medical Systems, FRS, Nissan, all are advertising....how do you think Cyclingnews or any other website makes money?

It doesn't pay what it used to, that I DO know. In some cases, it isn't even enough to cover the bandwidth fees with most online ventures. So, before I am willing to go along with your line of thinking, I'd like more information tying Armstrong's personal finances with Livestrong.

 

[scribe]

Can you provide details of your allegations above?

I have paid enough for bookkeepers and accountants in my life to know how the world of accounting works.

If they AREN'T doing it, they are probably incompetent. I would expect that many foundations execs have forgotten more bookkeeping schemes than I have ever known.

You seriously want proof that movies routinely operate at a loss? I'll work on that while you work on proving that Living LARGE AND STRONG abuse their charitable funds. I would honestly like to know if they are up to no good and need some proof.

 

[Eva Maria]

Link please

It was kept quite for a while, until someone in Rann's government leaked it

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/02/12/lance-armstrong-3-million-and-the-silence-of-the-rann/

Armstrong dodged the question for most of the week he finally had to come clean

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/sports/othersports/19armstrong.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

"Armstrong did not specify the amount of his fee but said Saturday that, contrary to what had been reported here last week, he was not donating the fee to his foundation but treating it as income, the same way he has his other speaking and appearance fees since retirement".

 

[scribe]

Can you provide details of your allegations above?

I have paid enough for bookkeepers and accountants in my life to know how the world of accounting works.

If they AREN'T doing it, they are probably incompetent. I would expect that many foundations execs have forgotten more bookkeeping schemes than I have ever known.

Here is one minor example. http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6024677.ece

Residuals on profit used to be one of the oldest tricks in the book for hooking talent for next to nothing. No one with an agent has fallen for that one for quite some time.

 

[yourwelcome]

Lastly, those of you took econ in high school or college may remember the term 'opportunity cost'.

Well, looking at opportunity cost - if LA instead kicked back after his career or spent his energy on a self-named bike company like some other equally famous ex-pros, would the net result be more or less money available to cancer research and prevention?

My bet is that even if with the cross promotion & salaries etc, there's still a net benefit to the equation. I doubt that the discretionary income spent on those 'cool' wristbands and jerseys etcetera would otherwise have been spent more wisely on anonymous donations direct to research, prevention or palliative care.

In that case flaming LA over making money out of Livestrong is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. People enriching themselves out of charity work is pretty well par for the course and complaining about it is like ranting at the weather - instead it might be better to hold your nose and keep in mind the end result.

 

[scribe]

It was kept quite for a while, until someone in Rann's government leaked it

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/02/12/lance-armstrong-3-million-and-the-silence-of-the-rann/

Armstrong dodged the question for most of the week he finally had to come clean

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/sports/othersports/19armstrong.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

"Armstrong did not specify the amount of his fee but said Saturday that, contrary to what had been reported here last week, he was not donating the fee to his foundation but treating it as income, the same way he has his other speaking and appearance fees since retirement".

I am guessing you don't see a difference in Armstrong as a cyclist earning fees, salary, and endorsements vs an Armstrong trying to leverage his personal achievements as a tie in to charitable organization to promote cancer awareness.

 

[Eva Maria]

It doesn't pay what it used to, that I DO know. In some cases, it isn't even enough to cover the bandwidth fees with most online ventures. So, before I am willing to go along with your line of thinking, I'd like more information tying Armstrong's personal finances with Livestrong.

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

Armstrong and Demand Media own Livestrong.com. Posting exclusive video on the site drives hundreds of thousands of unique visitors to his site. This enables them to make money on ads and click thrus. Besides his spam history Rosenblatt has made millions from similar ventures.

Do you really think the .com is just a fun hobby for Armstrong?

 

[Publicus]

Still not seeing what pays regarding the .com effort. Please dig a little deeper with educating me. I am very impressionable and curious.

The difficulty in answering your questions with any certainty is that the ownership structure of Livestrong.com is a bit murky. What I've been able to piece together so far is that LAF owns the exclusive trademarks to the Livestrong name and has registered its use BROADLY (UPTO site). Livestrong.com is also owned by LAF, but it has given an exclusive, perpetual license to Demand Media, Inc. LAF and Lance Armstrong are shareholders in Demand Media, which is a privately held institution.

This whole thread got started because the Livestrong.com website says that Livestrong.com is a for-profit business, but Livestrong.org is not. The reality, from what I can piece together is the more accurate statement is that Livestrong.com is the licensed domain name of Demand Media, Inc., a for-profit company that is in owned, in part, by LAF and Lance Armstrong.

LAF's financial statements for 2008 are not available yet (though it's annual report is). It's 2007 financials indicate that it buries the revenues generated from the licensing arrangements in its contributions, gifts revenue bucket, since it has pretty anemic investment/dividend income and is showing no other income (they are not required to file a list of the donors with their Form 990). Moreover, Lance Armstrong's personal interest in Demand Media and any funds he receives from Nike for the licensing rights, etc associated with Livestrong (he sold the name Livestrong to LAF in 2005, which probably pays him a royalty stream--if he was smart) are not going to be filed publicly--which really is the link between the Livestrong.com, LAF and Lance Armstrong profiting from both.

Long story short, there really is no way to answer your question unless we can depose Lance Armstrong and get a forensic accountant to go through his books.

 

[Eva Maria]

I am guessing you don't see a difference in Armstrong as a cyclist earning fees, salary, and endorsements vs an Armstrong trying to leverage his personal achievements as a tie in to charitable organization to promote cancer awareness.

I am guessing you do not see the conflict with Armstrong for weeks letting the public think that the money was going to LAF when it was not. Saying he was going to Australia to spread his cancer message...when he was really going to collect his $1,000,000 check.

 

[scribe]

I am guessing you do not see the conflict with Armstrong for weeks letting the public think that the money was going to LAF when it was not. Saying he was going to Australia to spread his cancer message...when he was really going to collect his $1,000,000 check.

No I don't. I don't read these sorts of things between the lines. I understand that his charitable foundation is separate from his cycling achievements and ambitions. But I can understand how someone could be easily confused by the two.

 

[scribe]

The difficulty in answering your questions with any certainty is that the ownership structure of Livestrong.com is a bit murky. What I've been able to piece together so far is that LAF owns the exclusive trademarks to the Livestrong name and has registered its use BROADLY (UPTO site). Livestrong.com is also owned by LAF, but it has given an exclusive, perpetual license to Demand Media, Inc. LAF and Lance Armstrong are shareholders in Demand Media, which is a privately held institution.

This whole thread got started because the Livestrong.com website says that Livestrong.com is a for-profit business, but Livestrong.org is not. The reality, from what I can piece together is the more accurate statement is that Livestrong.com is the licensed domain name of Demand Media, Inc., a for-profit company that is in owned, in part, by LAF and Lance Armstrong.

LAF's financial statements for 2008 are not available yet (though it's annual report is). It's 2007 financials indicate that it buries the revenues generated from the licensing arrangements in its contributions, gifts revenue bucket, since it has pretty anemic investment/dividend income and is showing no other income (they are not required to file a list of the donors with their Form 990). Moreover, Lance Armstrong's personal interest in Demand Media and any funds he receives from Nike for the licensing rights, etc associated with Livestrong (he sold the name Livestrong to LAF in 2005, which probably pays him a royalty stream--if he was smart) are not going to be filed publicly--which really is the link between the Livestrong.com, LAF and Lance Armstrong profiting from both.

Long story short, there really is no way to answer your question unless we can depose Lance Armstrong and get a forensic accountant to go through his books.

You understand that a lot of charitable organizations associated with a single individual might be just as understandably complex. There is more than one way to do it, but the fundamentals are the same for me.

I happen to be with several of you who are dubious. I absolutely do not think Lance Armstrong should be the beneficiary of any of his charitable organization's funds, outside of reasonable reimbursement for expenses incurred that are directly associated with the administration of the foundation. Any personal profit undermines the purpose of the charity.

 

[Eva Maria]

No I don't. I don't read these sorts of things between the lines. I understand that his charitable foundation is separate from his cycling achievements and ambitions. But I can understand how someone could be easily confused by the two.

You really see no conflict? T

elling everyone Italy and TDU are "To Raise Cancer Awareness" and then collecting $3,000,000 to show up? Telling everyone he was not going to be paid a wage for his comeback, that it all was about cancer awareness..... then taking $3,000,000? Even the casual observer can see the hypocrisy.

 

[runninboy]

You really see no conflict? T

elling everyone Italy and TDU are "To Raise Cancer Awareness" and then collecting $3,000,000 to show up? Telling everyone he was not going to be paid a wage for his comeback, that it all was about cancer awareness..... then taking $3,000,000? Even the casual observer can see the hypocrisy.

I usually agree with you and I am not a big Armstrong supporter but charities & non profits spend alot of money. Its like politics alot of money changes hands and does not always go where people think it should.
I was involved with a "non profit" 25 years ago. They were constantly hitting people up for money, the president of the thing had to pay himself a huge salary AND sub contract to his family business to the tune of 7 million dollars in 1985. Why? Otherwise they would no longer be a non profit. I cant comment on Lances financials because i dont know enough about them, as some one else mentioned it is not all public record.
I don't like Lance but this kind of thing is pretty much business as usual for non profits

 

[tubularglue]

Sunday, January 27, 2008
PC: Lance Armstrong Takes “Significant” Stake in Demand Media; Launching Wellness Site Together

http://techstartups.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html




"Demand Media, the heavily capitalized Santa Monica-based online domain monetization and media company, has made an interesting turn: it has tied up with cycling legend and cancer survivor Lance Armstrong and his foundation, to launch a health-and-wellness site LiveStrong.com. As a result of this deal, Armstrong and his Lance Armstrong Foundation will take a “significant” equity stake in Demand Media, though the size of the stake was not disclosed. The site will launch in beta next quarter.
Demand Media has raised about $320 million from investors including Oak Investment Partners and Goldman Sachs, and according to WSJ was valued at $1 billion last year when the last investment round happened. The company has about $150 million in annual revenue and operates about 60 sites, besides its other domain activities.
“Live strong” is Armstrong’s personal mantra as a cancer survivor, and his foundation believes that launching a for-profit site would increase awareness about the foundation and promote its core mission of helping people with cancer. Demand Media will provide the technology and social media features and will keep the ad revenue generated by the commercial site; CEO Richard Rosenblatt said his company will reinvest much of it back into the livestrong property. The foundation also owns Livestrong.org, its main website, and users will be pushed to the commercial site to this non-profit site.
Of course they’ll be in tough competition with tons of other health and wellness websites, both from media companies, product companies in the space, as well as blogs focusing on various sub-sectors. "

 

[scribe]

You really see no conflict? T

elling everyone Italy and TDU are "To Raise Cancer Awareness" and then collecting $3,000,000 to show up? Telling everyone he was not going to be paid a wage for his comeback, that it all was about cancer awareness..... then taking $3,000,000? Even the casual observer can see the hypocrisy.

Wage and fees are two different things. He has only said he was not accepting a salary from the team. And he never said he wasn't accepting appearance fees, endorsement, or prize money associated to his cycling achievements.

He did not talk to me or you directly about his intentions. What you are sewing together for your opinion is bits and pieces of news here and there, and drawing a broad conclusion on that basis that fits your perception of the man personally. I cannot do that logically.

Livestrong has become increasingly less thought of since he retired. The primary reason for that is he isn't in the newsprint anymore for athletic achievement. By re-entering the pro circuit, he is drawing interest to the foundation again via his name and achievement. This is the clear reasoning regarding statements regarding cancer awareness and interest in the foundation.

 

[runninboy]

Can you provide details of your allegations above?

I have paid enough for bookkeepers and accountants in my life to know how the world of accounting works.
QUOTE]

I am quoting your asking for more details on movie financing?
one reason for movie budgets soaring has nothing to do with costs, it simply makes it easier to skim a little. You make a movie for 10 mil. not much room to get a little extra as producer, but a 100 million picture presents alot of opportunities.
Here is a quick one that has been used for years.
Check the credits for the catering company. It is usually a caterer that is basically a paper company owned by the wife or other relative of one of the producers. But if you are on the set you never see that caterer,
Why? The catering is subcontracted out to a "real" caterer.
There are alot of these things that go on in show business.
When a series is being developed, they will usually spend alot on wardrobe for instance. Then the producer says it cost 2 mil an episode to make, the network negotiates maybe 1.8, then the producer trims the fat, brings in differrent wardrobe, catering, cuts other corners and only spends 1.6 an
epsiode. and pays himself the rest through various schemes.
I have seen this practice in movies, tv & broadway shows it is pretty prevelant. Show business financing borders on fraud.

 

[bowdog25]

Does anyone really know how much money Livestrong.com gives to different cancer charities, as well as to fallen cyclists?

Probably not a lot, given that it has such a close relationship with the .org. It is more likely that there is an employee contribution scheme or something like that. I'm sure that if a sizeable donation was made, it would be advertised on their website with a picture of the CEO holding a six-foot long bank cheque.

How much does Lance give? According to LIVESTRONG.ORG's fiscal statement for 06-07 (on the .org website), a $1M restricted donation was received, in addition to $25K the previous year by the "The Armstrong Family Fund".

It is doubtful that any funds were 'donated' to Livestrong.com, given that any donation would be subject to tax, and proceeds would not likely benefit any charitable cause.

So "hats off" to Lance for making generous donations to a worthwhile cause.
And a slap on the wrist to him for confusing/misleading people into thinking the LIVESTRONG trademark was synonymous with a charity organisation.

Hypothetically, let's say I started up "UNICEF.com" as profit based recruiting service for health care and education professionals. All branding would be as close to UNICEF.ORG's marketing material as possible, and I'd even put a donation link back to the real .org's web site. Sure, the theoretical company would arguably be facilitating an improvement in the world, but would it be seen as unethical and immoral?

Lance has put both organisations in precarious positions. The potential for exploitation through similar branding and cross-marketing between charities and commercial organisations is immense.

So, my question is, if livestrong.com wasn't founded and figureheaded by "7 times TDF winner and cancer survivor LANCE ARMSTRONG", would you still think livestrong.com is ethical?

 

[Eva Maria]

It is hard not to think that when Armstrong said he was not going to take a salary or bonuses that this was an attempt to bolster the myth that he was coming back for only for Cancer Awareness, just like his big testing program with Catlin was going to prove he was clean.

$3,000,000 says there was additional motivation

 

[UTFan2]

What is surprising to me is that many are/were NOT aware of this. I guess being so close to the machine, seeing it "in action", etc...it's been clear and no sercret that the .com and the .org are different, it was clear when the .com started about a year ago. Two totally different agendas, target audiences, etc. The .com = general health and information. The .org = cancer and cancer resources. You do realize the LAF was created before he won the TDF, right? He started speaking out and appearing at cancer fund raisers in Austin when he was still recovering, still SICK, still terminally ill, from cancer.

You really think Lance gets a bunch of his money from the .com ?? Seriously?? um....I'd say the endorsement deals with Nike are his big pay checks, as is the case with so many athetes.

 

[BroDeal]

You really think Lance gets a bunch of his money from the .com ?? Seriously?? um....I'd say the endorsement deals with Nike are his big pay checks, as is the case with so many athetes.

Demand Media was planning on going public and targeting a market cap of $2+ billion. The venture capitialists put up $300+ million; they will be expecting a return of a multiple of their investment. It Armstrong signed over the Livestrong brand name for a personal stake of 5% in Demand Media then he might be looking at converting his charity to a personal payout of a $100 million. Somehow I don't think that people who gave to Livestrong thought that Armstrong would be siphoning off value from the charity to benefit himself.

This whole thing smells bad. What if the MS150 CEO signed over branding for that charity to Demand Media and got a kickback in the form equity in Demand Media? The question that would rightly be asked is why did not the MS150 charity get the full value of signing over its "property" and why did part of that missing value end up in the pockets of its CEO.

 

[gjdavis60]

The difficulty in answering your questions with any certainty is that the ownership structure of Livestrong.com is a bit murky. What I've been able to piece together so far is that LAF owns the exclusive trademarks to the Livestrong name and has registered its use BROADLY (UPTO site). Livestrong.com is also owned by LAF, but it has given an exclusive, perpetual license to Demand Media, Inc. LAF and Lance Armstrong are shareholders in Demand Media, which is a privately held institution.

This whole thread got started because the Livestrong.com website says that Livestrong.com is a for-profit business, but Livestrong.org is not. The reality, from what I can piece together is the more accurate statement is that Livestrong.com is the licensed domain name of Demand Media, Inc., a for-profit company that is in owned, in part, by LAF and Lance Armstrong.

LAF's financial statements for 2008 are not available yet (though it's annual report is). It's 2007 financials indicate that it buries the revenues generated from the licensing arrangements in its contributions, gifts revenue bucket, since it has pretty anemic investment/dividend income and is showing no other income (they are not required to file a list of the donors with their Form 990). Moreover, Lance Armstrong's personal interest in Demand Media and any funds he receives from Nike for the licensing rights, etc associated with Livestrong (he sold the name Livestrong to LAF in 2005, which probably pays him a royalty stream--if he was smart) are not going to be filed publicly--which really is the link between the Livestrong.com, LAF and Lance Armstrong profiting from both.

Long story short, there really is no way to answer your question unless we can depose Lance Armstrong and get a forensic accountant to go through his books.

Thank you for posting some facts, and a dispassionate analysis. I agree with everything you said.

I think it is impossible to value the benefit Armstrong receives because of his philanthropic activities. You would have to calculate it into every contract he makes with every sponsor, every appearance fee, every speaking engagement, etc., of which he has many. The fact is, you cannot separate the value of the Armstrong brand due to philanthropy from that due to his athletic accomplishments. It just can't be done.

Having said that, I think you can make some fairly strong conclusions about the LAF, its operation, and its relationship to Armstrong.

- Armstrong is a member of the LAF board of directors. He receives no compensation from the LAF. You can look this up in the LAF's Form 990 and audited financial statements. They are public record.

- The LAF is a legally constituted, legitimate charity with a clearly defined mission and a board of directors and staff with good reputations and credentials. The extent of Mr. Armstrong's control of the LAF consists of one vote on a board of 16 directors. The board members have fiduciary responsibility for the organization: they are legally responsible for its actions, and would be culpable if criminal activity was allowed under their watch. While I understand the cynicism about Mr. Armstrong, I feel the need to point out that when you impugn the organization, you are impugning the character of some very fine people on the LAF board who sincerely believe in the mission enough to volunteer their time and assume personal responsibility for its welfare. That is what board members of non-profits do, and without those people, most charities would not exist.

- As Publicus points out, the LAF owns the Livestrong name, and holds an undisclosed amount of stock in Demand Media, the licensees of livestrong.com. Any returns on the LAF investment in this venture go directly and transparently to the LAF. This does not mean that Lance Armstrong does or does not also have an interest in this venture. All we have to go on are vague press releases.

As I have posted before elsewhere, it is quite common and legal for non-profits to wholly own - or hold interests in - taxable entities. This often occurs in order to clearly delineate a charity's primary operation from a (for-profit) activity that generates revenue for the charity. I have served on non-profit boards that owned for-profit businesses and operated them as a revenue source. This happens all the time. If you look at what livestrong.com is doing, you can understand why the LAF would want to keep it at arm's length. Livestrong.com is not about cancer advocacy or research. It lies well outside of the LAF's mission.

While most here look at what the LAF has done for Lance Armstrong, I tend to put on my board member hat and think about what it means to have someone like Armstrong promoting your charity. Frankly, it is beyond most charities' wildest dreams to be tied to such a brand, let alone be made a party to some of Armstrong's most lucrative sponsorship deals (e.g. Nike). And it seems I'm not the only one who feels this way, as the American Cancer Society has also forged a partnership with the LAF.

It would be interesting to know whether Armstrong is paid for sales of Livestrong merchandise or anything else he does in his capacity as a representative of the LAF. My suspicion is he receives little to nothing in this capacity. Frankly, he doesn't need it as he gets plenty of indirect financial benefit through his other business activities. I'm not trying to make the guy out to be a saint, I'm just saying that his charity is most likely legit, and that the time he spends promoting it probably does not provide him any direct financial benefit.

This does not mean he is not a doper or an arrogant pr**k for all you haterz out there

 

[ProTour]

Thank you for posting some facts, and a dispassionate analysis. I agree with everything you said.

I think it is impossible to value the benefit Armstrong receives because of his philanthropic activities. You would have to calculate it into every contract he makes with every sponsor, every appearance fee, every speaking engagement, etc., of which he has many. The fact is, you cannot separate the value of the Armstrong brand due to philanthropy from that due to his athletic accomplishments. It just can't be done.

Having said that, I think you can make some fairly strong conclusions about the LAF, its operation, and its relationship to Armstrong.

- Armstrong is a member of the LAF board of directors. He receives no compensation from the LAF. You can look this up in the LAF's Form 990 and audited financial statements. They are public record.

- The LAF is a legally constituted, legitimate charity with a clearly defined mission and a board of directors and staff with good reputations and credentials. The extent of Mr. Armstrong's control of the LAF consists of one vote on a board of 16 directors. The board members have fiduciary responsibility for the organization: they are legally responsible for its actions, and would be culpable if criminal activity was allowed under their watch. While I understand the cynicism about Mr. Armstrong, I feel the need to point out that when you impugn the organization, you are impugning the character of some very fine people on the LAF board who sincerely believe in the mission enough to volunteer their time and assume personal responsibility for its welfare. That is what board members of non-profits do, and without those people, most charities would not exist.

- As Publicus points out, the LAF owns the Livestrong name, and holds an undisclosed amount of stock in Demand Media, the licensees of livestrong.com. Any returns on the LAF investment in this venture go directly and transparently to the LAF. This does not mean that Lance Armstrong does or does not also have an interest in this venture. All we have to go on are vague press releases.

As I have posted before elsewhere, it is quite common and legal for non-profits to wholly own - or hold interests in - taxable entities. This often occurs in order to clearly delineate a charity's primary operation from a (for-profit) activity that generates revenue for the charity. I have served on non-profit boards that owned for-profit businesses and operated them as a revenue source. This happens all the time. If you look at what livestrong.com is doing, you can understand why the LAF would want to keep it at arm's length. Livestrong.com is not about cancer advocacy or research. It lies well outside of the LAF's mission.

While most here look at what the LAF has done for Lance Armstrong, I tend to put on my board member hat and think about what it means to have someone like Armstrong promoting your charity. Frankly, it is beyond most charities' wildest dreams to be tied to such a brand, let alone be made a party to some of Armstrong's most lucrative sponsorship deals (e.g. Nike). And it seems I'm not the only one who feels this way, as the American Cancer Society has also forged a partnership with the LAF.

It would be interesting to know whether Armstrong is paid for sales of Livestrong merchandise or anything else he does in his capacity as a representative of the LAF. My suspicion is he receives little to nothing in this capacity. Frankly, he doesn't need it as he gets plenty of indirect financial benefit through his other business activities. I'm not trying to make the guy out to be a saint, I'm just saying that his charity is most likely legit, and that the time he spends promoting it probably does not provide him any direct financial benefit.

This does not mean he is not a doper or an arrogant pr**k for all you haterz out there

Wow, way to kill an anti-Lance thread, gjdavis 60, well done. And you even gave yourself some street cred in here by stating you think he is a doper.

I wonder how many millions of cancer patients Lance has inspired, can we put a price one that one? Has he profited from that, haters?

 

[davidg]

Thank you for posting some facts, and a dispassionate analysis. I agree with everything you said.

I think it is impossible to value the benefit Armstrong receives because of his philanthropic activities. You would have to calculate it into every contract he makes with every sponsor, every appearance fee, every speaking engagement, etc., of which he has many. The fact is, you cannot separate the value of the Armstrong brand due to philanthropy from that due to his athletic accomplishments. It just can't be done.

Having said that, I think you can make some fairly strong conclusions about the LAF, its operation, and its relationship to Armstrong.

- Armstrong is a member of the LAF board of directors. He receives no compensation from the LAF. You can look this up in the LAF's Form 990 and audited financial statements. They are public record.

- The LAF is a legally constituted, legitimate charity with a clearly defined mission and a board of directors and staff with good reputations and credentials. The extent of Mr. Armstrong's control of the LAF consists of one vote on a board of 16 directors. The board members have fiduciary responsibility for the organization: they are legally responsible for its actions, and would be culpable if criminal activity was allowed under their watch. While I understand the cynicism about Mr. Armstrong, I feel the need to point out that when you impugn the organization, you are impugning the character of some very fine people on the LAF board who sincerely believe in the mission enough to volunteer their time and assume personal responsibility for its welfare. That is what board members of non-profits do, and without those people, most charities would not exist.

- As Publicus points out, the LAF owns the Livestrong name, and holds an undisclosed amount of stock in Demand Media, the licensees of livestrong.com. Any returns on the LAF investment in this venture go directly and transparently to the LAF. This does not mean that Lance Armstrong does or does not also have an interest in this venture. All we have to go on are vague press releases.

As I have posted before elsewhere, it is quite common and legal for non-profits to wholly own - or hold interests in - taxable entities. This often occurs in order to clearly delineate a charity's primary operation from a (for-profit) activity that generates revenue for the charity. I have served on non-profit boards that owned for-profit businesses and operated them as a revenue source. This happens all the time. If you look at what livestrong.com is doing, you can understand why the LAF would want to keep it at arm's length. Livestrong.com is not about cancer advocacy or research. It lies well outside of the LAF's mission.

While most here look at what the LAF has done for Lance Armstrong, I tend to put on my board member hat and think about what it means to have someone like Armstrong promoting your charity. Frankly, it is beyond most charities' wildest dreams to be tied to such a brand, let alone be made a party to some of Armstrong's most lucrative sponsorship deals (e.g. Nike). And it seems I'm not the only one who feels this way, as the American Cancer Society has also forged a partnership with the LAF.

It would be interesting to know whether Armstrong is paid for sales of Livestrong merchandise or anything else he does in his capacity as a representative of the LAF. My suspicion is he receives little to nothing in this capacity. Frankly, he doesn't need it as he gets plenty of indirect financial benefit through his other business activities. I'm not trying to make the guy out to be a saint, I'm just saying that his charity is most likely legit, and that the time he spends promoting it probably does not provide him any direct financial benefit.

This does not mean he is not a doper or an arrogant pr**k for all you haterz out there

Excellent post and I am inclined to agree with most of what you have said.

Unfortunately, you have missed the point of the whole CyclingNews forum and that is the one sole aim to throw mud at LA. It doesn't matter if he is legitimately part of a business, non-profit, or athletic entitiy, he clearly has no right to be. Or have I misunderstood most of the posts.