Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[DirtyWorks]

I'm no fan of Livestrong, or many of the things that occurred under Ulman's watch.

However, I don't think it's fair to cast aspersions on Pelotonia without at least doing a little research.

According to Peletonia
1) sponsors offset their overhead, so all donations go to programs
2) they support cancer research, mostly at Ohio State and other Ohio Universities

http://cancer.osu.edu/SiteCollectionImages/pelotonia/Pelotonia Investment Report 2013.pdf

http://pelotonia.org/about/money/

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelotonia

I have no idea if Pelotonia is a great charity or whatever, but according to their documents, they raise $$$ to support research.

Profile / salary wise, it seems like a step down for Ulman. I can't imagine that the rank and file Livestrong employees feel too good right now.

Pelotonia is a patent farm for OSU. Most large private universities have moved to this model. There is no question that there's some good that could come out of it. But, the idea is to monopolize some discovery first, then treat some people on a long-running basis who can afford the price set by OSU for the treatment.
http://cancer.osu.edu/research/researcheducation/Documents/Funding Allocation at OSUMC.pdf

Patents are a whole other topic very well out of scope of this thread that I'd be happy to post on since I know so little about the system but frequently work with lawyers defending against big and small patent trolls.

 

[MarkvW]

Research in the most general sense. That seemed to never happen.

Please explain how the Dell Medical School partnership works in detail. How much of the $50 million claimed actually happened to date? Specifics matter.

The main point is the for-profit org and the non-profit org was, and still probably is so closely tied together there's no way to know with any confidence where the for-profit business and the charity begins.

Let's be frank about this, Wonderboy is not the first person to set up a charity whose purpose is to skim donations in many creative ways. At least for me, that's always been the fundamental issue. To BlueNote's question, it's impossible to tell if the non-profit's mission is being completed when the mission is "awareness." I was aware of cancer before Liveswrong. IMO, that's the point. It makes tithing donations that much easier when success is so vaguely defined.

I read that the Dell donation is not for research.

 

[Race Radio]

Is Livestrong's donation/partnership to/with Dell Medical School at University of Texas (50 Million USD over 10 years) a good, decent or terrible idea, in your opinion?

Was Livestrong spending $6,000,000 on a party a good, decent or terrible idea, in your opinion?

 

[Bluenote]

Pelotonia is a patent farm for OSU. Most large private universities have moved to this model. There is no question that there's some good that could come out of it. But, the idea is to monopolize some discovery first, then treat some people on a long-running basis who can afford the price set by OSU for the treatment.
http://cancer.osu.edu/research/researcheducation/Documents/Funding Allocation at OSUMC.pdf

Patents are a whole other topic very well out of scope of this thread that I'd be happy to post on since I know so little about the system but frequently work with lawyers defending against big and small patent trolls.

Not all discoveries / research is patentable. New recomendations on screenings, using existing drugs in different "cocktails," spring to mind. Even patentable breakthroughs save lives.

I'm not saying - empty your wallets for Pelotonia! I'm just saying do research before writting it off as 'another Livestrong.'

 

[DirtyWorks]

Not all discoveries / research is patentable. New recomendations on screenings, using existing drugs in different "cocktails," spring to mind. Even patentable breakthroughs save lives.

I'm not saying - empty your wallets for Pelotonia! I'm just saying do research before writting it off as 'another Livestrong.'

Then I'm not being clear. Livestrong wasn't a patent farm. If you read the link, you'll come to a sentence that says research grant applications will be evaluated on among other things, it's ability to be patented.

I'd say the new leader has moved to a far more legitimate organization. Just the opposite of Livestrong, the non-profit has a very clear mission and very simply stated metrics surrounding that mission.

 

[Bluenote]

I'd say the new leader has moved to a far more legitimate organization. Just the opposite of Livestrong, the non-profit has a very clear mission and very simply stated metrics surrounding that mission.

Think I'm getting your point now, thanks for clarifying.

It is interesting, this shift away from 'awareness.'
LAF II supposedly will focus on research
Livestrong promises a big donation to a University cancer center
Ulman leaves for a (presumably lower profile) research charity

 

[frenchfry]

I'm no fan of Livestrong, or many of the things that occurred under Ulman's watch.

However, I don't think it's fair to cast aspersions on Pelotonia without at least doing a little research.

According to Peletonia
1) sponsors offset their overhead, so all donations go to programs
2) they support cancer research, mostly at Ohio State and other Ohio Universities

http://cancer.osu.edu/SiteCollectionImages/pelotonia/Pelotonia Investment Report 2013.pdf

http://pelotonia.org/about/money/

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelotonia

I have no idea if Pelotonia is a great charity or whatever, but according to their documents, they raise $$$ to support research.

Profile / salary wise, it seems like a step down for Ulman. I can't imagine that the rank and file Livestrong employees feel too good right now.

I admit to being a cynic when it comes to cancer “charities”. A few years ago I saw the film Pink Ribbons Inc. which only confirmed the impressions I already had. Livestrong, in many ways, was a disgrace (.org vs .com for example) and maybe now it has become more meaningful but I still remain doubtful.

I had looked at the Pelotonia website, and didn’t see the information about sponsors covering the overhead in order that all funds raised go directly to programs. I only found this information on the Wikipedia link that you provided. Indeed I found the claim that 100% of funds raised going to programs rather unbelievable because normally this isn’t possible even for a well-run charity or organization. Also, when I looked over the information provided on the Pelotonia website, they referred to $61m raised over 5 years but the only funding detail they provide is $2m per year for the fellowship program. Here again Wikipedia provides more information, funding is also provided to “idea grants” although there isn’t much in the way of specifics. Maybe Ulman, known for his love of transparency, will be able to make the financial situation clearer.

My intent isn’t to target Pelotonia, although the fact they would take on someone like Ulman doesn’t do them any favors image-wise in my mind. I do feel that any charity should be thoroughly reviewed in order to ensure that everything is legitimate. Many run/ride charities and events do very little to actually raise funds as expenses are high relative to funds raised. Often they are little more than marketing vehicules for corporations looking to exploit the feel-good cancer charity movement. Once again I recommend the film Pink Ribbons Inc. which explains this situation.

 

[frenchfry]

Was Livestrong spending $6,000,000 on a party a good, decent or terrible idea, in your opinion?

I would think that really depends on if you were there or not.

 

[Bluenote]

...I had looked at the Pelotonia website, and didn’t see the information about sponsors covering the overhead in order that all funds raised go directly to programs. I only found this information on the Wikipedia link that you provided. Indeed I found the claim that 100% of funds raised going to programs rather unbelievable because normally this isn’t possible even for a well-run charity or organization. Also, when I looked over the information provided on the Pelotonia website, they referred to $61m raised over 5 years but the only funding detail they provide is $2m per year for the fellowship program. Here again Wikipedia provides more information, funding is also provided to “idea grants” although there isn’t much in the way of specifics. Maybe Ulman, known for his love of transparency, will be able to make the financial situation clearer.

My intent isn’t to target Pelotonia, although the fact they would take on someone like Ulman doesn’t do them any favors image-wise in my mind. I do feel that any charity should be thoroughly reviewed in order to ensure that everything is legitimate. Many run/ride charities and events do very little to actually raise funds as expenses are high relative to funds raised. Often they are little more than marketing vehicules for corporations looking to exploit the feel-good cancer charity movement...

I agree and think you raise good points.

I'm guessing we also agree that there are some blurry ethical lines which make it hard to evaluate a charity. For example allegations that Armstrong took appearance fees 'off the top.' If other charities do this, the charity can claim a high efficiency rate, while siphoning cash off to celebrities, political allies, etc...

I also think you are dead on about the marketing of charitability. How much do programs really help people and how much are they image tools?

 

[RownhamHill]

I admit to being a cynic when it comes to cancer “charities”. A few years ago I saw the film Pink Ribbons Inc. which only confirmed the impressions I already had. Livestrong, in many ways, was a disgrace (.org vs .com for example) and maybe now it has become more meaningful but I still remain doubtful.

I had looked at the Pelotonia website, and didn’t see the information about sponsors covering the overhead in order that all funds raised go directly to programs. I only found this information on the Wikipedia link that you provided. Indeed I found the claim that 100% of funds raised going to programs rather unbelievable because normally this isn’t possible even for a well-run charity or organization. Also, when I looked over the information provided on the Pelotonia website, they referred to $61m raised over 5 years but the only funding detail they provide is $2m per year for the fellowship program. Here again Wikipedia provides more information, funding is also provided to “idea grants” although there isn’t much in the way of specifics. Maybe Ulman, known for his love of transparency, will be able to make the financial situation clearer.

My intent isn’t to target Pelotonia, although the fact they would take on someone like Ulman doesn’t do them any favors image-wise in my mind. I do feel that any charity should be thoroughly reviewed in order to ensure that everything is legitimate. Many run/ride charities and events do very little to actually raise funds as expenses are high relative to funds raised. Often they are little more than marketing vehicules for corporations looking to exploit the feel-good cancer charity movement. Once again I recommend the film Pink Ribbons Inc. which explains this situation.

That seems an odd claim that all funds raised go to programmes, and sponsorship covers the overhead, if only because what is sponsorship income if it's not funds being raised? Unless sponsors are providing services in kind - which can't be the case if they're paying a CEO.

 

[Samson777]

I would think that really depends on if you were there or not.

If you can remember that party, you wasn't at the party

 

[frenchfry]

That seems an odd claim that all funds raised go to programmes, and sponsorship covers the overhead, if only because what is sponsorship income if it's not funds being raised? Unless sponsors are providing services in kind - which can't be the case if they're paying a CEO.

I thought of this as well. Just another marketing technique to look more legitimate than the other charities?

A google search on Ulman's Livestrong pay shows over $400K. Even assuming he takes a large cut, that still leaves a lot of "sponsorship" funding relative to "raised funds".

Not wanting to make this nationalistic (there have been charity scams here too) but the US model of charities essentially using high paid staff and sophisticated (read expensive) marketing goes against what I see as true "charity". All that fighting for donations means there sometimes isn't much left for the original purpose. This is just my personal opinion, and there are certainly some good charities out there.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I thought of this as well. Just another marketing technique to look more legitimate than the other charities?

I would argue for a distinction between a non-profit and a charity.

A charity has a mission that directly impacts a population. For example, increasing literacy by making books/libraries available, or improve sanitation in a community, or provide tutoring to kids, or.....

A non-profit like Pelotonia is intended to benefit the University by funding possible discoveries of some marketable medical solutions, possibly, some people with an illness might be made more well off.

I'd argue the liveswrong.org fits the non-profit category. The direct benefit was Wonderboy and peripherally, some people somehow got some help.

It will be interesting to see if Wonderboy somehow collaborates with this Pelotonia.

And yes, part of being a big charity/non-profit in the U.S. is advertising.

 

[Bluenote]

...It will be interesting to see if Wonderboy somehow collaborates with this Pelotonia...

I was wondering that, too. Awhile ago it seemed like Ulman was open to an Armstrong return to Livestrong, but the board squashed it.

I hope not. I wouldn't like the idea of a University cancer center being teamed up with a guy who has admitted to using PEDs (which may cause? Or make cancer more aggressive?)

It'd be a mixed message there.

 

[RownhamHill]

I thought of this as well. Just another marketing technique to look more legitimate than the other charities?

A google search on Ulman's Livestrong pay shows over $400K. Even assuming he takes a large cut, that still leaves a lot of "sponsorship" funding relative to "raised funds".

Not wanting to make this nationalistic (there have been charity scams here too) but the US model of charities essentially using high paid staff and sophisticated (read expensive) marketing goes against what I see as true "charity". All that fighting for donations means there sometimes isn't much left for the original purpose. This is just my personal opinion, and there are certainly some good charities out there.

I've no problem with staff getting paid to raise charitable funds - if people can't live then the charity isn't sustainable. But I think you should be honest about the overhead and return on investment of staff.

It's not just the US charity sector by the way - see the recent financial travails of Greenpeace for a European example!

 

[Bluenote]

I've no problem with staff getting paid to raise charitable funds - if people can't live then the charity isn't sustainable. But I think you should be honest about the overhead and return on investment of staff.

It's not just the US charity sector by the way - see the recent financial travails of Greenpeace for a European example!

Are you OK with a multi-millionare like Armstrong getting paid 6 figure appearance fees?

I'm not asking to attack you, I'm just trying to sort out your position.

I agree that rank and file charity workers deserve a decent wage. I even can see that CEO Wage has to be high enough to attract good candidates.

But I feel weird about wealthy celebs getting appearance fees.

 

[Alpe73]

Was Livestrong spending $6,000,000 on a party a good, decent or terrible idea, in your opinion?

If true ... in the sense that you imply it ... that would be 'terrible.'

 

[Energy Starr]

Are you OK with a multi-millionare like Armstrong getting paid 6 figure appearance fees?

I'm not asking to attack you, I'm just trying to sort out your position.

I agree that rank and file charity workers deserve a decent wage. I even can see that CEO Wage has to be high enough to attract good candidates.

But I feel weird about wealthy celebs getting appearance fees.

400k per year is an absurd wage to run a charity (imo). That's getting rich off of the charity.

 

[Oldman]

400k per year is an absurd wage to run a charity (imo). That's getting rich off of the charity.

It may not be an absurd wage if they're raising a lot of money and curing cancer. The lack of disclosure and basic honesty is the problem and probably the most unforgivable element of Lance's whole scheming. He literally was taking money destined by the givers for people dying of Cancer. How much lower can someone go?

 

[mewmewmew13]

It may not be an absurd wage if they're raising a lot of money and curing cancer. The lack of disclosure and basic honesty is the problem and probably the most unforgivable element of Lance's whole scheming. He literally was taking money destined by the givers for people dying of Cancer. How much lower can someone go?

This. So unforgivable and unethical on so many levels..
pretty sure it didn't even faze Lance to do so.

 

[ChrisE]

It may not be an absurd wage if they're raising a lot of money and curing cancer. The lack of disclosure and basic honesty is the problem and probably the most unforgivable element of Lance's whole scheming. He literally was taking money destined by the givers for people dying of Cancer. How much lower can someone go?

Not much lower, but you can also blame the useful idiots that contributed.

 

[red_flanders]

Not much lower, but you can also blame the useful idiots that contributed.

They were probably confused by the less than useful idiots defending Armstrong for years on various cycling boards.

 

[mewmewmew13]

They were probably confused by the less than useful idiots defending Armstrong for years on various cycling boards.

lololol


So much empathy for the contributors..
like calling the elderly that get scammed 'idiots' because of their participation..

 

[D-Queued]

Are you OK with a multi-millionare like Armstrong getting paid 6 figure appearance fees?

I'm not asking to attack you, I'm just trying to sort out your position.

I agree that rank and file charity workers deserve a decent wage. I even can see that CEO Wage has to be high enough to attract good candidates.

But I feel weird about wealthy celebs getting appearance fees.

Though you didn't ask me, please allow me to comment.

I have no problem with people getting appearance fees. Even those people that are already wealthy, celebrity or otherwise.

Free market, demand versus supply, and all that.

However, the Lance and Lance Armstrong Foundation situation is a bit different. The obvious conflict of interest is minimally hypocritical and, arguably, likely illegal*.

If a charity is set up in your name, then you should be endorsing the charity. NOT the other way around.

Lance was clearly not promoting a charitable cause. Lance was blatantly promoting a selfish cause. This conclusion is inescapable. Particularly so when Lance never, ever donated a dime himself.

How many people paid to see Lance and didn't realize that they were not donating to the charity, or that he wouldn't provide at least some portion to the charity? The duplicity of the Livestrong.com and .org reinforces the scam.

*In the case of Greg Mortensen of Three Cups of Tea fame, the Montana Attorney General found that he had personally profited from the speaker's fees he received, the book royalties and the charter flights. Imagine if he had taken private Lear Jet flights like Lance.

As a result of that investigation, Mortensen reimbursed the charity with more than $1.1 million.

It is astounding that Lance has not yet faced similar investigations.

Dave.

 

[Alpe73]

Today they do a good job...

You have been highly accurate on most of your insights ... no need to doubt you on this assessment (on today's work) of Livestrong.