D-Queued said: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.
Yeah, I get what you are saying, appearence fees to promote your own charity seem beyond sketchy.
Armstrong claims to have giving a lot of $$ to Livestrong.
