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

[pmcg76]

Have steered clear of the whole Lance polemica since he was busted but finally watched The Armstrong Lie tonight. Think the funniest moment was Johan's reaction to Contador attacking, hilarious.

 

[Bluenote]

Hi FF,

You inadvertently mentioned funding for research in the context of discussing Livestrong.

Probably a slip. As we know, Livestrong is the scam that infers or otherwise has alluded to some alignment with research in the past but not a dime has ever been sent that way.

Dave.

I think FF is refering to Ulman's new employer, not Livestrong.

 

[veganrob]

FF had "research" in quotation marks. He knew exactly that Livestrong did not do research.

 

[mewmewmew13]

frenchfry knows the ropes here...

 

[Microchip]

Have steered clear of the whole Lance polemica since he was busted but finally watched The Armstrong Lie tonight. Think the funniest moment was Johan's reaction to Contador attacking, hilarious.

I want to see it.

 

[86TDFWinner]

HA Ha!!! The D*uche running LieStrong has 'stepped down"(poor thing).....Did he really think folks would forgive Wonderboy and everything would be good?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...g-ce_n_5867946.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

 

[ralphbert]

Have steered clear of the whole Lance polemica since he was busted but finally watched The Armstrong Lie tonight. Think the funniest moment was Johan's reaction to Contador attacking, hilarious.

A personal highlight for me too. Also Yohan & Lance peering out the window at contador giving interviews to the press. Like school boys not invited to the cools kids party. Contador is a boss.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Sorry I don't get your point.

I'll fill in a bit more:

The charity (.org) always had the vaguest mission of "raising awareness" and somehow offering resources. It's as if the Internet didn't exist or something, but I'll be fair and say someone somewhere was assisted somehow. There was talk about funding research, but somehow that just never happened.

The problems begin because there was never a boundary between the for-profit (.com) licensing schemes and the .org. As a result 12 idle Internet w@nkers who love cancer believe the real purpose is to raise awareness for Wonderboy, operate as a way to cover costs for things like jet fuel, lavish parties and more. Dare question the motives outside this thread and the response was swift and extreme.

I'm taking this from my notes from day 3 of Andreau Strategies training.

 

[D-Queued]

frenchfry knows the ropes here...

I know. I was just spelling it out so nobody else was confused.

Dave.

 

[frenchfry]

Hi FF,

You inadvertently mentioned funding for research in the context of discussing Livestrong.

Probably a slip. As we know, Livestrong is the scam that infers or otherwise has alluded to some alignment with research in the past but not a dime has ever been sent that way.

Dave.

The "research" mention was relative to Pelotonia, and was in quotation marks to indicate my suspicion that any funds actually are used for this purpose.

Since it appears from the article that Pelotonia uses cycling events for collecting funds, I am wondering if the receipts mentioned in the article are gross amounts, from which expenses must be deducted (including outrageous speech fees) leaving a net that is approx equal to the salary of the charity's director.

Cancer, the gift that just keeps giving.

 

[frenchfry]

I think FF is refering to Ulman's new employer, not Livestrong.

Exactly, the article on Ulman’s job change says that Pelotonia has raised 61m over 5 years for cancer research. That is what I was referring to.

frenchfry knows the ropes here...

Unfortunately, frenchfry knows far too much for his own good. Nothing pi$$es me off more than exploiting cancer for personal gain. Nothing.

 

[Alpe73]

The charity (.org) always had the vaguest mission of "raising awareness" and somehow offering resources.

That's your opinion; many, including NCI and Charity Navigator acknowledge Livestrong's good work as a cancer charity.

... but I'll be fair and say someone somewhere was assisted somehow.

That's dang humane of you, big guy, ... in a disengenuous kinda way ... but with 7/8 watching your comments, you gotta line to toe. Fair enough.

There was talk about funding research, but somehow that just never happened.

By research ... do you mean, 'THE CURE' ... for each of the 200+ types of cancer? What's your party's line on $ being used to 'somehow' help those who have, will get, will survive for a bit with, (will die with) ... one or more of those 200 different types of cancer while playing solitaire and waiting for 'THE CURE.'

 

[Semper Fidelis]

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/stat...t-helm-of-lance-armstrong-founded-charity.ece

Livestrong CEO Doug Ullman leaving. Going to run Pelotonia......One of the many fundraising rides that paid Lance to attend

Dude quit to run a ride. Times must be rough.

 

[Bosco10]

Dude quit to run a ride. Times must be rough.

I was thinking the same thing. That's a quite a downsize for him. But then again, Livestrong may be capsized.

 

[Race Radio]

That's your opinion; many, including NCI and Charity Navigator acknowledge Livestrong's good work as a cancer charity.
'

Not exactly. NCI receives $$$$ from Livestrong so they are hardly unbiased. Charity Navigator did not cover them until they had been around for 10 years. What would they have thought about the early years when only 50% of money went to "Programs"? Charity Navigator looks at raw numbers, they make zero judgement on the value of a charity's programs. If they did I wonder what they would think of spending $6 million on one party?

They certainly questioned the Demand deal.

"This blurs the lines between the foundation and its charitable mission, and the personal gain of its founder,'' said Ken Berger, president and executive director of Charity Navigator. "It's mixing two purposes in a way that smells of a conflict of interest. The most precious thing a charitable organization has is the public's trust, and things like this put a ***** in that.''

 

[Bluenote]

The "research" mention was relative to Pelotonia, and was in quotation marks to indicate my suspicion that any funds actually are used for this purpose.

Since it appears from the article that Pelotonia uses cycling events for collecting funds, I am wondering if the receipts mentioned in the article are gross amounts, from which expenses must be deducted (including outrageous speech fees) leaving a net that is approx equal to the salary of the charity's director.

Cancer, the gift that just keeps giving.

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.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Charity Navigator did not cover them until they had been around for 10 years.

We're talking LiveStrong here, yes? And you're saying Charity Navigator only added them in 2007, correct?

 

[Alpe73]

Not exactly. NCI receives $$$$ from Livestrong so they are hardly unbiased. Charity Navigator did not cover them until they had been around for 10 years. What would they have thought about the early years when only 50% of money went to "Programs"? Charity Navigator looks at raw numbers, they make zero judgement on the value of a charity's programs. If they did I wonder what they would think of spending $6 million on one party?

They certainly questioned the Demand deal.

Today, as a cancer charity, is Livestrong doing a good, decent or terrible job?

 

[Bluenote]

Today, as a cancer charity, is Livestrong doing a good, decent or terrible job?

Personally, I find it impossible to tell.

They break down their spending by 'overhead, 'programs,' etc... But there is no way to know how much of the money to 'programs,' are awareness programs and how much are direct services to survivors. Further, they don't break out what these programs are, how much each ones get, how many they serve, etc...

When directly asked this in a Reddit AMA, Livestrong didn't answer.

The Outside Magazine article painted a pretty unflattering image - lots of money on awareness, which seems to be Livestrong marketing, little on direct services.

It would be nice if Livestrong would release a detailed rebuttal to the Outside article. Make it easier to understand what they do with the $$.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

That was my take also. I doubt Livestrong is gaining any traction after the free fall of Lance. But there are many within that community @ Livestrong that are committed to keeping that foundation going. Many of those are cancer survivors of one type or the other and they are dedicated to doing something for good to help people who are suffering from Cancer.

A good deal of people left livestrong due to the lies. But many stayed on. I guess they separate the two.

 

[Alpe73]

Personally, I find it impossible to tell.

They break down their spending by 'overhead, 'programs,' etc... But there is no way to know how much of the money to 'programs,' are awareness programs and how much are direct services to survivors. Further, they don't break out what these programs are, how much each ones get, how many they serve, etc...

When directly asked this in a Reddit AMA, Livestrong didn't answer.

The Outside Magazine article painted a pretty unflattering image - lots of money on awareness, which seems to be Livestrong marketing, little on direct services.

It would be nice if Livestrong would release a detailed rebuttal to the Outside article. Make it easier to understand what they do with the $$.

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?

 

[Race Radio]

Today, as a cancer charity, is Livestrong doing a good, decent or terrible job?

Today they do a good job.... unfortunately they wasted hundreds of millions of $$$ in the paste

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Everyone can make mistakes so let's give them a chance if they are doing a good job now..the garmin model if you will.

 

[Bluenote]

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?

I don't know enough about it to judge.

1) will the promised funds be delivered? Or will they be scaled back / cancled if Livestrong's donation issues continue? (Livestrong recently had to scale back some other programs).

2) what are the funds going to, exactly? A fancy glamor building? Administrator salaries? Or research grants?

There are lots of excellent Medical Schools already. Some of them even treat / research cancer. It may well have been more timely, efficient to donate that 50 million $ to support existing underfund programs, than to pay to build a new program from scratch. But without seeing particulars, I can't draw a conclusion.

That being said, your question is a bit leading. Livestrong supposedly has raised 500 million dollars. This 50 million would represent - 10 % of that.

It is fair to ask - was that (or will that) other 450 million $ be spent in an efficient, transparent way? How much of that 450 million went to awareness, what that 'awareness' entail, etc...?

 

[DirtyWorks]

By research ... do you mean, 'THE CURE' ... for each of the 200+ types of cancer? What's your party's line on $ being used to 'somehow' help those who have, will get, will survive for a bit with, (will die with) ... one or more of those 200 different types of cancer while playing solitaire and waiting for 'THE CURE.'

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.