The blurred lines of Livestrong - the spin bike sham

[thehog]

I'm not sure how much information Hog has been able to get his hands on (If you've had more luck than me Hog, would you PM me? Would love to compare notes), but if you'd like to PM me IWCIJ I'll fill you in on what I've found so far.

Two things.

One was the name "Livestrong" was "dedicated" not "donated". See official press releases. This bled into "donated" by sloppy press people.

Second it was discovered that "Livestrong" has donated nothing. Zero. No funds, no scientists, no programs to the centre. So they took the naming rights, had the photos taken and then gave nothing in return. Livestrong provides nothing to the centre at all. Zilch.

Now the Livestrong part of the centre is small part if the much bigger FMC. All the money is coming from the tax payer, corporate sponsors and donations.

As for the payment to licence the name. Its out there but you can't link it. Unless someone requests it from Flinders University under the FIA.

The name will drop once the deal runs it's licence time frame.

Now how this works is this: FMC fund raiser lobby man rings up corporate sponsor gives the speal and the says "look Lance has donated his name to the centre don't you want to be next to his name?"

Its totally shameless because the FMC is already doing outstanding work as part of Flinders University. It's a sell out.

 

[Dallas_]

Alpe - as an administrator, can you point out the doping content that means this thread belongs in the Clinic? Normally that criteria gets enforced pronto, so I assume it's here somewhere too.

If not, is there any reason this thread isn't under 'General'?

yourwelcome, you appear to be not within a bulls roar of the topic. let me assist you.

hog, you are digging deep on this topic and revealing a treasure trove of info - well done. I am looking for possible fraud, but cannot see any at the moment. Keep digging. SI may be able to lend you their backhoe. Just mentioning the word fraud triggers my brain to think of PEDS. In my opinion, using performance enhancing DRUGS, DRUGS, drugs(sorry keyboard got stuck), EPO, epo or blood doping is actually attempted fraud. <- just my opinion

Hope I have solved YOUR thread problem permanently. your welcome to cheers

 

[Merckx index]

I nominate this as thread of the year. It has really opened my eyes. All the financial revelations by themselves are remarkable, I'm still trying to wrap my brain around them. Then they are followed--out of the blue, seemingly-- by several deeply personal stories by posters who have had to deal with cancer in themselves and/or family members. (Interesting that we've never had a thread here like that. Or maybe we have, and it was in another forum where I didn't see it?) When people like this--posters I may have been in dialogue with previously, never imagining what they might be enduring--criticize Livestrong it really hits home in a way no amount of financial analysis, important as it is, can. Sending a letter to a cancer victim asking for another donation makes one want to puke. I know this happens all the time with large, necessarily impersonal institutions, but it conflicts so starkly with the goal of "awareness". I think of the Hippocratic Oath, the first principle being to do no harm, even psychological harm.

FWIW, I do research in cancer. From my perspective, I see very little individual heroism, just an enormously large and complex network of laboratories that is slowly, inexorably identifying causes, treatments and cures. While there are stars in the field, no one individual is essential to the effort, it is far greater than any one scientist or laboratory. Research involves teamwork on a scale far beyond any that occurs in any sport.

As other posters here have pointed out, the sports analogy of a lone individual, fighting against some enemy, really isn't very appropriate. Lance himself "beat" cancer (so far) not because he fought it harder than anyone else does, but partly because of pure chance, and partly because he received excellent treatment. In fact, he probably hurt his initial chances by waiting a relatively long time before being diagnosed, and that can probably be ascribed to the fact that, as an athlete, he was used to ignoring pain. I wonder if he ever mentions that in his visits to cancer victims.

So the first lesson is, early diagnosis, including tests that everyone should have even in the absence of symptoms--breast, prostate and colon cancer are particularly important here. And a second lesson is, if you are diagnosed with cancer, don't think in terms of miracles. Be prepared to confront cold hardreality, wrt both the type, degree and spread of the disease, and all the possible treatments. The more willing you are to do that, the better your chances will be.

If Lance's story inspires other cancer victims, makes them feel better about themselves, fine, but his outcome is irrelevant to theirs. If Livestrong makes them aware of resources they otherwise would not have known about, that is a plus. But there is an enormous amount of help waiting right now on the internet.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Alpe - as an administrator, can you point out the doping content that means this thread belongs in the Clinic? Normally that criteria gets enforced pronto, so I assume it's here somewhere too.

If not, is there any reason this thread isn't under 'General'?

Ah, the new Mantra..... why is this in The Clinic??

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

There is nothing limiting what can be discussed in 'The Clinic'

However, if you wish to discuss something that is doping related then it can should be discussed within The Clinic.

We are discussing Lance's charity called Livest..... oooops, I mean,
the Lance Armstrong Foundation.

The, as you put it "doping content" is rather self evident.

 

[Race Radio]

I nominate this as thread of the year. It has really opened my eyes. All the financial revelations by themselves are remarkable, I'm still trying to wrap my brain around them. Then they are followed--out of the blue, seemingly-- by several deeply personal stories by posters who have had to deal with cancer in themselves and/or family members. (Interesting that we've never had a thread here like that. Or maybe we have, and it was in another forum where I didn't see it?) When people like this--posters I may have been in dialogue with previously, never imagining what they might be enduring--criticize Livestrong it really hits home in a way no amount of financial analysis, important as it is, can. Sending a letter to a cancer victim asking for another donation makes one want to puke. I know this happens all the time with large, necessarily impersonal institutions, but it conflicts so starkly with the goal of "awareness". I think of the Hippocratic Oath, the first principle being to do no harm, even psychological harm.

FWIW, I do research in cancer. From my perspective, I see very little individual heroism, just an enormously large and complex network of laboratories that is slowly, inexorably identifying causes, treatments and cures. While there are stars in the field, no one individual is essential to the effort, it is far greater than any one scientist or laboratory. Research involves teamwork on a scale far beyond any that occurs in any sport.

As other posters here have pointed out, the sports analogy of a lone individual, fighting against some enemy, really isn't very appropriate. Lance himself "beat" cancer (so far) not because he fought it harder than anyone else does, but partly because of pure chance, and partly because he received excellent treatment. In fact, he probably hurt his initial chances by waiting a relatively long time before being diagnosed, and that can probably be ascribed to the fact that, as an athlete, he was used to ignoring pain. I wonder if he ever mentions that in his visits to cancer victims.

So the first lesson is, early diagnosis, including tests that everyone should have even in the absence of symptoms--breast, prostate and colon cancer are particularly important here. And a second lesson is, if you are diagnosed with cancer, don't think in terms of miracles. Be prepared to confront cold hardreality, wrt both the type, degree and spread of the disease, and all the possible treatments. The more willing you are to do that, the better your chances will be.

If Lance's story inspires other cancer victims, makes them feel better about themselves, fine, but his outcome is irrelevant to theirs. If Livestrong makes them aware of resources they otherwise would not have known about, that is a plus. But there is an enormous amount of help waiting right now on the internet.

Good post

If the email makes you want to puke you better get a bucket for next week....this is just getting warmed up. The leveraging and exploitation of the charity for personal gain is perhaps the most disturbing part of the myth.

The good thing is you are not the only person who is appalled. There are many in Austin who share your feelings and want a correction....the place is leaking like a sieve.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I have to the say the "arrangement" is genius. I was duped.

It appears the Flinders research centre pays Livestrong to use the name "Livestrong" for the centre. The reason for this is apparently it will bring more notoriety to the centre and thus more donations. Armstrong himself then is paid to appear at the centre first by Livestrong in his direct consultancy fees and a second time by the centre itself at his usual public speaking rate.

Here's me thinking he donated the name to the centre!!

So you combine that lovely little racket with the Australian governments pay cheque then add on top his Radioshack salary along with the tab for the jet fuel and a holiday for Anna and the kids and the entire Australian expenditure turns into a lovely money spinner all in the name of awareness.

So you can understand why the government held back the payment structure from public view.

Hopefully Floyd's nugget is due to come soon and will spoil the party.

I'm sorry but this appears to be embellishing what Lance has done.
Can you back up what you claim?

Why I object to this portrayal is that it allows those who wish to protect the myth an avenue to show that Lance is "not so bad".

It is public knowledge that LA received 2 million to appear for the TdU, Livestrong events were co-ordinated at the same time - which could mean LAF funds were spent on jet fuel.

However I have read nothing to say that 'Flinders' paid an appearance fee, nor was anything paid for the renaming of the centre to Livestrong - in fact I remember reading that the suggestion of renaming it was made in the SA government/Parliament - so I assume it was all part of the 2 million appearance fee as a foto opportunity, hence why they dug a hole for a building that wasn't due to start for another 7 months.
.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Yup. Thread of the year.

Nicely done, everyone. Thanks.

And mods; please don't move it. I can't be the only one who solely visits the Clinic and skips the other forums.

 

[epo1999]

JMB... You're not!

 

[Ferminal]

I'm sorry but this appears to be embellishing what Lance has done.
Can you back up what you claim?

Why I object to this portrayal is that it allows those who wish to protect the myth an avenue to show that Lance is "not so bad".

It is public knowledge that LA received 2 million to appear for the TdU, Livestrong events were co-ordinated at the same time - which could mean LAF funds were spent on jet fuel.

However I have read nothing to say that 'Flinders' paid an appearance fee, nor was anything paid for the renaming of the centre to Livestrong - in fact I remember reading that the suggestion of renaming it was made in the SA government/Parliament - so I assume it was all part of the 2 million appearance fee as a foto opportunity, hence why they dug a hole for a building that wasn't due to start for another 7 months.
.

I think Hog is just referring to the earlier post by Velocentric where it was hinted at that there was some financial transaction with regards to the naming. There is no public record of it though, but the information regarding everything Lance has done in SA has always been sketchy and dodgy.

I don't think the Flinders naming arrangement has anything to do with the TdU fee, it's more a side-deal with Ranny. The press release I read some time ago has Rann saying something like "We're very thankful that Lance has offered to donate the name to us".

So the possible outcomes are -

-Livestrong paid for "naming rights" by way of donation.
-The SA Government offered to name it after Lance as a show of respect for the man's apparent philanthropy.
-The SA Government offered to pay to use the name as a way of giving Lance some more cash.

I think the first one has been debunked a long time ago... The other two are both unacceptable in my view for a government to be giving free naming rights to a commercial organisation. If they actually paid a fee for it then it's corruption which even the NSW Government would envy.

 

[Dallas_]

Maybe I caused this ruckus. sorry guys - got a bit carried away in one of my posts. cheers ...BTW has RR got any spray left? might need a carton!

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I will not be moving the thread, nor should any other admin/mod. Even if the thrust of the conversation is finances, every 10th post or so makes a reference to doping, which is strictly off-limits outside the Clinic. As a matter of fact, people have received infractions and bans for posting doping discussions in other forums. Moving the thread would not only be counter-intuitive, but against forum policy.

I too would like to see some harder links regarding money transactions and the TDU, beyond just logical presumption, let's see what SI has to say in a week or so, or what articles come out of Europe that Doc and a few others hinted at.

I have to admit though I find it fascinating how LA and the core supporters use the term "awareness" so broadly. As if Lance himself is cancer awareness. Hence, any action he takes is justified as such, because of who he is. I can't think of another charity or individual who has pushed a definition so far. This is much more like Orwellian doublespeak akin to Corporate American terms like "downsizing", or political phrases like the "Clear Skies Act", or "Healthy Forests Initiative."

At some point I have to wonder not if, but when Livestrong will implode. There must be administrative people there who know all these numbers, know all the facts. Some of them must anticipating this, and speculating how to restructure what's left of the charity once the jig is up.

 

[131313]

At some point I have to wonder not if, but when Livestrong will implode. There must be administrative people there who know all these numbers, know all the facts. Some of them must anticipating this, and speculating how to restructure what's left of the charity once the jig is up.

I agree with this, completely. There's no way this thing is sustainable, and right now I'm sure those in a position to lose the most are already figuring how to get what they can when it goes bust 2, 3 or 10 years from now.

I have a feeling "Livestrong's" legacy will be as a punch line.

 

[Berzin]

I have to admit though I find it fascinating how LA and the core supporters use the term "awareness" so broadly. As if Lance himself is cancer awareness. Hence, any action he takes is justified as such, because of who he is.

I can't think of another charity or individual who has pushed a definition so far. This is much more like Orwellian doublespeak akin to Corporate American terms like "downsizing", or political phrases like the "Clear Skies Act", or "Healthy Forests Initiative."

The farther the definition gets pushed, the less real-world impact it has. I read an article on Armstrong's charity where the repeated catch phrases were "initiatives", "advocacy", "coordinating global efforts", etc. Basically using obtuse, hard-to-define goals that in the end don't amount to anything.

The inevitable result is they can gloat how Armstrong has "helped millions" without having to say who these people are or what the organization has done to help them.

The problem is the large majority of these fanboys never had cancer. They've never had to negotiate the process on a personal level and don't understand what it means. They think they can put on a yellow plastic bracelet and suddenly they're part of a gang. But this gang isn't the Bloods or the Crips, it's the Van Buren Boys (Seinfeld reference, for those who are scratching their heads wondering what this means).

Because to belong to the real "gang" of sufferers and survivors one has to be "jumped in", not with a mass beat-down but with a cancer diagnosis.

The yellow bracelet and the Livestrong apparel gives people a contrived sense of advocacy when the reality is they have no idea what the foundation does, how it spends it's money and what if any organizations they contribute money to for this "fight" against cancer. You don't get wheeled through a hospital directly to all the services you require without a hitch. The yellow amulet doesn't ward off uncaring medical insurance administrators who see you as a liability to their bottom line at a time when you need to hear a kind voice at the other end of the phone.

If Livestrong were real advocates of cancer research, they would have been one of the loudest voices for a single-payer system that takes the profit motive out of medical treatment in the US. But they remained silent throughout the whole national debate while Armstrong was gorging himself on HgH and blood transfusions and still wound up crashing, stumbling and bumbling all over Europe in 2010.

At some point I have to wonder not if, but when Livestrong will implode. There must be administrative people there who know all these numbers, know all the facts. Some of them must anticipating this, and speculating how to restructure what's left of the charity once the jig is up.

Livestrong will implode the second any of the doping accusations are corroborated by someone well-liked by cycling fans. So far this hasn't happened yet, but when it does it will no longer suffice to call one man a bitter, agenda-driven liar (Floyd Landis). Nice Guy Georgie (Hincapie) comes to mind.

 

[thehog]

I'm sorry but this appears to be embellishing what Lance has done.
Can you back up what you claim?

Why I object to this portrayal is that it allows those who wish to protect the myth an avenue to show that Lance is "not so bad".

It is public knowledge that LA received 2 million to appear for the TdU, Livestrong events were co-ordinated at the same time - which could mean LAF funds were spent on jet fuel.

However I have read nothing to say that 'Flinders' paid an appearance fee, nor was anything paid for the renaming of the centre to Livestrong - in fact I remember reading that the suggestion of renaming it was made in the SA government/Parliament - so I assume it was all part of the 2 million appearance fee as a foto opportunity, hence why they dug a hole for a building that wasn't due to start for another 7 months.
.

You read me wrong. The Flinders licence payment was in addition to the 2 million personal TDU appearance fee.*

The Flinders had been commissioned long ago with the funding in place. The centre exists today but they are moving to the new site when its complete.*

There was political pressure to get Armstrong name into the FMC even thou he's not done anything in terms of raising the funds or assisting with the initiative. So someone probably Rann forced the project owners to spend some of the funding in buying the "Livestrong" name to name part of the centre. (it wouldn't surprise me if Armstrong pressured Rann to arrange this)

So Armstrong was paid again in addition to his appearance fee.

Now it's not unusual that medical centre have corporate sponsorship. In fact most need corporate money to survival. But its highly unusual to see a medical centre paying a corporate in this case Lance Armstrong to "dedicate" his name to the centre.*

So Armstrong turns up to mark the building of the centre. The local press bill his appearance as if he has donated the funds for the centre and Livestrong is supporting the medical unit. As it turns out Livestrong walked away from the deal giving nothing. No programs, no money, no staff, nothing. They took the naming fee and ran!

Now it's not popular to question how money is spent on these types of places. The FMC is a really good thing. The Livestrong part stinks but the opposition government is not going to dig too deep on something that would only make them look bad by questioning.

I bring all this up to show that Livestrong is doing sweet FA in terms of research and treatment. They'll happily take the cash and the accolades of such a centre but not contribute to it.

 

[barn yard]

hog, do you have any evidence of the political pressure and the payment(s)/fees to use the livestrong name - i am sure the local press (eg http://www.adelaidenow.com.au) would love to hear about it as their hate of mike rann's relationship with LA, and their hate toward cycling is very very strong...

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I'd like to see any such links as well.

Otherwise, good post Hog, clarified what you and others wrote earlier.

 

[Velocentric]

There's a couple of points I want to tidy up:

As stated earlier I have information relating to the fee arrangement between Flinders & Livestrong for the use of the trademark. Until this information can be fully verified by myself or one of the people within Flinders who has spoken with me is willing to publicly go on record I am having to be very careful as to what I say. I'm not protected by a large organisation and personally stand to get walloped if what I have been given turns out to not be 100% accurate.

I asked public, (well, Twitter), opinion on this situation back in October, wanting to know how people feel regarding sources wishing to remain anonymous, as mine within Flinders have requested. The over-riding opinion seemed to be that it's OK as long as you can back it up if challenged. Well I'm expecting to be challenged on this so I need to be able to back it up beyond any doubt. It's slow, it's frustrating but it needs to be done.

As for Flinders paying Armstrong an appearance fee or any other expenses, as I said earlier I have no evidence of this. As I understood it Rann was the main mover behind getting Armstrong to attend and put the funding in place to pay the $2 million appearance fee. There are entries in the LAF accounting that correspond to expenses for the trip which raises the question: if Armstrong profited personally through the appearance fee, why should LAF pay any of his expenses?

Just to be clear: the main focus of my investigations right now are the LAF financial returns and statements along with any agreements (licensing or merchandise) that are claimed to further the Foundation. Currently this includes the agreement with Nike, Demand Media, CSE, Chris Carmichael Training and Flinders. There will be many other things no doubt that become apparent as I get deeper into the reports but right now that is where the bulk of my work is taking me.

If there's anything else you think I should be including in this please let me know. I don't have limitless resources or time but I'm doing what I can.

 

[Siriuscat]

The last few posts continue to shed light on what are decidedly shady deals regarding the TDU appearance money and the Flinders Centre. Some of you folks are really well informed or superb BS merchants, I'd rather believe the former.

Where I think any hopes we may have of finding links to prove or disprove the validity of someone's comments may flounder is in the financial reckoning. I do not believe that FMC would have a nice slot in their accounts sheet saying $X,000,000 Appearance Fee to Livestrong/Lance Armstrong, I suspect that the accounting for this would be striaght out of the UCI Book of Accounting, payment made straight under the table.

Additionally will it actually feature in the Livestrong accounts, and if so will it appear as a legitimate payment/donation to the Foundation??

Someone, somewhere will hopefully put all this nonsense to rights and show whereb the dodgy dealings are.

(Obviously if I've missed anything, please point me in the right direction.)

 

[Roland Rat]

Great thread, good work guys.

It is ironic, though, that this thread is ongoing just as the new Procycling Mag has an article on the Armstrong dichotomy, cheat v philanthropist. Astoundingly lazy journalism.

 

[thehog]

There's a couple of points I want to tidy up:

As stated earlier I have information relating to the fee arrangement between Flinders & Livestrong for the use of the trademark. Until this information can be fully verified by myself or one of the people within Flinders who has spoken with me is willing to publicly go on record I am having to be very careful as to what I say. I'm not protected by a large organisation and personally stand to get walloped if what I have been given turns out to not be 100% accurate.

I asked public, (well, Twitter), opinion on this situation back in October, wanting to know how people feel regarding sources wishing to remain anonymous, as mine within Flinders have requested. The over-riding opinion seemed to be that it's OK as long as you can back it up if challenged. Well I'm expecting to be challenged on this so I need to be able to back it up beyond any doubt. It's slow, it's frustrating but it needs to be done.

As for Flinders paying Armstrong an appearance fee or any other expenses, as I said earlier I have no evidence of this. As I understood it Rann was the main mover behind getting Armstrong to attend and put the funding in place to pay the $2 million appearance fee. There are entries in the LAF accounting that correspond to expenses for the trip which raises the question: if Armstrong profited personally through the appearance fee, why should LAF pay any of his expenses?

Just to be clear: the main focus of my investigations right now are the LAF financial returns and statements along with any agreements (licensing or merchandise) that are claimed to further the Foundation. Currently this includes the agreement with Nike, Demand Media, CSE, Chris Carmichael Training and Flinders. There will be many other things no doubt that become apparent as I get deeper into the reports but right now that is where the bulk of my work is taking me.

If there's anything else you think I should be including in this please let me know. I don't have limitless resources or time but I'm doing what I can.

Thanks very much. Interesting information.

I understand the need for links and why people request them. In this case if there were links we really wouldn't be debating the issue.

I suggest people read all of the press releases which all go at pains to state the name was "dedicated" and not donated. Links also out there detail how the centre has been funded. There is absolutely no mention of Livestrong making any contribution to the centre in any shape or form.

Further to these points; I know some people from back in the day when I lived in Australia. I ask a question and provide the answer and they say yes or no. Thats all I have running until it reaches the public domain. Could it be bar room talk? Maybe but most likely not. They are good sources of information.

The other area is there is a fair amount of disgruntlement from the fund raisers. A lot of work went in to lobbying for the funds and to have the event hijacked by Livestrong and Rann ruffled a lot of feathers. But what can they do? The Government is contributing $10m+ a year. You're not going to mess with that by squabbling over Lance turning up in a white shirt never to come back again. That 10million will pay for jobs and research that may have not been able to take place. With the employees on fixed term contracts they are not going to raise a story over who was paid what. They're are happy to be working in the field and being paid.

The centre didn't need Armstrong. The funding was in place. It certainly didn't need to pay him either but somebody had applied a lot of pressure to have him there and have his time and name paid for. The final slap in the face was that Livestrong is running some small programs outside of Adelaide! Obviously the centre wasn't good enough to run them! - or maybe there's another money spinner on the way?

 

[Race Radio]

There's a couple of points I want to tidy up:

As stated earlier I have information relating to the fee arrangement between Flinders & Livestrong for the use of the trademark. Until this information can be fully verified by myself or one of the people within Flinders who has spoken with me is willing to publicly go on record I am having to be very careful as to what I say. I'm not protected by a large organisation and personally stand to get walloped if what I have been given turns out to not be 100% accurate.

I asked public, (well, Twitter), opinion on this situation back in October, wanting to know how people feel regarding sources wishing to remain anonymous, as mine within Flinders have requested. The over-riding opinion seemed to be that it's OK as long as you can back it up if challenged. Well I'm expecting to be challenged on this so I need to be able to back it up beyond any doubt. It's slow, it's frustrating but it needs to be done.

As for Flinders paying Armstrong an appearance fee or any other expenses, as I said earlier I have no evidence of this. As I understood it Rann was the main mover behind getting Armstrong to attend and put the funding in place to pay the $2 million appearance fee. There are entries in the LAF accounting that correspond to expenses for the trip which raises the question: if Armstrong profited personally through the appearance fee, why should LAF pay any of his expenses?

Just to be clear: the main focus of my investigations right now are the LAF financial returns and statements along with any agreements (licensing or merchandise) that are claimed to further the Foundation. Currently this includes the agreement with Nike, Demand Media, CSE, Chris Carmichael Training and Flinders. There will be many other things no doubt that become apparent as I get deeper into the reports but right now that is where the bulk of my work is taking me.

If there's anything else you think I should be including in this please let me know. I don't have limitless resources or time but I'm doing what I can.

You are on the right track.

Didn't Livestrong get some grants from the US government? Do you think they would be a little upset to see that money used for Jet Fuel and, um...other stuff?

Hummm, somebody should look into that.

 

[BotanyBay]

All this talk of LiveStrong reminds me of another organization. I wonder how many of these guys wear the bracelet?

 

[BotanyBay]

There's a couple of points I want to tidy up:

As stated earlier I have information relating to the fee arrangement between Flinders & Livestrong for the use of the trademark. Until this information can be fully verified by myself or one of the people within Flinders who has spoken with me is willing to publicly go on record I am having to be very careful as to what I say. I'm not protected by a large organisation and personally stand to get walloped if what I have been given turns out to not be 100% accurate.

I asked public, (well, Twitter), opinion on this situation back in October, wanting to know how people feel regarding sources wishing to remain anonymous, as mine within Flinders have requested. The over-riding opinion seemed to be that it's OK as long as you can back it up if challenged. Well I'm expecting to be challenged on this so I need to be able to back it up beyond any doubt. It's slow, it's frustrating but it needs to be done.

As for Flinders paying Armstrong an appearance fee or any other expenses, as I said earlier I have no evidence of this. As I understood it Rann was the main mover behind getting Armstrong to attend and put the funding in place to pay the $2 million appearance fee. There are entries in the LAF accounting that correspond to expenses for the trip which raises the question: if Armstrong profited personally through the appearance fee, why should LAF pay any of his expenses?

Just to be clear: the main focus of my investigations right now are the LAF financial returns and statements along with any agreements (licensing or merchandise) that are claimed to further the Foundation. Currently this includes the agreement with Nike, Demand Media, CSE, Chris Carmichael Training and Flinders. There will be many other things no doubt that become apparent as I get deeper into the reports but right now that is where the bulk of my work is taking me.

If there's anything else you think I should be including in this please let me know. I don't have limitless resources or time but I'm doing what I can.

I'm afraid I can't allow you to do this Velocentric. This is highly irregular.

 

[BotanyBay]

Hummm, somebody should look into that.

Open the pod bay doors, Hal.

I'm afraid that I'm not going to be able to allow you to do that, Dave. You are jeopardizing the mission. This is highly irregular.

 

[Polish]

You are on the right track.

Didn't Livestrong get some grants from the US government? Do you think they would be a little upset to see that money used for Jet Fuel and, um...other stuff?

Hummm, somebody should look into that.

What is it with you and Jet Fuel?
I do admit I find your obsession/schtick amusing

But seriously, why would the US Gov care about Lance's jet fuel?
First, there is the powerful jet fuel / business jet lobby backing Lance up.
And second, it is not like Lance is flying around in Air Force One.

Tell me RR, when you are at the airport waiting in line to take your shoes off and get searched, does it bother you that Lance can stroll up to his private jet, Nikes firmly on foot, and crack open a brewski as he enters the jet?
Bother you just a tiny bit maybe?

And tell me RR, when you travel on business, do YOU pay for your own jet fuel? Or do you have someone ELSE pick up the tab. I sure hope you pay your own way lol.