The blurred lines of Livestrong - the spin bike sham

[Siriuscat]

Not exactly sure what your point is....

If Lance had contracted Malaria and started a Malaria Foundation, Bill and Melinda would have looked somewhere else for a cause?

Or maybe Lance faked Cancer instead of faking Malaria because Cancer is more lucrative?

What exactly is your point?

I think the point is GLARINGLY obvious, it's all in this quote:

there's already plenty of incentive for cancer research. The drug companies know they can make big profits off cancer treatments, so the motivation for research on cancer is already very strong. But there's no profit motive to develop malaria drugs

What are Livestrong/LA taking in back handers from the drugs companies? Lets be honest his morals are questionable

 

[D-Queued]

I think the point is GLARINGLY obvious, it's all in this quote:



What are Livestrong/LA taking in back handers from the drugs companies? Lets be honest his morals are questionable

You don't remember the BMSquibb ads? They were part of the 'Driven by What's Inside' theme.

Get it?

Now that was funny.

Dave.

 

[Polish]

Soylent Yellow

What about this:

Attaching cancer-research funding to consumption of a consumer good. When consumption increases, we increase industrial footprints, noxious emissions, green house gasses...which may all increase cancers.

So, do not buy the spin-bike and send $10 to your national cancer research foundation, and you'll do better.

Yes michaeld, Livestrong Brand stationary bikes cause cancer.
So does michelob ultra and jet fuel.
Soon the connection between Subarus and cancer will be uncovered.

Lance's evil plan is becoming more and more evident:
1) SELL products that cause cancer.
2) HOPE for survivors.
3) PREY on the survivors and their loved ones for lucrative profits.

Lance is not interested in Cancer Cure Research boo.
More interested in getting the survivors back on their feet and into the workforce again. Ka-ching a ching.

 

[Siriuscat]

You don't remember the BMSquibb ads? They were part of the 'Driven by What's Inside' theme.

Get it?

Now that was funny.

Dave.

No but then again I'm in Scotland and many of the ad's you folks discuss we never see.

 

[barn yard]

What are Livestrong/LA taking in back handers from the drugs companies? Lets be honest his morals are questionable

AMGEN tour of california... just putting it out there.

 

[Hugh Januss]

You don't remember the BMSquibb ads? They were part of the 'Driven by What's Inside' theme.

Get it?

Now that was funny.

Dave.

At this point I am wondering what all might come to light in the scope of this investigation (both legal and journalistic) that even those of us who have been paying at least some attention may be suprised by.
Of a drug nature.
Of an unreleased drug nature.
Of a forget about the dopers "level playing field" unreleased drug nature.
Just thinking out loud.

 

[Polish]

At this point I am wondering what all might come to light in the scope of this investigation (both legal and journalistic) that even those of us who have been paying at least some attention may be suprised by.
Of a drug nature.
Of an unreleased drug nature.
Of a forget about the dopers "level playing field" unreleased drug nature.
Just thinking out loud.

If there is/was an unreleased drug that can transform someone into a seven time winner of the Tour de France, the medical implications will be wonderful.

Unless a side effect is that it turns you into a nasty turd man.

 

[Polish]

No but then again I'm in Scotland and many of the ad's you folks discuss we never see.

This is a good one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHtFixj0cWk

Until you realize Livestrong Brand treadmills cause cancer.

 

[Race Radio]

At this point I am wondering what all might come to light in the scope of this investigation (both legal and journalistic) that even those of us who have been paying at least some attention may be suprised by.
Of a drug nature.
Of an unreleased drug nature.
Of a forget about the dopers "level playing field" unreleased drug nature.
Just thinking out loud.

yes

The level playing field is a myth invented by the groupies to justify perpetuation of the myth.

 

[frenchfry]

Much new info. The tide has turned....not only with people who were once scared to talk but also in the way the media will cover it and in multiple legal avenues.

Even a few years ago I hoped that some day the tide would turn, that Armstrong's threats, control of the media and legal team would no longer be capable of rejecting the obvious (and even the less obvious, as even I didn't see just how deep the Livestrong scam went).

I think Floyd was a catalyst, but I believe the truth would have surfaced sooner or later.

It looks like the cancer is about to beaten.

 

[Dallas_]

Even a few years ago I hoped that some day the tide would turn, that Armstrong's threats, control of the media and legal team would no longer be capable of rejecting the obvious (and even the less obvious, as even I didn't see just how deep the Livestrong scam went).

I think Floyd was a catalyst, but I believe the truth would have surfaced sooner or later.

It looks like the cancer is about to beaten.

I think the catalyst was him emerging from retirement. That creating the environment for triggers to happen. and I am sooo glad he did.

cheers to all

 

[thehog]

I think the catalyst was him emerging from retirement. That creating the environment for triggers to happen. and I am sooo glad he did.

cheers to all

Correct. But I also think in the way it was done. The entire cancer thing made a lot of people who knew the truth want to vomit. It was just so cynical. Looking back now its actually very sick what was attempted. I think the entire comeback 2.0 is epitomised by the Nike "I'm doing it for them" commercial. Thats how low it sank. Thankfully cycling can get back to where it was heading around the 2008 timeframe. It wasn't perfect but it was getting better step by step.

 

[frenchfry]

I think the catalyst was him emerging from retirement. That creating the environment for triggers to happen. and I am sooo glad he did.

cheers to all

So right. I have previously brought up this point as well. Short term pain, long term gain. And as the Hog says, it was just too nauseating the way he prostituted the cancer theme to fill his bank account. He really thought himself invincible, and certainly far too greedy.

 

[jimbob_in_co]

Lance is not interested in Cancer Cure Research boo.
More interested in getting the survivors back on their feet and into the workforce again. Ka-ching a ching.

Exactly how did he ever help any survivor get back on their feet?
By 'partnering'* with already existing organizations?

I guess as long as we all don't worry too much and just look to his life and actions for inspiration, everything is fine.

* which consisted mostly of putting the contact information of these groups up on the Livestrong.org website and labeling as their own "SurvivorCare" program. Granted it is probably useful, but seems like a pretty inexpensive 'program' for them to 'create', i.e. a couple of well formatted web pages on the livestrong.org website with a few links and a couple of forms attached asking for required information from the person seeking assistance.

 

[Velocentric]

The thing that galled me most about the branding of Lance 2.0 and his return "for the sufferers" was the whole 'Hope Rides Again' thing. Because you know, without Lance to remind us of Cancer, the World had forgotten it existed.

This site surrounding the Hope Rides Again event just about sums up Cult of Lance for me:

http://smij.in/c5v

And just incase you all forgot that without Lance there is no hope:

With all the Nike branding surrounding the comeback I don't see how it can be seen as anything but an exercise in making money.

 

[jimbob_in_co]

The thing that galled me most about the branding of Lance 2.0 and his return "for the sufferers" was the whole 'Hope Rides Again' thing. Because you know, without Lance to remind us of Cancer, the World had forgotten it existed.

That was the most nauseating aspect of it all. The message I got was "that the poor cancer patients, and the friends/families/supporters of these patients couldn't possibly make it without Armstrong and his Foundation leading and showing us the the way".

That Nike Ad of 'if you hate me, you love cancer' was THE final straw for me.

 

[Dominar]

BTW - You obviously have no idea of how many of us have pretty well informed ideas of how charities work - or at least how they are supposed to work.

Dave.

Well, if there are, I haven't seen much evidence of it on this thread (or any of the dozens of others like it over the past couple of years I've been lurking here). As just one small example, there's the comment a couple of pages back decrying the double deduction from the "misuse" of the private jet, despite the fact that a lease expense deduction has absolutely no value for the LAF, which is a tax-exempt entity.

But by all means, please continue with the conspiracy theories...

 

[Velocentric]

Well, if there are, I haven't seen much evidence of it on this thread (or any of the dozens of others like it over the past couple of years I've been lurking here). As just one small example, there's the comment a couple of pages back decrying the double deduction from the "misuse" of the private jet, despite the fact that a lease expense deduction has absolutely no value for the LAF, which is a tax-exempt entity.

But by all means, please continue with the conspiracy theories...

Answer my question Dominar.

 

[thehog]

That was the most nauseating aspect of it all. The message I got was "that the poor cancer patients, and the friends/families/supporters of these patients couldn't possibly make it without Armstrong and his Foundation leading and showing us the the way".

That Nike Ad of 'if you hate me, you love cancer' was THE final straw for me.

I think its a little deeper than that.

The issue I have with it is that it preys on peoples emotions when they're most venerable. As you know when you are diagnosed you don't have a great deal of time to sift through charities or support groups which have the best platform. You go with what's available. Its sad that when people have been in this situation that they would see something like this and think that Armstrong only has the best intentions for them.

The other component is the blatant use of cancer as a shield against doping. The fact that he actually mentions it in the commercial is beyond sick. Can you imagine that deep in the recesses of his mind he full well knows he is a doper but was happy to provide the voiceover whilst watching images. Its one thing to be a doper and just get on with life not thinking about it but to be a doper and then deny using drugs but holding up a bald cancer patient of proof that you haven't doped is disturbing. What was he thinking when they conceived the premise for this commercial?

Its one thing to ask people to support you but to pray on those who need help the most to defend you and hand over your cash pushes the limits of being the lowest form of scum.

To think if Armstrong was actually clean from 1999 and won a handful of classics and stages of the Tour and ran with a clean mantra he would be much bigger than he ever was by winning Tour. He would be a hell of lot more fulfilled with his life also. I don't feel confident on his mental state beyond January.

There are some awful accusations on their way.

TDU timing is very important.

 

[Dominar]

Dominar, I hope you'll go back and do some reading on what we've been talking about. This charity is clearly abused and really amounts to little more than a method to shelter taxes, lower personal expenses, and help strengthen and build a very-much-for-profit brand. This mans finances are inextricably interwoven in the fabric of this non-profit org. And very little of it goes to an "actual" good cause. It's the scam of scams, and the fraud of frauds. Not just for the wealthy, but for everyone.

I have read the comments here and elsewhere many, many times (all of these sorts of threads are very much alike). My point is that the "evidence" of what you see to be "clear abuse" and a "tax shelter" is based on a faulty understanding of how these sorts of things are commonly structured in fact and why. There's also this misguided idea of how "good" charities are supposed to be run. The fact is, charity is Big Business and marketing is critical to any large charity's mission. The IRS keeps a close eye and will step in to assess stiff penalties on both the charity and on management (or even revoke the charity's tax-exempt status and impose back taxes and penalties in egregious cases) if charitable dollars are being used for the benefit of any private individual.

As for what is/is not a "good cause," that's a subjective decision to be made by each donor.

 

[Velocentric]

Post #263 page 27 Dominar. Evidence & a question. Please respond.

 

[bianchigirl]

Correct. But I also think in the way it was done. The entire cancer thing made a lot of people who knew the truth want to vomit. It was just so cynical. Looking back now its actually very sick what was attempted. I think the entire comeback 2.0 is epitomised by the Nike "I'm doing it for them" commercial. Thats how low it sank. Thankfully cycling can get back to where it was heading around the 2008 timeframe. It wasn't perfect but it was getting better step by step.

Just rewatched that nauseating piece of egotism with the sound down & couldn't help but notice the almost subliminal Livestrong product placement - 'get cancer, buy this stuff, line my pocket and bolster my reputation'.

I think it's absolutely perfect that 'Livestrong', rather than being some sort of grass roots cancer survivor slogan, was developed in a focus group.

Everyone should take the time to view this http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/gallery/2008/mar/31/lifebeforedeath This is the reality of cancer for the vast majority - something that robs them of dignity, that is frightening and life destroying - not the commercialised, fist pumping guff of Livestrong

 

[Race Radio]

I have read the comments here and elsewhere many, many times (all of these sorts of threads are very much alike). My point is that the "evidence" of what you see to be "clear abuse" and a "tax shelter" is based on a faulty understanding of how these sorts of things are commonly structured in fact and why. There's also this misguided idea of how "good" charities are supposed to be run. The fact is, charity is Big Business and marketing is critical to any large charity's mission. The IRS keeps a close eye and will step in to assess stiff penalties on both the charity and on management (or even revoke the charity's tax-exempt status and impose back taxes and penalties in egregious cases) if charitable dollars are being used for the benefit of any private individual.

As for what is/is not a "good cause," that's a subjective decision to be made by each donor.

So $2,000,000 in travel cost for a charity the size of Livestrong is OK?

 

[Dominar]

The 2009 break down of "Program expenses" is quite telling of where the priorities are at LAF:

Education, Programs & Policy - $11,221,852 (how much does it cost to write Policy documents?!)

Advocacy & Government relations - $10,109,023 (that's an awful lot of shoulder rubbing), although to be fair advocacy might also include LAF dealing with insurance companies and medical trials on a patients behalf.

Grants - $8,833,243 (so your donation really does go more towards awareness than it does to finding a cure).

You might notice that the amounts listed above add up to the total of $30,164,118 listed in the Annual Report as "Program expenses"

Yet, on the "where the money goes" page of livestrong.org they list programs as having cost $31,164,118 - a difference of exactly $1 million.

Then, when you read the audited report for 2009 they detail "Program services" as having cost $28,833,066 - a full $2,331,052 less than they list on the public facing page.

So for 2009 they list 3 differing amounts under program expenses. Tell me Dominar, is that something a Charity is allowed to do?

Without looking at the sources directly, it's hard to know for certain, but I would suggest that you not confuse the audited annual report with the tax filing. Different sets of rules can lead to expenses and income being booked at different times or in different manners. As for the $1.0M discrepancy between the 990 and the website -- perhaps a typo? It happens.

 

[jimbob_in_co]

I think its a little deeper than that.

The issue I have with it is that it preys on peoples emotions when they're most venerable. As you know when you are diagnosed you don't have a great deal of time to sift through charities or support groups which have the best platform. You go with what's available. Its sad that when people have been in this situation that they would see something like this and think that Armstrong only has the best intentions for them.

The other component is the blatant use of cancer as a shield against doping. The fact that he actually mentions it in the commercial is beyond sick. Can you imagine that deep in the recesses of his mind he full well knows he is a doper but was happy to provide the voiceover whilst watching images. Its one thing to be a doper and just get on with life not thinking about it but to be a doper and then deny using drugs but holding up a bald cancer patient of proof that you haven't doped is disturbing. What was he thinking when they conceived the premise for this commercial?

Its one thing to ask people to support you but to pray on those who need help the most to defend you and hand over your cash pushes the limits of being the lowest form of scum.

To think if Armstrong was actually clean from 1999 and won a handful of classics and stages of the Tour and ran with a clean mantra he would be much bigger than he ever was by winning Tour. He would be a hell of lot more fulfilled with his life also. I don't feel confident on his mental state beyond January.

There are some awful accusations on their way.

TDU timing is very important.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said above hog. I think of all the great things he and his Foundation could have been doing, but 'playing in the political machine' is messy, nasty and very unpleasant. The return to being a semi-deity on a road bicycle (and getting to travel all over the place 'supporting' your boss', the semi-deity's, 'cause') was much more appealing, I am sure.

He didn't need to stand on the top step of the TdF Podium seven times to garner the required attention to have a real, lasting, and major positive impact int he lives of cancer patients, and he sure as **** did NOT have to pull this "Comeback 2.0" campaign.

I have wonderful thoughts of what COULD have been done with all the effort and resources put to support his return since mid-2008. Imagine the REAL impact it could have had in Wash. D.C. and elsewhere these last two years.
What a needless waste this whole thing has become; and I shudder at how much worse it is going to get.

I will take no joy in seeing all that is likely to soon occur. It is all wasted opportunity by those who could have made better and less self-serving choices.