• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Will the 'cancer lobby' support Lance?

I am not sure if this has been discussed before (and if it has please tell me where and I will merge the threads).

I know there is much debate on these boards about whether Lance's involvment in the fight against cancer has been appropriate, helpful, impactful etc etc I 've read enough to see that some believe it has while many feel otherwise. I have not started this thread to debate that issue.

We often focus on the cycling omerta but I'm not sure that's all that relevant if this becomes political in the US. If someone believes they can gain political capital out of bringing a high profile person like Lance down the sport politics will be irrelavent. I wonder if right now it's not worth it for anyone to try because most average folk either still don't know, don't care or think Lance is a good guy under attack.

I am more interested in if there is a 'cancer lobby' made up of powerful people who have been touched by the disease or the 'cancer research industry'. I could imagine a goup driven by either commercial or personal interests - does such a group exist? Will this group support him if things really kick off or will they try to distance themselves from him and any fall out?

Any thoughts or useful insight from folk?
 
Jun 13, 2010
263
0
0
Visit site
180mmCrank said:
I am not sure if this has been discussed before (and if it has please tell me where and I will merge the threads).

I know there is much debate on these boards about whether Lance's involvment in the fight against cancer has been appropriate, helpful, impactful etc etc I 've read enough to see that some believe it has while many feel otherwise. I have not started this thread to debate that issue.

We often focus on the cycling omerta but I'm not sure that's all that relevant if this becomes political in the US. If someone believes they can gain political capital out of bringing a high profile person like Lance down the sport politics will be irrelavent. I wonder if right now it's not worth it for anyone to try because most average folk either still don't know, don't care or think Lance is a good guy under attack.

I am more interested in if there is a 'cancer lobby' made up of powerful people who have been touched by the disease or the 'cancer research industry'. I could imagine a goup driven by either commercial or personal interests - does such a group exist? Will this group support him if things really kick off or will they try to distance themselves from him and any fall out?

Any thoughts or useful insight from folk?

Yes . . . Love Is Blind!
 
Jul 2, 2009
1,079
0
0
Visit site
If he does end up in a orange suit, behind bars
a detailed, factual book is written regarding the trial

what cancer lobby board will touch him ?
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
I imagine that the 'cancer lobby' were and are not happy about armstrong from when they saw him flying around the world in his private jet in the name of cancer. His charity is not high on the list of cancer charities that does good work with their money. So he is hardly a player in the world of cancer apart from his mouth and that seems more interested in lining his pockets....

aint much point in putting 'cancer & charity' in the public eye if it also attached to fraud...:rolleyes: so the lobby if there is one might be hoping that he goes down sooner rather than later and quietly with less of the "i have done too much good blah blah blah...."

me 2 cents.
 
Jun 15, 2010
1,318
0
0
Visit site
I have sinned

I think that when it all comes down, Lance will make a TV evangelist style public confession. I was weak please ,please forgive me. It wasn't my fault it was the devil/cancer/the Hog/Pantani/The French
 
Jul 6, 2010
99
0
0
Visit site
Benotti69 said:
aint much point in putting 'cancer & charity' in the public eye if it also attached to fraud...:rolleyes: so the lobby if there is one might be hoping that he goes down sooner rather than later and quietly with less of the "i have done too much good blah blah blah...."
Totally agree... Cancer charities have all to lose if Armstrong/Livestrong is exposed as fraud. In 1994 in France, the ARC (Association pour la Recherche contre le Cancer) was exposed to have major fraudulent practices. Another important foundation, la Ligue contre le Cancer, saw its donation decrease by 15% over the next years. Another consequence for la Ligue was that it had to start an expensive PR campaign (while it was relying on regular donations without needing much advertisement). This source indicates that the budget of La Ligue fell from 400 millions francs to 200 millions francs between 1994 and 1996...
Cancer charities can really only hope that Livestrong (if it has to go down...) does so quietly.
 
I opened this now died thread. No need to merge I suppose.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=9831
How should cancer charities prepare?

Lance obviously makes an aweful lot of noise for the amount of coin he actually manages to get to real cancer initiatives. A million wristbands, at $1 a piece? Those million feel like they are active donors.

Livestrong supporters get off cheap in their intended support of cancer. So even if there are millions of them donating, they can't be donating a lot each. A LiveStrong logo'd cap or t-shirt (may or may not be for-charity), and a $1 wristband that doesn't wear out the slightest bit.
I ran an initiative (thank goodness it didn't materialize due to force majeur) which had a realistic $1m input for Livestrong. I was so naive to think it would actually be used for cancer, all of it.
Thing is, the LS thing IS a strong PR lable. Or at least, was. I don't see how I could make the same kind of for-charity profits with the same product and service under any other name. The world just lost a sexy charity.
Imagine every Twitter follower donated $20 each, between 1998-2010.

IMO, the cancer lobby should do like GW Bush, cut the ties. GW bought a new non-Trek bike, a Niner. I think that's big coming from him, with fine alternatives (he wanted a 29"er) now part of the Trek brand.
 

jimmypop

BANNED
Jul 16, 2010
376
1
0
Visit site
Livestrong is a brand - a marketing tool. The LAF was started when there was little indication Armstrong would ever ride again. I'd love to hear "College" speak candidly about the motivation for forming the LAF.

Sure, it's funneled some money to cancer research. But by no metric is it an efficient organization, and I struggle to call it a charity.

As a branding and marketing vehicle, it's very effective.

The cancer lobby has been "done" with LAF for years. The real charities saw through the facade nearly a decade ago.
 
Jun 8, 2010
14
0
0
Visit site
"Sure, it's funneled some money to cancer research."

I think this is the biggest misconception about the LAF. They are NOT involved in any cancer research or funding thereof. Quotes below from the web site:

Explore our survivorship programs to understand the ways in which LIVESTRONG is working to improve the cancer experience.

Since our inception, we have raised $325 million dollars for the fight against cancer, and 81 percent of those funds have gone directly to support our programs and services for survivors.

So that's it. No funding for a cancer cure. All about "support". Or, in my mind, just maintaining the status quo for the BIGPHARMA corporations who have made billions off of both the survivors and the ... others.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
simo1733 said:
I think that when it all comes down, Lance will make a TV evangelist style public confession. I was weak please ,please forgive me. It wasn't my fault it was the devil/cancer/the Hog/Pantani/The French

I'm still predicting Oprah. Timeline...six months after the Grand Jury renders a decision. That was about the same time for Marion Jones. She cried nicely but Oprah didn't forgive her. Lance cured cancer so that should help.
 
I'm not too bothered about wether Lance has been good or bad for cancer awareness or fundraising etc this is a different question.

I was with some folk the other day who had no interest in cycling but new a bit about what was going on with Lance and the Grand Jury thing - there view was "The 'cancer mafia' will never let anything happen to him" I had never thought about it in this way or even heard the term 'cancer mafia'

Hence my original post about the 'political support' he may already be getting and the extent to which this will be material in the outcome of all this.

Is there a 'cancer mafia'?
 
180mmCrank said:
I'm not too bothered about wether Lance has been good or bad for cancer awareness or fundraising etc this is a different question.

I was with some folk the other day who had no interest in cycling but new a bit about what was going on with Lance and the Grand Jury thing - there view was "The 'cancer mafia' will never let anything happen to him" I had never thought about it in this way or even heard the term 'cancer mafia'

Hence my original post about the 'political support' he may already be getting and the extent to which this will be material in the outcome of all this.

Is there a 'cancer mafia'?

There's no cancer mafia. Alas the competition between charities is fierce and intense. They all want each others dollars. There are only so much charitable donations to go around. Since the downturn our good friends in the city and wall st aren't donating like they used to. Most charities work on a year by year basis. Most employees who work for these charities are on yearly contracts and if they lack the funding from governments or donors those jobs go. I've dealt with many on a firsthand basis.

Believe me if Armstrong goes down the "cancer mafia" won't care one bit. They'll just see the dollars that would have gone to Livestrong will go to them. Along with better chance of survival and more certainty on their long term prospects.

I will add one more note to this. I'm not sure if any of you have heard Armstrong speak at a charity/livestrong event. You tube he's speeches. They are extremely poor and obviously not prepared. He reels of a lot of stats and tries to get the crowd into whopping Tony Robbins style. Its hardly inspiring at all. He's speech at the Dublin convention in 09 was dribble.

Steve Jobs Apple CEO gave a wonderful speech in regards to his cancer in 2005. You tube that one. Stanford address. Inspiring, thoughtful and interesting. Steve Jobs also admits his drug use in the 80's in his book!
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
Visit site
180mmCrank said:
I'm not too bothered about wether Lance has been good or bad for cancer awareness or fundraising etc this is a different question.

I was with some folk the other day who had no interest in cycling but new a bit about what was going on with Lance and the Grand Jury thing - there view was "The 'cancer mafia' will never let anything happen to him" I had never thought about it in this way or even heard the term 'cancer mafia'

Hence my original post about the 'political support' he may already be getting and the extent to which this will be material in the outcome of all this.

Is there a 'cancer mafia'?

Knowing a bit about how charitable organizations often operate, scandals can either polarize or unify.

As far as a "cancer Mafia", I suppose there is some solidarity across the ranks. I think, to a point, they will loosely support the LAF, maybe not Lance directly, but the LAF will have some nice words tossed their way.

Now, if the LAF starts getting gummed up in this, either as providing improper benefit to Lance, or otherwise operating in some unsavory way (and for reference, even the very best of these groups have serious skeletons in their closets), I could see them moving away from any support and going on a indirect campaign to encourage patrons to only donate to groups that are "xyz" in their quality or disclosures and ratings.

When all of this started, I had heard that the LAF was also coming under scrutiny, so any news of their stability or steadiness of their donation revenue could be smokescreen so as to not scare the workers or partner groups.

Back at Polish, might it be suggested you spend a few hours reflecting on the fact that having one Grand Jury, who has already moved faster than in either the Balco or Clemens cases, and a Federal Whistle Blower case under review by the US Department of Justice, and what it says about the quality of the evidence, the probabilities of corroborating testimonies, the likelihood of one or two actors "flipping" evidence, and how that will reconcile with your love haze clouded view of Lance.
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
180mmCrank said:
I'm not too bothered about wether Lance has been good or bad for cancer awareness or fundraising etc this is a different question.

I was with some folk the other day who had no interest in cycling but new a bit about what was going on with Lance and the Grand Jury thing - there view was "The 'cancer mafia' will never let anything happen to him" I had never thought about it in this way or even heard the term 'cancer mafia'

Hence my original post about the 'political support' he may already be getting and the extent to which this will be material in the outcome of all this.

Is there a 'cancer mafia'?

The cynical view is that LAF exists to promote the fact that Lance Armstrong has done lots to help cancer patients. The foundation employs many close friends of Armstrong and it's all paid for by mostly small donors - not by shared proceeds from Lance's sponsorship deals, appearance fees or other private businesses. Anyone seen a mention of even a single monetary donation to LAF by the master himself?

Because LAF's focus is on "cancer awareness" (or "Lance Armstrong awareness"), his foundation is well known compared to its size. It has no doubt bought lots of goodwill to its founder, causing many not to believe the earlier allegations of wrongdoing. This aura of invincibility almost worked, and raised the bar for the supporting evidence - something many of us wondered why anything wouldn't stick on the teflon man. Armstrong was skilled in using the combination of

- charity work
- aggressive legal counter-attacks
- bribery
- threats and intimidation

to thwart off earlier attaks. The first item worked well with the uninformed public - and kept the general press off his case. So not surprising to get a reaction referring to "cancer mafia" from folks who have not followed the case closely - they see him as a doer of good who must be allowed to keep operating for the benefit of the society (or some such silly thinking process).

As we've seen getting the mainstream press to turn on him has been a major contributor in his "misfortune", and will over time work its way to the cancer community as well.
 
What's going to hurt more than anything else is the "perception" of what his foundation has actually done for cancer research and awareness.

There is a "perception" that Lance Armstrong is the face of cancer awareness and survival, since he's been the only high-profile athlete that I know who has managed such a world-wide initiative.

And there is the "perception" that without a hero of such epic proportions, cancer patients are then going to fall like flies all over the world if he is exposed for the fraud he is. i

His manner of public speaking is very Tony Robbins-esque. What will be exposed is since cancer is such a personal issue that effects so many lives, "Cancer Awareness" on the scale that Armstrong has propagated isn't really necessary. It never has been.

The "perception" that he has done so much to help so many people is an intangible media contrivance akin to "the most tested athlete in the world" jibberish. Sounds nice when you say it, and the impact certainly has been powerful, but it's just not true.

And really, the only people who believe this nonsense are his groupies, most of them male, aging yuppie athletes who themselves are looking for that thin-lipped, beady-eyed boy wonder to emulate, s supremely gifted athlete they feel they never got the opportunity to become but could have if only they had the time and resources to work hard enough.

The American obsession with the ethos that "hard work breeds monumental success" is what is at stake here. He has long gone on about how much harder he works than everyone else, and that is another message that resounds with the yakking hyenas in his fanboy camp.

As a patient afflicted with this disease, you don't "work hard" to fight cancer. It's not "the mind over matter" battle he has made it out to be, though it has been ingrained in the American psyche that willpower and hard work conquers all, which is another reason he is obsessed over by his horde of zombie followers.

Since he realistically did very little besides use his cancer foundation to promote himself, there will be very little ripple effect over his downfall in the cancer community. And by cancer community I mean the oncologists and researchers who do battle with this disease every day of their working lives.

Those who have bought into the whole tribal/kinship survivor community, with the matching yellow wristbands and the athletic apparel, are just people looking for a cult to belong to. Cult members always appear to have more influence than their numbers suggest, and when his lies come crashing down on him, the Armstrong Branch Davidians will scatter and find something else to obsess over. Or maybe they'll finally see the light.

I believe the ripple effects on the fund-raising portion of this disease will be minimal. A donor personally touched by cancer will not care about Armstrong-he will care about finding a cure so that he, a friend or family member can survive and move on.

That's the way it's ALWAYS been in the cancer community and will continue to be so. The biggest challenge facing cancer fundraising is a terrible economy, and even the Great Armstrong can't willpower us out of this recession. Though I'm sure he'll take a Livestrong.com/org funded private jet anywhere you need him to go and make a speech about it.

All he'll have to do is give the S&P 500 and the Federal Reserve "The Look" like he did to Jan Ullrich and we'll all go flying up the Alpe d'Huez of financial solvency in no time.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
The Cancer "Lobby" abandoned Armstrong years ago. Those who are deeply involved in the cause realized long ago that Armstrong is a fraud. They know that he diverts funds and attention from groups who are actually looking for a cure.
 
Sep 4, 2010
80
0
0
Visit site
Berzin said:
What's going to hurt more than anything else is the "perception" of what his foundation has actually done for cancer research and awareness.

There is a "perception" that Lance Armstrong is the face of cancer awareness and survival, since he's been the only high-profile athlete that I know who has managed such a world-wide initiative.

And there is the "perception" that without a hero of such epic proportions, cancer patients are then going to fall like flies all over the world if he is exposed for the fraud he is. i

His manner of public speaking is very Tony Robbins-esque. What will be exposed is since cancer is such a personal issue that effects so many lives, "Cancer Awareness" on the scale that Armstrong has propagated isn't really necessary. It never has been.

The "perception" that he has done so much to help so many people is an intangible media contrivance akin to "the most tested athlete in the world" jibberish. Sounds nice when you say it, and the impact certainly has been powerful, but it's just not true.

And really, the only people who believe this nonsense are his groupies, most of them male, aging yuppie athletes who themselves are looking for that thin-lipped, beady-eyed boy wonder to emulate, s supremely gifted athlete they feel they never got the opportunity to become but could have if only they had the time and resources to work hard enough.

The American obsession with the ethos that "hard work breeds monumental success" is what is at stake here. He has long gone on about how much harder he works than everyone else, and that is another message that resounds with the yakking hyenas in his fanboy camp.

As a patient afflicted with this disease, you don't "work hard" to fight cancer. It's not "the mind over matter" battle he has made it out to be, though it has been ingrained in the American psyche that willpower and hard work conquers all, which is another reason he is obsessed over by his horde of zombie followers.

Since he realistically did very little besides use his cancer foundation to promote himself, there will be very little ripple effect over his downfall in the cancer community. And by cancer community I mean the oncologists and researchers who do battle with this disease every day of their working lives.

Those who have bought into the whole tribal/kinship survivor community, with the matching yellow wristbands and the athletic apparel, are just people looking for a cult to belong to. Cult members always appear to have more influence than their numbers suggest, and when his lies come crashing down on him, the Armstrong Branch Davidians will scatter and find something else to obsess over. Or maybe they'll finally see the light.

I believe the ripple effects on the fund-raising portion of this disease will be minimal. A donor personally touched by cancer will not care about Armstrong-he will care about finding a cure so that he, a friend or family member can survive and move on.

That's the way it's ALWAYS been in the cancer community and will continue to be so. The biggest challenge facing cancer fundraising is a terrible economy, and even the Great Armstrong can't willpower us out of this recession. Though I'm sure he'll take a Livestrong.com/org funded private jet anywhere you need him to go and make a speech about it.

All he'll have to do is give the S&P 500 and the Federal Reserve "The Look" like he did to Jan Ullrich and we'll all go flying up the Alpe d'Huez of financial solvency in no time.
Great post. Well written
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
Visit site
post of the year nominee

Berzin said:
What's going to hurt more than anything else is the "perception" of what his foundation has actually done for cancer research and awareness.

There is a "perception" that Lance Armstrong is the face of cancer awareness and survival, since he's been the only high-profile athlete that I know who has managed such a world-wide initiative.

And there is the "perception" that without a hero of such epic proportions, cancer patients are then going to fall like flies all over the world if he is exposed for the fraud he is. i

His manner of public speaking is very Tony Robbins-esque. What will be exposed is since cancer is such a personal issue that effects so many lives, "Cancer Awareness" on the scale that Armstrong has propagated isn't really necessary. It never has been.

The "perception" that he has done so much to help so many people is an intangible media contrivance akin to "the most tested athlete in the world" jibberish. Sounds nice when you say it, and the impact certainly has been powerful, but it's just not true.

And really, the only people who believe this nonsense are his groupies, most of them male, aging yuppie athletes who themselves are looking for that thin-lipped, beady-eyed boy wonder to emulate, s supremely gifted athlete they feel they never got the opportunity to become but could have if only they had the time and resources to work hard enough.

The American obsession with the ethos that "hard work breeds monumental success" is what is at stake here. He has long gone on about how much harder he works than everyone else, and that is another message that resounds with the yakking hyenas in his fanboy camp.

As a patient afflicted with this disease, you don't "work hard" to fight cancer. It's not "the mind over matter" battle he has made it out to be, though it has been ingrained in the American psyche that willpower and hard work conquers all, which is another reason he is obsessed over by his horde of zombie followers.

Since he realistically did very little besides use his cancer foundation to promote himself, there will be very little ripple effect over his downfall in the cancer community. And by cancer community I mean the oncologists and researchers who do battle with this disease every day of their working lives.

Those who have bought into the whole tribal/kinship survivor community, with the matching yellow wristbands and the athletic apparel, are just people looking for a cult to belong to. Cult members always appear to have more influence than their numbers suggest, and when his lies come crashing down on him, the Armstrong Branch Davidians will scatter and find something else to obsess over. Or maybe they'll finally see the light.

I believe the ripple effects on the fund-raising portion of this disease will be minimal. A donor personally touched by cancer will not care about Armstrong-he will care about finding a cure so that he, a friend or family member can survive and move on.

That's the way it's ALWAYS been in the cancer community and will continue to be so. The biggest challenge facing cancer fundraising is a terrible economy, and even the Great Armstrong can't willpower us out of this recession. Though I'm sure he'll take a Livestrong.com/org funded private jet anywhere you need him to go and make a speech about it.

All he'll have to do is give the S&P 500 and the Federal Reserve "The Look" like he did to Jan Ullrich and we'll all go flying up the Alpe d'Huez of financial solvency in no time.

This has my vote.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
Visit site
Not to get too mucky on this topic, but as an 'institution' the LAF may be going the way the Vatican's been going these many months...

Claims of 'doing good' and 'saving' people while being embroiled in their own version of being lying sacks.

I only bring it up to show how the fanboy response has been much the same as any devout community. They will all fight to the end to defend something/someone/some idea/some belief.

How about an OPEN discourse? Ya really know that's all Lance and his entourage wants... (I was saying that with as much hyperbole and cynicism as I could muster).

It's looking like there's no way out for him now.
 
jimmypop said:
Berzin - thanks very much for that post.

Berzin great post. I would add one more comment.

It must feel fantastic flying around the world as a messiah and healing the sick. Armstrong must get some sort of fix out of it. But that’s the concern here. He's done it all under false pretences. I wonder how many dieing patients that he's told and held the hands of and told them he was drug free and fought the accusations of the French and to be strong and fight just like he has. I find it very creepy the sort of man he is and the way he behaves. Criminal activity aside there is something psychologically wrong with Armstrong and the manner in which he uses people who some are near death just to get a kick for himself. Its just plain sick. I’d put him up there with David Koresh.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
Visit site
Berzin;

Excellent post, buddy!

In an earlier post I had mentioned how I hoped that those who believed that they 'got anything' from LA, as a cancer idol, can hopefully realize that those gains were inherrently within themselves.

Good on ya.
 
Jun 13, 2010
263
0
0
Visit site
Berzin said:
What's going to hurt more than anything else is the "perception" of what his foundation has actually done for cancer research and awareness.

There is a "perception" that Lance Armstrong is the face of cancer awareness and survival, since he's been the only high-profile athlete that I know who has managed such a world-wide initiative.

And there is the "perception" that without a hero of such epic proportions, cancer patients are then going to fall like flies all over the world if he is exposed for the fraud he is. i

His manner of public speaking is very Tony Robbins-esque. What will be exposed is since cancer is such a personal issue that effects so many lives, "Cancer Awareness" on the scale that Armstrong has propagated isn't really necessary. It never has been.

The "perception" that he has done so much to help so many people is an intangible media contrivance akin to "the most tested athlete in the world" jibberish. Sounds nice when you say it, and the impact certainly has been powerful, but it's just not true.

And really, the only people who believe this nonsense are his groupies, most of them male, aging yuppie athletes who themselves are looking for that thin-lipped, beady-eyed boy wonder to emulate, s supremely gifted athlete they feel they never got the opportunity to become but could have if only they had the time and resources to work hard enough.

The American obsession with the ethos that "hard work breeds monumental success" is what is at stake here. He has long gone on about how much harder he works than everyone else, and that is another message that resounds with the yakking hyenas in his fanboy camp.

As a patient afflicted with this disease, you don't "work hard" to fight cancer. It's not "the mind over matter" battle he has made it out to be, though it has been ingrained in the American psyche that willpower and hard work conquers all, which is another reason he is obsessed over by his horde of zombie followers.

Since he realistically did very little besides use his cancer foundation to promote himself, there will be very little ripple effect over his downfall in the cancer community. And by cancer community I mean the oncologists and researchers who do battle with this disease every day of their working lives.

Those who have bought into the whole tribal/kinship survivor community, with the matching yellow wristbands and the athletic apparel, are just people looking for a cult to belong to. Cult members always appear to have more influence than their numbers suggest, and when his lies come crashing down on him, the Armstrong Branch Davidians will scatter and find something else to obsess over. Or maybe they'll finally see the light.

I believe the ripple effects on the fund-raising portion of this disease will be minimal. A donor personally touched by cancer will not care about Armstrong-he will care about finding a cure so that he, a friend or family member can survive and move on.

That's the way it's ALWAYS been in the cancer community and will continue to be so. The biggest challenge facing cancer fundraising is a terrible economy, and even the Great Armstrong can't willpower us out of this recession. Though I'm sure he'll take a Livestrong.com/org funded private jet anywhere you need him to go and make a speech about it.

All he'll have to do is give the S&P 500 and the Federal Reserve "The Look" like he did to Jan Ullrich and we'll all go flying up the Alpe d'Huez of financial solvency in no time.

Stunning Post!