Talk > Sports Chat > Armstrong getting caught up in lies

reply to ZZZZZZZ

Re: Armstrong getting caught up in lies

reply to JRW2

reply to ZZZZZZZ
The Livestrong foundation doesn't even fund cancer research. Hopefully some of the sponsors Livestrong is losing will end up sponsoring charities that actually do cancer research.

quote:

---

I found a curiously fuzzy mix of cancer-war goals like "survivorship" and "global awareness," labels that seem to entail plastering the yellow Livestrong logo on everything from T-shirts to medical conferences to soccer stadiums. Much of the foundation's work ends up buffing the image of one Lance Edward Armstrong, which seems fair--after all, Livestrong wouldn't exist without him. But Livestrong spends massively on advertising, PR, and "branding," all of which helps preserve Armstrong's marketability at a time when he's under fire. Meanwhile, Armstrong has used the goodwill of his foundation to cut business deals that have enriched him personally, an ethically questionable move.

---

Livestrong raises funds and awareness to help cancer survivors and those battling cancer in a variety of ways.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Arms···undation

The Charity Navigator along with other such charity rating agency gives Livestrong very high marks for seeing that the percentage of money taken it is spent on the charitable goals:

»www.charitynavigator.org/index.c···gid=6570

quote:

---

"The Livestrong brand was more about the foundation and fighting cancer than it ever was about Lance Armstrong," Matt Powell, an analyst at consultancy SportsOneSource told the Wall Street Journal.

Still, in a philantropy.com article, Lenkowsky points out that unlike the case with many other celebrity charities, Armstrong embodies Livestrong's mission: he is a cancer survivor.

Kevin Gallivan, a 47-year-old cancer survivor, says that he, for one, is able to compartmentalize the scandal and the cause. "He can be a liar, and he is, but it's not going to affect my life in any way other than cancer," Gallivan told Businessweek. "I wear a Livestrong band on my wrist, and I will until the day I die."

---

quote:

---

Most people—including nearly everybody I surveyed while reporting this story—assume that Livestrong funnels large amounts of money into cancer research. Nope. The foundation gave out a total of $20 million in research grants between 1998 and 2005, the year it began phasing out its support of hard science. A note on the foundation’s website informs visitors that, as of 2010, it no longer even accepts research proposals.

Nevertheless, the notion persists that Livestrong’s main purpose is to help pay for lab research into cancer cures. In an online “60 Minutes Overtime” interview after the May broadcast, CBS anchor Scott Pelley said Armstrong’s alleged misdeeds were mitigated because “he has raised hundreds of millions of dollars for cancer research.”

Pelley isn’t alone in getting that wrong: a search of The New York Times turns up dozens of hits for “Armstrong” and “cancer research.” An Associated Press story from August 2010 described Livestrong as “one of the top 10 groups funding cancer research in the United States.” The comments section of any article about Armstrong will inevitably include messages like this one from ESPN.com: “keep raising millions for cancer research lance, and ignore the haters.”

---

quote:

---

But the foundation’s financial reports from 2009 and 2010 show that Livestrong’s resources pay for a very large amount of marketing and PR. During those years, the foundation raised $84 million and spent just over $60 million. (The rest went into a reserve of cash and assets that now tops $100 million.)

A surprising $4.2 million of that went straight to advertising, including large expenditures for banner ads and optimal search-engine placement. Outsourcing is the order of the day: $14 million of total spending, or more than 20 percent, went to outside consultants and professionals. That figure includes $2 million for construction, but much of the money went to independent organizations that actually run Livestrong programs. For example, Livestrong paid $1 million to a Boston–based public-health consulting firm to manage its campaigns in Mexico and South Africa against cancer stigma—the perception that cancer is contagious or invariably fatal.

Livestrong touts its stigma programs, but it spent more than triple that, $3.5 million in 2010 alone, for merchandise giveaways and order fulfillment. Curiously, on Livestrong’s tax return most of those merchandise costs were categorized as “program” expenses. CFO Greg Lee says donating the wristbands counts as a program because “it raises awareness.”

This kind of spending dwarfs Livestrong’s outlays for its direct services and patient-focused programs like Livestrong at the YMCA, an exercise routine tailored to cancer survivors available at YMCAs nationwide ($424,000 in 2010). There’s also a Livestrong at School program, offered in conjunction with Scholastic magazine ($630,000 in 2010).

---

quote:

---

Livestrong spends as much on legal bills as on these two programs combined: $1.8 million in 2009–10, mainly to protect its trademarks. In one memorable case, its lawyers shut down a man in Oklahoma who was selling Barkstrong dog collars. Meanwhile, “benefits to donors” (also merchandise, as well as travel expenses for Livestrong Challenge fundraisers) accounted for another $1.4 million in spending in 2010.

There’s still a research department, but now it focuses on things like quality-of-life surveys of cancer survivors. During my visit, I was plied with glossy reports and brochures, which are cranked out by the truckload. The foundation’s 2010 copying-and-printing bill came to almost $1.5 million.

But Livestrong’s largest single project in 2009—indeed, the main focus of Armstrong’s comeback—was the Livestrong Global Cancer Summit, held in Dublin in August. The summit ate up close to 20 percent of the foundation’s $30 million in program spending that year.

---

reply to ZZZZZZZ

UCI agrees to strip Armstrong of his 7 Tour titles

A guy I know who is a former USA Olympic Athlete and long-time acquantaince of Armstrong says the USADA has some solid science in their report and that it's worth the read.
--
flickr | 'Cause I've been waiting, all my life just waiting
For you to shine, shine your light on me

reply to Anon

Well here we go