meanwhile

Armstring has raised about $14m for cancer*. This is tiny in the context of cancer spending, and raising the money didn't cost him anything - he made a fortune from it because it increased his brand value as an athlete. If you want to meet some real heroes, go to a medical research lab and thank the people working there. All of the researchers will have been over-qualified for careers as MDs - getting a biochem Phd is much harder - and make much less money. They, unlike Armstrong, have sacrificed to help people.

Armstrong has wrapped himself in the cancer flag, at huge benefit to himself. He has convinced the gullible of his sainthood while making a fortune as a cheat and a hypocrite and posing on other people's suffering. As someone whose family has suffered considerably from cancer, I'd like to give the hypocritical cyclocoprolite a good kicking.

*By comparison Armstrong made $28M for himself in 2005 alone!

$ick3nin.vend3t

His charity has raised over $350 million for cancer research/sufferers.

Cancer would have benefited all the better without Livestrong being around.

Agreed.

Ariostea

Pick a couple of complex topics, spend a few hours researching each one and see if you can write up a page or two of very detailed info. It's pretty easy especially when you can also talk to people with direct experience.

alxra

By comparison, how much has Susan G. Komen For the Cure raised for cancer research/sufferers?

meanwhile

Not according to any source I could find. The only figure I can find was $14M, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong_Foundation

OrionKhan

You wouldn't want to see $in3nin.vend3t's source. Its a dark hole on his backside.

alxra

$350M is the total amount RAISED, before primary and other expenses were paid since the inception in 1997. $14M is the total amount committed toward research since inception. But you still raise a valid question above - are these numbers significant in the context of TOTAL dollars contributed by non-profits on cancer research in the last 13 years?

meanwhile

As I said, the $14M is the ONLY figure I can find. Do you have a source for the $350M?

Either figure is tiny in the context of total research spending.

But neither really has anything to do with the the size of the moral claim that Armstrong can make - because for him, fund raising was never a sacrifice but an activity he benefited from. It has provided him with a shield against dope taking allegations and increased his value as a celebrity.

telebianchi

According to the website Charity Navigator, which rates different charitable organizations, the Lance Armstrong Foundation gets 3 out of 4 stars. The Foundation seems to have some room for improvement, but the money it puts into programs is far from insignificant. I think the $14M committed toward research is misleading if that is the only thing that LAF is ranked on because research is not LAFs only program. Per this website, in 2007 LAF put over $22M (or 77% of revenues) into program expenses, 4.9% Admin and 18% Fundraising.

As far as LA using the cause of cancer to raise his own profile and very probably his own personal income, I think it's likely a two-way street in that the more famous Lance is the better fund raising LAF is capable of doing. That's the way it works for all charities and why it is helpful to have celebrities involved.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...ary&orgid=6570

Overall Rating (51.40)
Organizational Efficiency
Program Expenses 77.0%
Administrative Expenses 4.9%
Fundraising Expenses 18.0%
Fundraising Efficiency $0.19
Efficiency Rating (30.20)
Organizational Capacity
Primary Revenue Growth 12.1%
Program Expenses Growth 3.6%
Working Capital Ratio (years) 0.83
Capacity Rating (21.19)
++++++++++++++++++++++

Income Statement (FYE 12/2007)
Revenue
Primary Revenue $27,316,914
Other Revenue $3,847,662
Total Revenue $31,164,576

Expenses
Program Expenses $22,855,715
Administrative Expenses $1,466,669
Fundraising Expenses $5,348,835
Total Functional Expenses $29,671,219

Payments to Affiliates $0
Excess (or Deficit) for the year $1,493,357

Net Assets $30,969,610

alxra

Try harder. The number is out there. Use the internet.

meanwhile

In other words, no, you don't have a source.

alxra

simmer down son. I'm on your side. I think the number is tiny in the context of things as well.

meanwhile

But irrelevant to the claim that LA has to be a good person because of this work. The fact remains that he has benefited enormously from attaching himself to cancer in the public mind.

GB Cycle

Jeez, just because you don't like Armstrong, doesn't mean you should spout off on LAF/Livestrong, which you obviously no nothing about at all. All of the financial reports are directly on the livestrong web site. $325m raised, 81% of the money going to programs over the years. Many of the programs are focused on survivorship, after all, the self stated mission is 'to inspire and empower' cancer sufferers and their families".


Interesting to note that the administration expenses (ie salaries of staff) by % is lower than Komen (which is a great organization). Where livestrong needs to improve is the fundraising expenses. They've recognized that, and if you look at the charity navigator, you'll see the revenue growth rates far outpacing the expense growth rates.

https://www.livestrong.org/pdfs/LAF_C...MTS2008AND2007

Well, except for the fact that Lance started LAF BEFORE he won a single tour (1997). I've seen him engage with cancer survivors - he's passionate & genuine. You have it the wrong way - he's been remarkably effective at using his own personal celebrity in driving awareness and a worthy cause. Regardless of what you think about his personality, whether he doped or not, etc, his cancer work has been effective in raising visibility and positively impacting lives.

$ick3nin.vend3t

And vice-versa.


Amen!.

Although a very credible inside source I know has it at around $350 million.

Anyway, not a figure one should up there noses at by any means.

telebianchi

I agree that this doesn't make LA a good person. But it also doesn't make him a bad person. I also agree that LA has very likely benefited personally from appearance fees due to his work with LAF. My point was just that in today's world you cannot separate what happens when a celebrity attaches their name/face/effort to a charitable cause. The celebrity's profile is raised but so is the charity's. Don't blame LA for the way the world of charitable fund raising works.

I'm not saying you have to like LA or even LAF. But regardless of your personal feelings, there is real evidence that LAF has provided benefit for cancer survivors and cancer research. Could they do better? Sure, we all could. I could have set my fund raising goal for an upcoming charity ride at $3000 instead of $2000. At that same event, there are a number of sponsors donating goods and services. My guess is that they want to help the the organization put on a good event but are also hoping that afterward I will be more inclined to spend my money on XYZ bars and ABC beer and LMNOP potato chips.

$ick3nin.vend3t

Fees which will be left too good causes when he dies.

meanwhile

Ok: that's a reasonable source.

This is just silly - and that's trying to be polite about your intelligence. Someone can cynically use cancer to divert attention from his doping, cheating, bribing and intimidation and still act "passionate" with cancer victims. Or even genuinely feel that way. And, again, that LA has used his celebrity to benefit cancer does not preclude his benefiting from the PR.

Any money contributed towards helping the fight against any illness is a good thing and I have never said otherwise. (Again I'm making an effort to be polite about your intelligence...) But the fact remains that Armstrong has benefited from his charity work and it has not required any real degree of sacrifice from him. Thus one cannot reasonably use it to say "Armstrong is a good person, so he probably didn't use EPO" or "Armstrong used EPO but has morally redeemed himself." This thread being about Armstrong and his (alleged) use of EPO, hmm?

What Armstrong has done, if he has used EPO, is help - perhaps more than any other individual - to put athletes in a position where:

1. They have to use dangerous drugs if they want to have a real chance of success.

2. Victory is only possible not for the gifted, brave, or determined, but for the well-funded, who can afford $90,000 a year per rider to hire the best doping doctor, and more to bribe officials to get tip-offs about inspections, and more again to give to the UCI whenever they need sweetening.

These are acts with real moral import - and they utterly stink.

$ick3nin.vend3t

Which is where people need to stop reading because the rest is speculation.

spec·u·la·tion c. Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.

telebianchi

https://www.livestrong.org/Who-We-Are...al-Information
https://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/n...austin-tx-3996

What other sources do you want?



And this is just your cynicism. I'm missing why (1) it's somehow wrong for LA to benefit personally from being a celebrity and (2) how you think that his work for cancer survivors is somehow just a big ruse to keep the world from seeing that he's been a big cheater in bike racing. Heck, I bet he even actually has two testicles!



Again, I'm not sure why it's wrong for him to have somehow benefited from his name being attached to his charity work. And how do you know that there's been no real degree of sacrifice from him? What is the level of sacrifice necessary for a person to make in order for their charitable acts to be considered worthwhile? Is my going on a 150 mile bike ride to fund raise good enough for you? Or should I just return the $2060 that people have donated and tell them that going on a bike ride is not a sacrifice for me -- wow, I think I'll even find it fun -- so they should do something else with their money.

Finally, I think you almost have a point that I can understand. If he cheated, then much of what LA's and LAF's efforts have been built on will have been shown to be lies.

But to lay the blame of all this on LA is forgetting everyone else in sports and cycling that have used PEDs or otherwise cheated. If Lance is guilty, he will be guilty with a lot of other people such as the officials and UCI that you have mentioned. That in no way makes it right or less wrong.

StumpJumperFSR

So Landis lied, saying that he didn't dope, and took people's money to defend himself...and then we should now believe his accusations...accusations in which he'll have something to gain because he is a man with nothing to lose.

GAY.

There is no hard evidence, and until then, why speculate, as it won't amount to anything. When he does fail a pss test or blood test, then go ahead and bash him. But bashing him now for something he hasn't proven to be guilty of aint right.

rogwilco

Pantani, Ullrich, Basso, Valverde, Riis, Zabel, Virenque, Rasmussen

All clean in your opinion?

TechKnowGN

I love how people look at things. You dont like him, so you say hes benefited from being part of cancer fight. And arent willing to admit that cancer has benefited from him.

Its always a 2 way street with these things. Sure, hes more than a cyclist now, but go to fatcyclist.com and see the work they're doing. there are tons of people who might never have gotten involved without Lance. Flagbearers arent often as important for what they as what they stand for.

The problem arises if Armstrong isnt clean, because what then does he stand for?

meanwhile

Obviously none as I had already said the source you had given was adequate. What's confusing you about this?


1. I said that as LA has benefited - greatly - from his cancer work and it has had no real cost for him, it can not be assumed to be morally redemptive. That is NOT the same, to anyone of normal intelligence, as saying that we must conclude that he is more evil because of the work!

2. Armstrong HAS used the cancer work and his bout with cancer as shield - using it eg in press conferences to divert from troubling questions. You might not like to think about this, but any morally responsible person can't avoid doing so.

When you did that ride you gave up time and effort for no personal gain. When LA did the equivalent he hugely increased his brand value as an athlete.


I did try to keep things simple...

1. If "That in no way makes it right or less wrong" then why bring up these excuses?

2. Bollocks. LA's role has been VERY different to that of most other riders - and quite possibly unique. The other riders on his team aren't the ones responsible for corrupting the inspectors and the UCI. And Armstrong has been unique in his attempts to intimidate and professionally ruin cyclists who have spoken out against doping.

meanwhile

Yes I am. What's so hard to understand about:

Back to radio-I-don't-get-it:

Perhaps you and other people inspired by LA should use this as a learning experience and start doing things because of their implicit moral value and not because a celebrity spokesperson has told you to? And even learn to judge the morality of peoples' actions rationally, rather than by their emotional appeal to you?