Mens Road Cycling > Livestrong

AG · « **on:** June 15, 2012, 12:37 »

This thread is purely to discuss Livestrong the charity rather than Lance Armstrong the cyclist.

As a cancer patient and cycling fan, I get ask about my feelings about Lance Armstrong quite a lot. I explained a little in the LA thread about how I feel, but I want to show people WHY I feel the way I do.

Do cancer patients care if he took PED's? The short answer is, No. Most cancer patients rely on a strong mix of hope, drugs and luck. How well drugs work varies substantially from patient to patient and disease to disease - but one thing they all have in common is pretty crappy side effects. Living with the disease and the side effects of treatment (for however long you get to) can be difficult .... so hope and inspiration is a pretty important thing.

Lance Armstrong is someone who provides that inspiration. Here is someone who survived cancer that had metastasized and spread to his brain, and he not only survived, but got well enough and strong enough to be an elite athlete in an endurance sport. To be the best of the best .... 7 times in a row. He proved that you too can get well. He provides that hope and inspiration that you can get well enough to live a normal life. That you can live out your dreams.

Whether or not he took drugs that arent allowed in sport is pretty irrelevant to most cancer patients. We take those kinds of drugs everyday .... and would happily take whatever he took to be able to do even a tenth of that kind of physical activity.

As much as people bag it, "Its not about the bike" is a fantastic book. For any cancer patient, its great ..... but Livestrong is not - at least not in my opinion.

Bill Giffords article in Outside Magazine is a great, great read. I urge anyone who has donated money to a charity ... pretty much ever ... to have a read.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all

I am going to copy and paste the relevant parts for my discussion here

Quote

LIVESTRONG PRIDES ITSELF on the fact that—on paper, anyway—it spends 81 percent of every dollar on programs. This is a big improvement over 2005, when the American Institute of Philanthropy took Livestrong to task for spending 45 cents of every dollar on fundraising. Now AIP gives Livestrong an A-minus, while Charity Navigator rates it three stars out of four.

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). “Explain to students that Lance was very sick with cancer but that he was treated and got better,” begins one sample lesson plan for grades three through six.

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.

To kick things off, Livestrong hired Ogilvy, the famous advertising firm, to create a global cancer-awareness campaign leading up to the summit. Cost: $3.8 million. It spent another $1.2 million to hire a New York City production company to stage the three-day event. Then it paid more than $1 million to fly 600 cancer survivors and advocates to Dublin from all over the world—the U.S., Russia, Bangladesh, and 60 other countries. The former president of Nigeria even showed up.

Often, the main output at gatherings like this is verbiage, and so it was at the summit. Participants declared cancer a “global health crisis.” A report was produced titled “A World Without Cancer.” And delegates called on every country to develop a national cancer plan to deal with the disease. At the end of the summit, 97 percent of participants answering a Livestrong survey said they had “developed a deeper level of understanding about the issues related to cancer.”

“You wonder,” AIP’s Borochoff says. “If they just gave the money to cancer research, would it generate as much great publicity for Lance Armstrong?”

THE FOUNDATION considers this money well spent, but if I were a Livestrong supporter I’d also ask: What’s the product here? If not research, then what do I get for my $100 donation?

Livestrong have raised several hundred million dollars in funds in its lifetime .... less than $20 million has gone into research, and very little has gone into patient care or services.

Much of the money - though its characterised in their accounts as 'program costs' - goes on branding, self promotion, promotion of Lance (who gives hope so its a program cost), brochures and advertising (which should be considered fundraising, but as it 'promotes awareness' is not) and the like.

There is very little of this money that actually goes towards helping anyone

So what? you might say. He is raising it and better a small amount than none. My answer to that is ... people only have so much money to donate in any year. Money that goes to Livestrong is money that this person did not donate to an actual research charity, a charity that provides much needed services to patients or helps them in physical ways.

Every dollar that Lance raises for his "awareness" mission, is a dollar that doesnt go to research that might save someones life.

There are many other questionable things to do with this "charity" ... many of which are touched on in the article by Gifford. I do believe that Lance pays his own expenses (the jet fuel joke gets a bit old

) ... but when it comes to legal costs - where does Lance end and protecting Livestrong's brand begin?

The Demand Media deal is a complete disgrace. Several donations to other organisations are highly ethically questionable (including to institutions involved in ongoing legal disputes relating to Lance personally) and many other things that I am sure I will expand on.

I guess this can be my own "awareness campaign" ;D

just some guy · « **Reply #1 on:** June 15, 2012, 12:47 »

It is quite similar to the pink ribbon campain. And another subject all together, there is big money in Cancer awearness

Anthony Moan · « **Reply #2 on:** June 15, 2012, 13:07 »

Nice AG

L'arriviste · « **Reply #3 on:** June 15, 2012, 13:15 »

I have always had a problem with advertising, identity and integrated marketing agencies billing charities for their output.

It might be that Ogilvy did some sort of cashback or discount deal, but taking $3.8m off a charity would make most people queasy.

What's wrong with this picture is that "everyone gots to get paid" and in Agencyland, there is frequently a complex, bloated food chain - each link of which has its own sort of "marginal gain".

However the character of Livestrong as evinced by Gifford (and AG) renders any criticism of Ogilvy and its numerous remora completely superfluous. Ogilvy took $3.8m off a charity that itself outputs only words and pictures and, like the 'Boss' himself, seems too arrogant to acknowledge its follies.

AG · « **Reply #4 on:** June 15, 2012, 13:19 »

That doesnt start to address some of the costs for political lobbying that the charity pays for L'arri.

Slow Rider · « **Reply #5 on:** June 15, 2012, 13:28 »

Great post AG, thanks! And I completely agree with what you're saying. Way too little of the money donated actually goes to cancer research. Probably most of the people there honestly believe they are doing a good thing, probably even Armstrong himself really believes that his story is so inspirational that awareness of the story alone can cure people, but it still is a terrible way of using charity funds.

Though not related to Livestrong itself, I do want to quickly bring up a book by another cancer survivor. The Dutch swimmer Maarten van der Weijden had cancer as well (leukemia) and recovered to win an Olympic gold medal on the 10 km in open water. In his book he describes, amongst other things, how much he hated the Lance Armstrong book. The Lance Armstrong philosophy in fighting cancer is just that: you fight it. He offers a message of hope: if you fight hard enough, you can beat it. While for some that might be a very inspirational message, it also has a far less pleasant consequence. It means that the people that do not make it haven't fought hard enough. In other words, if you die due to cancer, it is your own fault. This is of course complete nonsense, but it is a logical consequence of the message of Lance Armstrong and Livestrong. Van der Weijden didn't have false hope, and didn't fight. He resigned to his fate, asked the doctors for his odds whenever he could. He survived, without fighting, while some of his friends who were inspired by Armstrong to fight with everything they could died.

Armstrong's message of fighting can help people, definitely. However, it is not in your own hands. If a person doesn't survive cancer, it is not his own fault, it's just pure and simple bad luck. Ever since reading this book, I have been more opposed to Armstrong and his message than ever before. It is a very American message, the American Dream in a hospital: if you work hard enough, you can survive anything and get stronger by it. That approach only works for very few people, and Livestrong's spreading of that message might help some people, but others it will only give a sense of failure and disappointment.

As a side-note, the book is called 'Beter' by Maarten van der Weijden, and I advise everyone who reads Dutch to buy and read it. I don't think it has been translated unfortunately, but it is one of the best biographies I have ever read.

DinZ · « **Reply #6 on:** June 15, 2012, 13:39 »

I find it difficult with some of these charities that target 'Awareness' as makes it very difficult to pin down the value in that charity. I know this because i worked with a charity that was involved in Aids education and a large part of my job was to try help them measure and report on the success of their programs. a very hard thing to do. how do you show in distinct (and frankly fairly short) period that teaching young teenagers how Aids is spread will have a impact on the number of those kids that will contract HIV. and not only show there is an impact by try to show how large that impact will be to justify that your programme should get funding over another one.

so in some ways i guess 'awareness' can be beneficial. With Aids it is a massive part of the issue in Africa. with certain cancers then i can see increasing awareness of the cancers and encouraging testing is of benefit. I have no idea if Livestrong does this. if all they do is let people know that cancer exists, and people can recover from it, then i do question where the benefit is.

charities are big business and charities are all fighting for peoples dollar. i personally agree with some of what AG has said. treat it like a business and take some of the emotion out of it. look at the dollars in, measure the impacts and if the impacts do not justify the costs then put the money elsewhere.

it is hard to do as most charities involve emotive subjects. In my case it was required because the charity i worked for did not get money direct from public donations but through other larger charities or government organisations. therefore donations had to be accounted for with measurable impacts. when the money comes directly from the public then emotion becomes a much greater influence and logic and business logic fade.

think i am rambling now so will end on this point. If the charity is really about stopping cancer then they would measure there impact analyse their impact compared to the alternative and either adapt or close their programmes if they do not believe the money donated to them could not be better spent elsewhere. in my experience i am yet to see a charity do this.

AG · « **Reply #7 on:** June 15, 2012, 13:52 »

yeah I agree Dinz, measuring effectiveness can be hard at times, and ALL charities do waste money on different things at different times.

I do volunteer work for the Luekaemia Foundation here, and find some things very odd at times. But overall, they do great work. And its that overall factor that we need to consider.

The entire mission statement of Livestrong appears to be simply to promote itself and make people more 'aware' .... they do not promote much in the way of early testing, though they do provide some help and information to navigate the complicated American insurance system and the health services that are available to cancer patients.

Often - at least in America, finding the right treatment and what to do isnt that difficult - its paying for it that is hard.

I know in my own kind of luekaemia, there is great drugs and treatments available ... but they are incredibly expensive. In places like Australia and the UK, they have government funding to pay for the treatment. In the US it is through their private health insurance system. What that means is if you go onto a support site here in Aus, you get chatter about how to help with symptoms and side effects. Chatter on the US sites is 90% about how to fund the drugs.

The one thing more awful than having a terminal disease without a treatment, would be having a terminal disease and knowing there is a treatment available, but not being able to afford it.

Anyway - my point is, they do do SOME good work, and in an area that is needed there. But not even close to enough for people to consider money well spent.

AG · « **Reply #8 on:** June 15, 2012, 14:09 »

Slow Rider - His book is certainly a very American style ... but I didnt really get the 'if you dont fight hard enough, its all your fault' out of it. Maybe different cultures read it differently. I would certainly love to read your Dutch swimmers book.

I think everyone at some point has known someone with cancer .. and while many stories are good, many are not. My MIL died of pancreatic cancer and it was truly horrendous. Not because she didnt fight, but as you say ... you just have to be lucky. And no book will help at that point.

L'arriviste · « **Reply #9 on:** June 15, 2012, 14:15 »

Quote from: AG on June 15, 2012, 13:19

That doesnt start to address some of the costs for political lobbying that the charity pays for L'arri.

I don't doubt it, AG. I was just saying that because I have little experience of the "lobbying industry" but plenty of the "publicity industry". Forgive my ignorance - I don't know very much about Livestrong, but that Gifford article is excellent.

ram · « **Reply #10 on:** June 15, 2012, 14:30 »

Obvious way to reduce the effectiveness of this institution raking in the funds would be to strike them off the recognised charitable institutions for tax exemption. As much as charitable nature, tax exemption is equally important in this. I'll shamelessly accept that it is for me.

Now, whether that will be done is another kettle of fish. This is where the case investigating financial impropriety into Armstrong and this organisation could've helped.

L'arriviste · « **Reply #11 on:** June 15, 2012, 14:33 »

Quote from: ram on June 15, 2012, 14:30

Obvious way to reduce the effectiveness of this institution raking in the funds would be to strike them off the recognised charitable institutions for tax exemption. As much as charitable nature, tax exemption is equally important in this. I'll shamelessly accept that it is for me.

Now, whether that will be done is another kettle of fish. This is where the case investigating financial impropriety into Armstrong and this organisation could've helped.

Well, if they don't, we'll just have to create a bit of 'awareness' ourselves. Livewrong and all that. ;D

AG · « **Reply #12 on:** June 15, 2012, 14:38 »

problem is ram ... that he isnt doing anything thats not legal or proper in terms of the legal rules for charities.

The fact that you or I dont agree with how the money is spent, doesnt mean that its not a charity. Just that its not a GOOD charity.

Just like in Corporations, charities have lots of ways of getting around the rules for financial benefits. Basically, as long as they are not benefiting personally ... or if they are they are declaring it ... it will retain its charitable status.

They are allowed to pay their executives excessive salaries. They are allowed to pay Lance appearance fees or consulting fees (I dont know if they do this ... but they are allowed to). They are allowed to hire a related for-profit business to do commercial work for them, as long as its disclosed.

And if you trawl through the documents you will find evidence of all kinds of things like this.

The Demand Media deal is a perfect example. Its not fraud. They didnt do anything wrong .... it was just INCREDIBLY unethical. Though with that they were ask quite a number of tough questions and basically forced to hand over some of the shares involved. (But Lance's buddies were not

)

Full of shonkiness ... but not illegal

Tuart · « **Reply #13 on:** June 15, 2012, 14:41 »

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint on the matter AG, very insightful :tu

ram · « **Reply #14 on:** June 15, 2012, 14:44 »

Also, one wonders if due diligence is done before just investing in these charitable trusts? Can't be that hard, especially with a behemoth trust, which Livestrong is, is involved.

Quote from: AG on June 15, 2012, 14:38

problem is ram ... that he isnt doing anything thats not legal or proper in terms of the legal rules for charities.

The fact that you or I dont agree with how the money is spent, doesnt mean that its not a charity. Just that its not a GOOD charity.

Just like in Corporations, charities have lots of ways of getting around the rules for financial benefits. Basically, as long as they are not benefiting personally ... or if they are they are declaring it ... it will retain its charitable status.

They are allowed to pay their executives excessive salaries. They are allowed to pay Lance appearance fees or consulting fees (I dont know if they do this ... but they are allowed to). They are allowed to hire a related for-profit business to do commercial work for them, as long as its disclosed.

And if you trawl through the documents you will find evidence of all kinds of things like this.

The Demand Media deal is a perfect example. Its not fraud. They didnt do anything wrong .... it was just INCREDIBLY unethical. Though with that they were ask quite a number of tough questions and basically forced to hand over some of the shares involved. (But Lance's buddies were not )

Full of shonkiness ... but not illegal

True, but it wasn't that I was thinking of at all. Weren't there accusations of syphoning off cash into other things like dope? I'm not sure about it, and am willing to be cut to size, but that's definitely in the realms of impropriety. Mind, it's pretty easy to syphon off the funds through a dodgy lame duck equivalent benefactor somewhere.

AG · « **Reply #15 on:** June 15, 2012, 14:49 »

the dope thing is interesting.

It would honestly not be that hard for a Cancer charity (or any of its Directors/consultants/medical specialists) to pay for any number of different drugs for patients, sponsor clinical trials, do backhanded deals with drug companies and pharmaceuticals etc ... No need to hide funding of that. Program Expenses.

I am not suggesting that is what has happened with Livestrong. Indeed I have never in my research to do with them come across anything that suggests such a thing .... but it wouldnt be hard for them.

ram · « **Reply #16 on:** June 15, 2012, 15:14 »

They could acquire a few drugs under the premise of cancer meds, but are all the medications used for doping, I'll take the recent charges as a reference for a basic frame, also a necessity for patients. Is a medication like testosterone boosts necessary for a cancer patient? Then again, considering the price of these drugs and the volumes of funds they'll receive, it'll only be pittance and if necessary, could easily be construed as for the patients, but even that'll have a trail.

Again, I'm not saying that they've done this, as that would've required a proper investigation, and I'll not take hearsay as gospel.

AG · « **Reply #17 on:** June 15, 2012, 15:22 »

Lance had testicular cancer, so Livestrong is fairly strong on that, but they do support people with all kinds of cancers.

And yes - Testosterone is used as treatment. Especially after chemotherapy.

EPO and other blood boosters, HGH, the new one they were accused of (Hemassist) ... all of these kinds of drugs have very legitimate medical uses in treatment of cancer patients.

Its one of the reasons why many of his supporters dont really care that he might have taken these drugs. Because they all have taken many of those drugs themselves. They simply dont see it as cheating .... just treatment to get stronger and better.

its one of the reasons companies like Amgen sponsor Lance.

In this vein though - there is easier and less risky ways for Lance's teams to obtain these meds. I very much doubt Livestrong money paid for team sponsored drugs.

ram · « **Reply #18 on:** June 15, 2012, 15:31 »

Aye, and it's why I don't believe the accusations as truth now. Just thought of that avenue too.

After all, the beeb did acquire copycat epo for fifty quid on the internet with no issues at customs controls. Guess it's not all that difficult.

Sizzle · « **Reply #19 on:** June 16, 2012, 03:11 »

Re: Livestrong - Isn't there also some kind of slippery duplication of organisations so that people might be easily confused between the charity (.org?) and the for-profit version (.com?) and mistakenly donate to the for-profit rather than not-for-profit entity?

Slightly O/T:

@Slow Rider - I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments re Armstrong's characterisation of cancer as something to fight and its suggestion that those who die haven't fought hard enough. Perhaps, in addition to the 'American dream' element of American culture, it also draws upon the violence in American culture, and/or an imperialist belief that heavy-handed aggression towards the unwanted or 'enemy' will subdue any threat, eg, the Wars on Drugs and Terror. It probably says a lot about Armstrong as a person too and the way he operates in life. In any case, I find the approach and its implications deeply disturbing.

Re Armstrong's book 'It's not about the bike' - Reading this changed my opinion of Armstrong from one of admiration to one of dislike. It's unusual for an autobiography to prompt such a response - they tend to put the subject in the rosiest of lights - but it left me thinking Armstrong is a narcissistic control freak and a very unlikeable chap.

ram · « **Reply #20 on:** June 16, 2012, 03:27 »

True, and Livestrong.com is the fitness, or something similar, site run by demand media which is in partnership with Armstrong's foundation hence uses his name.

But one has to question how thick a person must be to donate to the wrong place, especially when one will be tax exempt charity and the other not an organisation running for profit. In fact, why not donate straight to Lance Armstrong foundation.

Mind, I don't know why I'm getting so into this topic. I'm never going to donate to either of these parties, I hardly donate anything.

ram · « **Reply #21 on:** June 16, 2012, 03:43 »

Audit report 2009
http://www.livestrong.org/pdfs/4-0/2008-2009combinedauditreport
But even satyam computer services was independently audited ;D

Form 990 for anyone who GAF
http://www.livestrong.org/pdfs/4-0/LAF-2010-Form-990

Too many injuns in their directors list.

AG · « **Reply #22 on:** June 16, 2012, 05:06 »

Demand Media deal ... still to come.

First, I want to explain my take on Comeback 2.0 and the objections I have to his financial remuneration for that.

He told the entire world, many times over "I am racing for cancer. I am not being paid from Astana, I am racing for free. This one is on the house". It was explained by Phil and Paul every single day of the Tour that this was why he was there. That was why he was wearing the Livestrong helmet, had a livestrong bike, livestrong were distributing merchandise everywhere .... it was all for cancer. He was the greatest guy in the world because he was doing this for the 28 million cancer patients across the world.

But ... in the end he came out and explained that in fact Astana WAS paying him. He was required to receive at least minimum wages under the UCI rules for teams. Fair enough, its a technicality they may not have imagined, but its pretty easy to get around and keep your word ... donate those wages to the charity. Then he is still racing for free - or even better, he is racing for the charity.

or if he was really doing this for charity - he would have negotiated with other teams ... earned as much as he could and donated that to Livestrong.

But I guess that is what a person who was actually doing it for charity would do :

Quote from: Lance Armstrong

"I'm relaxed because I'm having fun," said Armstrong. "I'm having a hell of a lot of fun. I will be totally honest with you, I wake up every day and I am doing this for free. I asked him [Johan Brunyeel] can I come and race and I'm racing for free. I suppose I could have called other teams and I suppose the number could have gotten up there, but there's no money here. I'm doing it because I love to do it. I put my clothes on every day and get on that bike because I want to do it."

Quote from: Lance Armstrong

"I look forward to 2009, I look forward to racing again," Armstrong said.

"I cannot guarantee an eighth Tour victory, but I can guarantee you the 'Live Strong' message will touch all aspects of our society," he said, referring to the "Live Strong Global Awareness Campaign."

His first race back in the world tour was the Tour Down Under in 2009. He signed a contract with the TDU organisers and the South Australian government to ride for 3 years, and was paid considerable appearance fees for doing so. The actual amount is unknown, but is in the vicinity of between $1.5m - $3m Australian Dollars per year (apparently it increased each year for the 3 years)

When he first confirmed he was racing, both his PR people and the SA government implied that the money was being donated to Livestrong. He was after all, not being paid to race you know

Eventually after a fair amount of scrutiny of the deal Australia, he admitted that actually he was declaring the money as personal income.

He was paid an appearance fee to ride the Giro also (at least according to InnerRing and several other sources)

There is no problems as far as I am concerned with him earning appearance fees for racing, or for speaking at functions or whatever else he earns fees for. As a 7 time Tour winner, he is entitled to do this, and its fairly normal practice for retired sportspeople to earn a living on the speaking circuit.

The issue is him and livestrong trumpeting up the whole "I'm such a great guy, everything I do is for charity. I am doing all of this not for me, but for cancer patients everywhere. I am not getting paid ....." when the truth is ... he made substantial personal income from this comeback. It was ALL about the money.

Even the increased exposure for his charity ... increased donations, increased funds raised etc ..... which were spent on advertising, promoting Lance, his "global summit" (otherwise known as the huge public adoration of Lance paid for by the foundation) and the like.

Not much of any of that actually went to helping a cancer patient anywhere.

AG · « **Reply #23 on:** June 16, 2012, 05:36 »

Then we get to Merchandising deals.

If you go down to your local Nike store, and buy a Livestrong jersey ... does that money go to the charity? Does it help a cancer patient at all? The short answer is ... No. Not usually.

Nike (and other global corporations who do similar supporting deals) sign complex contracts for sponsorship of charities, that guarantee minimum amounts to the charity, as well as a royalty or commission on sales above a certain level. This means that Nike are guaranteed to make a contribution to the charity no matter whether anyone buys a jersey or yellow wristband or not. Lets call that a donation then ...

Nike then build an advertising campaign around this ... spend millions promoting their support and sponsorship of the fight against cancer, align themselves with Lance Armstrong etc, and make money selling goods to people who think they are helping the cause by buying that jersey rather than something else. (and by the way, Lance gets substantial personal income from sponsorship from Nike, a royalty from each Livestrong product sold, and for doing the ads )

If the campaign is a super success, Livestrong will get a small royalty for each additional jersey sold. But that is well after Nike has made a fortune, recovered all costs of production and distribution, and made up the 'donation' amount. And that royalty is usually a fairly small amount.

It is true, this is money that wouldnt otherwise go to charity, and it doesnt cost the charity anything ... so is a good deal for them. But in terms of your donation and spending, you are not helping the charity much.

The truth is, both you and your chosen charity would be better off if you bought a cheaper jersey from another store, and donated $10 (or even $1) to the charity directly. They would still get the donation from Nike (who have called this advertising anyway) and a donation from you.

Ah but Radioshack have a program where you can donate money at the register directly to Livestrong .... well, the cynic in me would also suggest that they too have a minimum donation agreement, and any 'donations' received at the counter will first offset Radioshack's own commitment before any is passed along to the charity.

The commitments these retailers make is basically advertising for them. It is cheaper and better publicity than traditional advertising methods, and they get to tell people they are the good guys .... and then get to sell you merchandise to recover their 'donation'.

At the end of the day ... these are situations where its all in the name of charity ... but everyone else makes substantially more money than the charity ever will.

(oh - and for an added bonus, the merchandise that the charity does pay for and distribute ... say the Tour caravan that gives away freebies ... is all called 'program expenses' becausing it is increasing cancer awareness :)

ram · « **Reply #24 on:** June 16, 2012, 07:28 »

Can't blame the charity for people who want to spend it on swag. And if one expects a ten quid shirt being bought at a store would mean ten quid for charity, then I could buy a city off him with Zimbabwean dollars of 2010. It's also not just the lance armstrong foundation that does, others do too.

If his comeback was about money, it was well timed and it definitely had a positive impact on the donations his foundation received.

As for Armstrong's involvement in the charity, I'd be surprised if he understood the ins and outs of all or any of its revenues or expenditure. It's usually the case with sportsmen and their foundations, it's just that not all are as large, and most are usually not led by bent people and escape the scrutiny. I'm just reading another sportsman's charity's books, and it's not all that much better. Still better as they do account what the promises and expenditure actually be.

AG · « **Reply #25 on:** June 16, 2012, 07:39 »

Demand Media … the Livestrong.com deal

Demand Media is public company owned by some friends of Lance’s, who wanted to list their company on the New York Stock Exchange. Demand Media already owned some websites providing large amounts of low value content which earns money primarily from advertising revenue from web hits, but as part of its proposal to list, bought licencing rights to develop a website called Livestrong.com.

Livestrong being a cancer charity decided that it was only focused on cancer, and not the general public, so it would sell naming/branding rights to Demand Media, so that DM could develop a web site for Health Promotion and Lifestyle programs and the like that was not directed solely at cancer patients.

In my eyes, Livestrong’s major strengths are in PR, branding and marketing. They changed from the Lance Armstrong Foundation who nobody knew about or cared about, into Livestrong … who distributed crappy yellow wrist bands and was loved by all. Branding and web development is kind of a strong point.

Healthy living and lifestyle IS in fact a major program for Livestrong. If you read their financial statements you will see a number of programs tailored to healthy living and wellbeing after treatment, prevention, testing etc. Developing a web site based on health, wellbeing and lifestyle is well within their mission and capabilities - so their claim that it wasnt within their mission statement is a load of complete balls.

The decision to license the brand to a company run by buddies of the Directors is not exactly a commercial, arms length decision, and is certainly a major conflict of interest

Anyway … Livestrong sold the right to develop a web site of this kind to Demand Media. The right to use its brand name in perpetuity …. in return for stock in Demand Media. The next issue with this is that Lance personally also received stock in Demand Media. Supposedly to provide ‘content’. He received in actual fact, the same amount of shares as the charity, plus extra cash.

So – the charity sells its asset (its name) to a company associated with a director, and in a 3rd party deal, the director receives stock and cash personally …. In corporate terms, this is what is known as a kickback.

As kickback’s are illegal and considered fraud - lets believe the story and say ‘yes, its for content’.

Lance was paid cash, and received shares for being a “spokesperson” and providing services to Livestrong.com. One of the major services he provided was the numerous web interviews he did during the 2009 Tour de France. Lance refused most interviews from any tv station. If you wanted his opinion, he posted it on the ‘livestrong’ website. (he is doing it for cancer you know

).

But the website it was posted on, was not Livestrong.org, but was Livestrong.com. They received a LOT of traffic, and therefore got paid substantial amount in advertising as a result of Lance’s videos.

If he were really doing it all for cancer …. Wouldn’t he provide that content to the Livestrong.org web site? Wouldn’t he want is own foundation to benefit from the web traffic and increased donations?

Instead, he chooses to direct those videos to a web site owned by a company he has a substantial financial interest in. A business operated for profit. And further - being paid for "content" means he is being paid for all those interviews – and paid a LOT at that – so he isn’t really riding the Tour for free is he? He isn’t doing it all for cancer … he is doing it for substantial personal financial gain.

If you look at the actual Livestrong.com website, its got Livestrong.org stuff all over it. "our partner", "we support" etc .... its only when you look closely - go to the "about" part and look around, that they say anything about Demand Media being a for-profit company, and provide a link to the corporate website. Many, many people go there, pay for programs, click on advertising and genuinely believe they are supporting livestrong the charity.

The branding that is plastered all over Lance's cycling teams (Astana, Radioshack and RSNT) are all simply Livestrong. There is nothing about there being a licence to use the company to make a profit ...

This is a brand that the charity pays a Substantial amount to legally develop, promote and protect.

Demand Media Ltd themselves are not exactly a lily-white company that any charity would be pleased to deal with. The IPO was withdrawn and questioned by the SEC a number of times over the way it calculates and reports its profits (a Worldcom type issue of under-declaring expenses so that profit looks substantially better than it really is).

Here is a pretty good assessment of the Demand Media IPO. http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/01/27/google-demand-media-lance-armstrong-and-the-worst-ipo-of-the-year/

Is this really the type of company that a charitable organisation wants to be associated with? Wants to be a substantial shareholder of? Wants to have operating a website branded with its name into perpetuity?

The whole deal - every part of it - smells. Badly.

There isnt anything illegal in any of it. Its just very unethical

AG · « **Reply #26 on:** July 17, 2012, 12:04 »

Interesting news coming out today .... int eh Wall Street Journal

Quote

The Lance Armstrong Foundation, the Texas-based charity known as Livestrong, sent a lobbyist to Capitol Hill last week to discuss the funding for the agency that has accused the retired cycling champion of cheating to win the Tour de France, a Congressional staff member said.

A spokesman for U.S. Rep. José Serrano (D., N.Y.), who sits on the House Appropriations Committee, said his office was visited by a registered lobbyist working on behalf of the foundation, which works to increase awareness of cancer.

The lobbyist's main purpose, the spokesman said, was to talk about the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, which enforces rules about performance-enhancing drugs in sports, and which has charged Mr. Armstrong and five others associated with his former cycling team with operating a doping conspiracy in an effort to dominate the Tour de France.

Quote

Last week, two high-profile Washington politicians weighed in on USADA's charges. On Thursday, Wisconsin Republican Jim Sensenbrenner sent a letter to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, calling USADA's authority over Mr. Armstrong "strained at best." He said it was the International Cycling Union, not USADA, that had jurisdiction over Mr. Armstrong, and pointed to USADA's eight-year statute of limitations. The arguments were identical to the ones made by attorneys for Lance Armstrong in recent weeks.

On Friday, Senator John McCain, (R., Ariz.) issued a statement pledging support for USADA. "This process is the proper forum to decide matters concerning individual cases of alleged doping violations," he said.

so - we have Livestrong using political lobbyists to drum up support for Lance and against USADA ... and then a Congressman making basically an Armstrong-written statement. :

anyway - my main point is in relation to Livestrong.

Political lobbying, government relations and advocacy are basic expenses that Livestrong includes as 'program costs'. A bit part of its mission is to try and increase the overall funding for cancer charities, cancer research and survivor programs. The pool of money from government is limited, and charities and diseases all have to fight over how much of the pie they get.

Livestrong does actually do a bit in this manner, which is good for other cancer charities ... but its hard to measure the 'good' in this. Is it worthwhile?

In 2009 (accounts that ram linked earlier) on page 24 it details a breakdown of Program Activities as follows :

	2009	2008
Grants and progams	$11,775,916	$13,485,452
Grassroots advocacy	7,446,926	3,800,251
Education and prgram development	6,156,224	7,268,168
Program and policy general	2,724,623	1,962,285
Government relations	729,377	997,955

I wonder how much of this "government relations" is spent on promoting Lance? on maintaining his political connections ... when you consider the fact that it is widely believed that the federal investigation was dropped due to political interference? I wonder how much of the lobbying budget is allocated to Lance?

ram · « **Reply #27 on:** July 17, 2012, 12:39 »

Question is- how often does the trust send a lobbyist over? It could be a fairly common thing if necessary. Just to keep the needs of the trust itself, be it legitimate or hogwash, in the limelight. Does the report actually mention how often a lobbyist does go there or does it say that this is definitely a one off?

just some guy · « **Reply #28 on:** July 17, 2012, 12:42 »

and the livestrong people came out as said the story is not true anyways as it involved the USADA issue , which may or may not be true.

Now I may be bitter and twisted but it is my personal belief the livestrong cost lives rather than saves them which I have said before but will say it again

benotti69 · « **Reply #29 on:** July 17, 2012, 13:12 »

Quote from: just some guy on July 17, 2012, 12:42

and the livestrong people came out as said the story is not true anyways as it involved the USADA issue , which may or may not be true.

Now I may be bitter and twisted but it is my personal belief the livestrong cost lives rather than saves them which I have said before but will say it again

I agree JSG.

Every dollar that goes to Liestrong is a dollar that is not going to cancer research or helping those with cancer who truly cannot afford the treatment for cancer.

This is the biggest thing that i hope that, when they take away his sporting achievements due to his doping, is that the rest snowballs into an avalanche and takes it all down.

If it was to end in a Waco scenario, you know i really wouldn't care. There is enough information out there for people to see through the yellow veil and with a few questions find out that it is truly a fraud.

Main	Features	Forum Sections	Forum Sections	Forum Sections
Home	Calendar	General Discussion	Races	The Darkside
Forum	Links	About the Forum	Mens Road Cycling	Games
Todays Posts	Livestreams	The Music Section	Womens Road Cycling	Bikes & Gear
My Bookmarks	Race Highlights	Other Sports	Cyclocross	Training Etc
My Control Panel	Arcade	Members Lounge	Track Cycling
Newsfeeds		The Darkside	Mountain Biking

Featured Topics

Recent Posts

Recent Topics