You have no idea what you're talking about. The Lance Armstrong Foundation is a 4 star rated charity on charity navigator. One of the highest rated charities in the United States.
You are both talking about different things. Livestrong rates high for not wasting donations on administration. Livestrong spends an enormous amount on branding.
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.)
Last edited by troutman; 10-17-2012 at 03:05 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
You have no idea what you're talking about. The Lance Armstrong Foundation is a 4 star rated charity on charity navigator. One of the highest rated charities in the United States.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. Research more carefully what their programs are. They aren't research, and they don't fund research. By far the majority of their spending goes to "Awareness". Whether you believe the side effect of much of the "awareness" material contributes to marketing Lance's image and Livestrong products is up to you. Also investigate how the sale of Livestrong.com went down...
the fall from grace for armstrong once all is said and done may end up being like nothing ever seen before as far as athletes or celebrities, and there have been some precipitious ones.
They were saying on CNN at lunch that donations have been up 20% since Lance was outted.
Personally I don't care one way or another but IMO they wasted way too much time and money chasing a cylist when there are better things they could do with it. But I guess the US wouldn't be the US without wasting money on something that isn't needed.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
Lance was like the mafia. That's the part that gets me. I knew he was a prick, just didn't realize how big of a prick.
I was reading about what to do with his tour wins and who'd get them. Because of all of the doping, or links to doping, the 1999 general classification would go to Belgian Kurt van der Wouwer of Lotto-Mobistar. He was 11th, 23 minutes behind Armstrong. From 1996-2010, of the 45 podium positions, only 9 are without notation...so far.
Yeah, in Hamilton's Rome interview, he estimated that in the early 2000's, only 20% of riders were clean and those guys had virtually no shot at winning.
At least 15 more cyclists are being linked to Lance Armstrong’s banned Italian sport doctor in an intricate scheme of money laundering, tax evasion and widespread doping.
The Roddys -- who live in Santa Monica, California -- say they initially gave $50,000 to the foundation. In 2003, Connie Roddy said, she helped organize an event for the foundation at a health club that raised another $150,000.
Now they want their money back.
"I feel we were really fooled, we were really hoodwinked," she told CNN.
The Roddys -- who live in Santa Monica, California -- say they initially gave $50,000 to the foundation. In 2003, Connie Roddy said, she helped organize an event for the foundation at a health club that raised another $150,000.
Now they want their money back.
"I feel we were really fooled, we were really hoodwinked," she told CNN.
These people crack me up. What he did or didnt do for cancer awareness is independant on whether he doped or not.
somewhat relevant...Victor Conte was on Joe Rogan's podcast this week. I haven't listened to it all yet, but they do talk about Armstrong. What I have listed to so far has been really interesting. Skip to the 8 min mark to get past the commercials.
UCI President Pat McQuaid announced that the federation accepted the USADA's report on Armstrong and would not appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
"Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling and he deserves to be forgotten in cycling," McQuaid said at a news conference. "This is a landmark day for cycling."
"I was sickened by what I read in the USADA report," McQuaid said, singling out the testimony of former Armstrong teammate David Zabriskie. "The story he told of how he was coerced and to some extent forced into doping is just mind boggling."
The professional ranks of this sport is in absolute shambles.
At this point is there anyone left who hasn't been accused?
Let them dope.
Nah, it's on it's way to being fixed. When athletes realize their samples can be held indefinitely and they can be stripped of their titles at any time in the future, it provides a powerful disincentive that lance's generation didn't have. It'll never be 100% clean, but if it gets so that cyclists don't feel cheating is a requirement to win, that'll be enough.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
Nah, it's on it's way to being fixed. When athletes realize their samples can be held indefinitely and they can be stripped of their titles at any time in the future, it provides a powerful disincentive that lance's generation didn't have. It'll never be 100% clean, but if it gets so that cyclists don't feel cheating is a requirement to win, that'll be enough.
