# Outside Magazine on Livestrong



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Outside Magazine has been an active promoter of the Armstrong myth. One of their top writers, Bill Gifford, went to explore the foundation. He writes



> If Lance Armstrong went to jail and Livestrong went away, that would be a huge setback in our war against cancer, right? Not exactly, because the famous nonprofit donates almost *nothing to scientific research.



close $0 spent research for a cure, despite popular perception of the opposite
Livestrong spent $6 million (20% of revenue) on one party in 2009
They spent $3.5 million shipping t-shirts and stuff and called it a "program cost" 
Any question of doping is responded with “raising the cancer shield.”
An appearance at a Cancer ride nets $200,000 appearance fee and $100,000 of NetJets time.
$4.2 million went straight to advertising, another $1.5 million went copying-and-printing

Daniel Borochoff, head of the American Institute of Philanthropy: “You wonder If they just gave the money to cancer research, would it generate as much great publicity for Lance Armstrong?”

Lance Armstrong and Livestrong - Page 1 | Lance Armstrong | OutsideOnline.com

Charles Pelkey was mentioned in the piece, here is his clarification on his quote

Charles Pelkey responds to Outside | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Outside Magazine has been an active promoter of the Armstrong myth. One of their top writers, Bill Gifford, went to explore the foundation. He writes
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm two pages into this article.

My guess is that whoever the auditor is, they will cease to exist, ala Arthur Andersen/Enron.

Post Enron, I happened to ask some Andersen guys; "what keeps you fellas in line." They responded, "Professional Ethics," we all laughed!:lol:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Livestrong spends a lot on legal, $1.8 million in 2009–10 alone. At least some of that is spent harassing journalists. 



> At least two other major publications have done serious reporting on Livestrong—that is, they started to. In both cases, Livestrong lawyers succeeded in shutting down the stories before they were published. They applied the same pressures to Outside, blitzing my editors with pissed-off e-mails, phone calls, and, eventually, a five-page letter from general counsel Mona Patel complaining about “Mr. Gifford’s conduct, professionalism, and method of reporting.”


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*Theological Virtues????*

What really repulses me is that the atheist, Armstrong, is a shameless sociopathic preacher.

What kind of POS talks about how great his wife is, "Love," then screws anything that moves?

Lets his Lackeys promote "Hope rides again" to generate a windfall and shield for himself and his minions. Now HOPE is a product!

_“I think the product is *hope*,” says Mark McKinnon, the renowned GOP political consultant and a Livestrong board member. Armstrong’s team approached McKinnon in 2001, seeking advice on positioning Lance for a postcycling career. McKinnon, a media strategist for President George W. Bush, introduced Armstrong to another client, Bono. The two hit it off, and soon Armstrong seemed to be aiming toward a Bono-like role as a global cancer statesman._


and then has audacity to say he's representative of FAITH?


_“It’s not about money for me. It’s all about the *faith* that people have put in me over the years. All of that would be erased. _"

It will serve Pharmstrong right to do a few months, at least in the Federal Pen to think over his FRAUD. Maybe he'll need more time than that to find out it's wrong to prey on the sick, desperate and seriously ill in order to enrich yourself..

I HOPE the Federal Investigation will deter others like the sanctimonious grifters who currently tout their devoutness, from trying to use Religion as a shield for their criminal ambitions and desire to Lord over others.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

Chris-X said:


> What really repulses me is that the atheist, Armstrong, is a shameless sociopathic preacher.
> 
> I HOPE the Federal Investigation will deter others like the sanctimonious grifters who currently tout their devoutness, from trying to use Religion as a shield for their criminal ambitions and desire to Lord over others.


......................


----------



## cycocross (Dec 11, 2011)

Leave Lance alone, it's not like he dumped his singing girlfriend a week after she announced she had cancer.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Whatever shortcomings it may have my understanding of Livestrong is that it is about survivorship not cancer research, but maybe I'm off base.

Do they represent themselves as being about cancer research?


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

I've read the article. It is quality journalism, objective and packed with info given the amount of space given. I'm sure the author could go far more in depth with more examples and info if given more space.

It appears to me that the early years of Armstrong's foundation were very good. They were a very, very small player in the large field of organizations fighting cancer--but still were giving money for cancer research. Over time, however, its mission has changed (realizing it was a flea in the cancer fundraising/research field) and became questionable in terms of its worth and benefit. Then, with the formation of Livestrong.com, things really got bad and now the foundation is more of a tool for Armstrong's own personal benefit than a highly beneficial charitable organization. 

I have no doubt that most of those working for the foundation (not the Livestrong.com/Demand Media side) are probably great people, are in fact doing good work and helping cancer patients, and believe in what they are doing. However, an objective view of the charitable organization reveals that while it may be doing good work, it is not putting the money raised to the best use--far from it.

You won't find me donating any money to Livestrong, that is for sure.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Whatever shortcomings it may have my understanding of Livestrong is that it is about survivorship not cancer research, but maybe I'm off base.
> 
> Do they represent themselves as being about cancer research?


Yes, from 1998-2005 they in fact gave money for cancer research (although not a lot in the grand scheme of things--but still that is what they did and they were a player if only a small player). Now, however, they are not involved at all in cancer research, haven't been for years, and the problem is people are either outright misled in some cases regarding the use of their donated money or just mistakenly believe their money will be used for cancer research. 

I have supported cancer research through a significant donation to The Komen Foundation and would choose to put my money there if giving towards the fight against cancer.


----------



## early one (Jul 20, 2010)

"In that time (15 years) -Thanks to you- We have invested more than $275 million (81% of every dollar raised) on cancer programs and initiatives."

From the livestrong.org site.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

early one said:


> "In that time (15 years) -Thanks to you- We have invested more than $275 million (81% of every dollar raised) on cancer programs and initiatives."
> 
> From the livestrong.org site.


Those "Programs and initiatives" Include the costs to ship out T-Shirts ($3.5 million in 2009) a party to coincide with the Tour of Ireland ($6 million) and $4.5 million in advertising. 

It is not a problem that they focus on "awareness" instead of research..... the problem is most of their energy goes to promoting awareness of Armstrong, his brand, and giving him coverage from critics.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Gatorback said:


> I've read the article. It is quality journalism, objective and packed with info given the amount of space given. I'm sure the author could go far more in depth with more examples and info if given more space.
> 
> It appears to me that the early years of Armstrong's foundation were very good. They were a very, very small player in the large field of organizations fighting cancer--but still were giving money for cancer research. Over time, however, its mission has changed (realizing it was a flea in the cancer fundraising/research field) and became questionable in terms of its worth and benefit. Then, with the formation of Livestrong.com, things really got bad and now the foundation is more of a tool for Armstrong's own personal benefit than a highly beneficial charitable organization.
> 
> ...


I question the whole premise that people in a supposedly civilized country should have to basically beg and rely on charity to get needed medical care.

The withholding of life saving medical care and the barriers to receiving that care are unacceptable.

Isn't the idea of "survivorship" obvious as is the fact that anyone in their right mind is "against" cancer. Quite frankly, I'm amazed that Armstrong has been able to fight these scarecrows for as long as he has, and has utilized his phony outrage to rally the troops.

In a perverse way I used to love questioning smokers who were wearing the yellow band, playing dumb and asking what the yellow band was about? The invariable response was, 'it's against cancer.' WTF? Nah, I'm pro cancer. And I'm not one of these self righteous people who lay guilt trips on smokers about what a disgusting habit they have. I know most want to quit but they're addicted.

Unless the money is going to cancer research it's pointless. In Armstrong's defense, he has promoted increased funding for cancer research and he does use the same intimidation tactics on gutless politicians that he used in the peloton.


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

I also wonder how much LA has gotten paid for promoting that FRS bogus worthless crap.


----------



## rodster (Jun 29, 2006)

I bought the magazine Saturday while stranded in Salt Lake City airport. Given Outside has been a Lance fan historically my first reaction on seeing the magazine was satisfaction that the tide of fanboyism is turning.

I found the article fair and balanced. I do not have any issue with how LAF uses it's money. The niche they are in makes sense to me. It does bother me that there is great disinformation given to the public that gives the impression that LAF is funding research, but the source of that is not LAF directly.

Compared with some 'charities' the percentage of funds used on marketing type activities is not alarming. LA takes no funds from LAF and is not reimbursed for expenses incurred representing LAF but no doubt he makes major bank from his name being associated with the foundation and the foundation makes major bank from the association. As the article says, if LA goes down, so does LAF. They need each other don't they?

I don't have a problem with people making money. If LA gets endorsement $$ that's fine. I do have a problem with cheating and lying to make money though and that's my beef with LA. I have a higher opinion of LAF than prior to reading the article.


----------



## Chainstay (Mar 13, 2004)

This is an interesting article. All these partners! The symbiosis is intriguing between helping cancer victims, selling merchandise (Nike and Oakley), gilding your brand (Radio Shack), earning money for Lance and polishing Lance's image for when the bad day comes.

While charities often need media personalities this questions who is the bigger beneficiary, cancer victims or Lance Armstrong.

This whole story is bad for cycling

Thanks for posting.


----------



## burgrat (Nov 18, 2005)

cycocross said:


> Leave Lance alone, it's not like he dumped his singing girlfriend a week after she announced she had cancer.


They had already broken up when she found out she had cancer. Just sayin'...


----------



## Terex (Jan 3, 2005)

Gatorback said:


> Yes, from 1998-2005 they in fact gave money for cancer research (although not a lot in the grand scheme of things--but still that is what they did and they were a player if only a small player). Now, however, they are not involved at all in cancer research, haven't been for years, and the problem is people are either outright misled in some cases regarding the use of their donated money or just mistakenly believe their money will be used for cancer research.
> 
> I have supported cancer research through a significant donation to *The Komen Foundation* and would choose to put my money there if giving towards the fight against cancer.


So how do you feel about those donations after recent news re Komen acceding to political pressure?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Terex said:


> So how do you feel about those donations after recent news re Komen acceding to political pressure?


Their excuse was they cannot give to foundations that are under investigation

Looks like Livestrong is out of the picture for them as well


----------



## zyzbot (Feb 3, 2004)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Their excuse was they cannot give to foundations that are under investigation
> 
> Looks like Livestrong is out of the picture for them as well


Maybe not:

Prosecutors drop Lance Armstrong doping investigation.

Prosecutors drop Lance Armstrong doping investigation - CNN.com


----------

