# Livestrong charity, ethical red flags raised



## PinarelloGirl (Aug 26, 2012)

Livestrong’s lobbying efforts on behalf of its founder raised ethical red flags, according to Sandra Miniutti, a spokeswoman for Charity Navigator, a watchdog organization. 

“It was definitely not an ‘ethical best practice,’ ” Miniutti said “What is the intent of donors when they donate money to a charity? In this case, it was not helping a celebrity founder take care of his problems.”

Tainted cyclist Lance Armstrong had Livestrong charity lobby on Capitol Hill on his behalf - NY Daily News

Armstrong has used the goodwill of his foundation to cut business deals that have enriched him personally, an ethically questionable move.


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

PinarelloGirl said:


> Armstrong has used the goodwill of his foundation to cut business deals that have enriched him personally, an ethically questionable move.


That is the nature of the beast, no surprises there.
Why do you think republicans have been in his corner so much? "Follow the money" such good advice.


----------



## Dresden (May 26, 2009)

What I'd really like to know is if that $100,000 donation from Livestrong to Planned Parenthood was a payoff to Senators Boxer and Feinstein for getting the federal case against Armstrong dropped. Something about the way the Birotte ended that just doesn't pass the smell test.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

Livestrong has a shady past. IMO, it was created as a PR and money laundering front for Lance. They don't actually donate any money to research, instead it goes to such nebulous topics as counseling. It's a great way to be unaccountable.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Now that LA has lost most of his power, the next step is that his "charity" will be examined close to the bone and I have a feelng it won't be long before Livestrong becomes a fringe "charity". 

Bet on more stories like this to come out in the following months. Karma is a b*****


----------



## burgrat (Nov 18, 2005)

JoelS said:


> Livestrong has a shady past. IMO, it was created as a PR and money laundering front for Lance. They don't actually donate any money to research, instead it goes to such nebulous topics as counseling. It's a great way to be unaccountable.


I agree. How are they compared to the Susan G. Komen Foundation? They seem to be everywhere, but I assume they fund cancer research.


----------



## tjeepdrv (Sep 15, 2008)

When he started Livestrong, he wasn't the top cyclist in the world. He was a good cyclist whose career was probably over at the time. It might be shady now, but it wasn't originally started to launder money or anything like that.


----------



## lego2304 (Oct 19, 2012)

I always knew that Livestrong was not for funding cancer research. After my mom had cancer once and it came back, I have seen the need for cancer support beyond trying to find a cure. There is a need to help people live with cancer and to help them through the cancer treatment. I contacted Livestrong and they put other agencies in touch with me to help me with the specific questions I had. I may have found those agencies on my own, but Livestrong has the name recognition that makes it easy for people to reach out for help, even if Livestrong works more as a coordinator, at least in my case. The NCI of NIH had a cancer research budget in FY 2010 of over $5 billion dollars. I don't expect a small, upstart (relatively speaking) charity to be generating that amount money for cancer research. But for a group to generate money for people with cancer to help them live with and or through it is a good thing.

That being said, I don't think corruption at any level in any organization will ever surprise me anymore.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

burgrat said:


> I agree. How are they compared to the Susan G. Komen Foundation? They seem to be everywhere, but I assume they fund cancer research.


That was the same organization that was about to stop its mammogram funding of Planned Parenthood while it was under political attack, until an outcry arose. None of that funding was going towards abortion or contraception, just to providing mammogram screenings.

I lost a lot of respect for them then.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

tjeepdrv said:


> When he started Livestrong, he wasn't the top cyclist in the world. He was a good cyclist whose career was probably over at the time. It might be shady now, but it wasn't originally started to launder money or anything like that.


Serioiusly? I think Livestrong did start out as a "in-good-faith" charity/nonprofit org. But then... it grew into a different beast as did Lance. As Armstrong underwent his metamorphosis, so did Livestrong, become more of a PR front for Armstrong. Big name sponsors rode the Livestrong wagon (who wouldn't want to jump on the "cure cancer" bandwagon, right?). Then it became... oh what's that phrase?.. "what a tangled web we weaved"... the activities of Armstrong and Livestrong and the big names sponsors all kind of become one cause.. and then once he started racking in TdF tittles, the cycling movement picked up in America and the UCI then jumped on the Armstrong & Livestrong wagon. Everyone from Armstrong, to the Livestrong org, to the big name sponsors (Trek, Nike, Oakley,etc), the UCI had an interest in seeing the Lance wagon winning. Yep, the web got more entangled... and the rest is history.

But doesn't this happen in real life a lot too? Like in Wall Street? Someone starts out doing something small, starts with small lies, then over times those lies become systematic.. corruptions set in.. ponzi scheme .. until one day everyone everything blows up. Enron, MCI, many insurance pyramid schemes. Will not surprise me if Livestrong is along this path.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

tjeepdrv said:


> When he started Livestrong, he wasn't the top cyclist in the world. He was a good cyclist whose career was probably over at the time. It might be shady now, but it wasn't originally started to launder money or anything like that.


Nope

the Charity was started to insure employment in the event Lance was unable to return to the sport. For the first 10 years they wasted hundreds of millions of dollars promoting Lance. the last 2 years, due to heavy scrutiny, they have turned into a real charity


----------



## tjeepdrv (Sep 15, 2008)

Yep.

He had an insurance policy that would have covered him for life had he been unable to continue. If he wanted to run his organization to collect a paycheck, good for him. 

However, he didn't start LAF or Livestrong to launder his cycling career, as you yourself even just said there was a good chance his career was over.


----------



## MercRidnMike (Dec 19, 2006)

Well, if Livestong has a bit 'o fish in the odour, there is always the Enbridge Ride to Conquer Cancer (shameless plug in case anyone is thinking of donating to a cycling event raising funds for cancer research).


----------



## peabody (Oct 17, 2005)

Dresden said:


> What I'd really like to know is if that $100,000 donation from Livestrong to Planned Parenthood was a payoff to Senators Boxer and Feinstein for getting the federal case against Armstrong dropped. Something about the way the Birotte ended that just doesn't pass the smell test.


it was bill clinton that apparently got the federal case dropped.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

MercRidnMike said:


> Well, if Livestong has a bit 'o fish in the odour, there is always the Enbridge Ride to Conquer Cancer (shameless plug in case anyone is thinking of donating to a cycling event raising funds for cancer research).


There's the Pan Mass Challenge, too, that raises over $30 million annually for the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (aka the "Jimmy Fund") in Boston.

Lance actually participated in it in 2011, riding with John Kerry. I wonder whether he got his usual $200K appearance fee, and if so, who paid it? PMC is known for donating 100% of all funds raised to the Jimmy Fund. They have major sponsors like the Red Sox, New Balance, and Dunkin' Donuts who cover the expenses.


----------



## Dresden (May 26, 2009)

peabody said:


> it was bill clinton that apparently got the federal case dropped.


I didn't realize Clinton might have been involved in getting it dropped. I ran across this recent article while checking into Clinton/Armstrong links. 

Lance Armstrong lifetime ban from International Cycling Union doesn't mean he won't possibly get a pass if federal investigation is closed - NY Daily News

Wonder just how close Clinton and Fabiani are.


----------



## MerlinAma (Oct 11, 2005)

Dresden said:


> What I'd really like to know is if that $100,000 donation from Livestrong to Planned Parenthood was a payoff to Senators Boxer and Feinstein ......


Wait! Are those Republicans too?


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

MerlinAma said:


> Wait! Are those Republicans too?


It's probably cheaper to buy a Democrat. :lol:


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

burgrat said:


> I agree. How are they compared to the Susan G. Komen Foundation? They seem to be everywhere, but I assume they fund cancer research.


The money Livestrong raises is small potatoes--more like teeny, tiny potatoes--compared to the annual budget of NIH's National Cancer Institute. Quite rightly, they switched direction to provide services for those undergoing cancer treatment and for those still facing problems after treatment.

And, truth be told, a lot of the NIH money goes to things like overhead at the institution doing the research, faculty and post-doc salaries, graduate student stipends, travel to meetings to present results, etc.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

The Pan Mass challenge is a great event. I know a guy who does it every year. Now that he is older, it's an impressive commitment, now that he's doing it with surgically repaired knees.

I wouldn't be comfortable giving to Livestrong. I think it was a bad idea for them to lobby for Armstrong's personal interest. He's going to have ongoing legal issues, I'd like to know that won't cross over to Livestrong. 

It was just stupid and clumsy. Everyone knows Livestrong is Armstrong's charity - it's not like it was some super sneaky idea. Why didn't LA just hire a law or lobbying firm himself? Why risk his charity like that?


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

Didn't Charity Navigator used to give Livestrong the highest marks???

What happened? Were they paid off?...Did "bad press" change their minds??

When did these "ethical red flags" go up?....10 years ago?....5 years ago??
one month ago?????
.
.
.


----------



## Wingard64 (Oct 29, 2012)

interested.............


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

Someone please cite what unlawful conduct took place? Otherwise, stop wasting everyone's time stirring the pot.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

fornaca68 said:


> Someone please cite what unlawful conduct took place? Otherwise, stop wasting everyone's time stirring the pot.


No one is saying Livestrong did anything illegal. There are lots of things that are not strictly illegal, but are unethical and make people uncomfortable, such as ohh - doping. 

The OP provided a link to what Livestrong did.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

roopstigo | The Soul of Sports | Inside Livestrong

Possible IRS investigation


----------



## PinarelloGirl (Aug 26, 2012)

*Lance hid behind his charity for far too long*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> roopstigo | The Soul of Sports | Inside Livestrong
> 
> Possible IRS investigation


It's about time. 

Lance Armstrong hid behind his charity for far too long. The charity paid for his travel, personal PR, parties and many other perks --- money that should have gone to the cancer patients and families they purportedly want to help.


----------



## skinewmexico (Apr 19, 2010)

Probably no worse than Susan G. Komen. It's amazing the lawsuits they have filed against other cancer fundraising groups.

And I don't know how we'll ever get past the LA debacle, but it's pretty clear that most of you won't be satisfied with anything less than public hanging. Well, maybe if he's drawn and quartered, that might settle the vindictiveness.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

You DO NOT want to mess with the tax man.
IF there's one thing in America that you do not want to mess around with,it's the IRS. They will come after you regardless of your connection, political affiliation. The IRS is really a soulless entity that really operates on one and only one principle: "if you're stealing our money, we're coming after you". The IRS has proven that they have absolutely no problem going after the big names in society, and in fact, they seem to revel in the limelight of going after big names. 

If I were Livestrong, I'd be a little more than worried!!


----------



## brady1 (Aug 18, 2011)

aclinjury said:


> You DO NOT want to mess with the tax man.
> IF there's one thing in America that you do not want to mess around with,it's the IRS. They will come after you regardless of your connection, political affiliation. The IRS is really a soulless entity that really operates on one and only one principle: "if you're stealing our money, we're coming after you". The IRS has proven that they have absolutely no problem going after the big names in society, and in fact, they seem to revel in the limelight of going after big names.
> 
> If I were Livestrong, I'd be a little more than worried!!


Yep. I've always wondered why there wasn't a major issue with the large gray area between livestrong .org and livestrong.com. I hope_ that _is addresed during the investigaton. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it is a purely FOR profit charity.


----------



## PinarelloGirl (Aug 26, 2012)

*Vindictive = Lance Armstrong*



skinewmexico said:


> Probably no worse than Susan G. Komen. It's amazing the lawsuits they have filed against other cancer fundraising groups.
> 
> And I don't know how we'll ever get past the LA debacle, but it's pretty clear that most of you won't be satisfied with anything less than public hanging. Well, maybe if he's drawn and quartered, that might settle the vindictiveness.


*Vindictive* is the word most appropriately used to define *Lance Armstrong *and how he treated those people who spoke the truth about his doping. Betsy Andreau, Greg LeMond and the list is so much longer than I'd be able to type in this short space.


----------



## skinewmexico (Apr 19, 2010)

PinarelloGirl said:


> *Vindictive* is the word most appropriately used to define *Lance Armstrong *and how he treated those people who spoke the truth about his doping. Betsy Andreau, Greg LeMond and the list is so much longer than I'd be able to type in this short space.


You're right, LA was a vindictive, mean as a snake, POS, apparently. So does that necessarily define our behavior moving forward? Will that help the sport move forward? Has that attitude ever helped move something forward after a crisis?


----------

