Next focus for the FBI and IRS - the misuse of funds at Livestrong
Anton Berlin
thousands to hold a $4000 fundraiser in Queenstown?
Just the tip of the iceberg. Plain and simple Armstrong is a
psychopath.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:5bab5260-798b-42b8...@28g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
Anton: There can be a "big picture" aspect to such things that escapes
micro-inspection techniques. I don't know anything about the $4,000 this
fundraiser ended up with (can you provide a link?) but it's possible the
foundation does well in Australia and New Zealand in the aggregate, and the
benefit of having Lance attending functions down under is thus bigger than
indicated.
I've seen the reports that rate the various charities; Livestrong is far
from being either the best or the worst. And I know first-hand of many
people who have benefitted greatly from their work. Customers with cancer
who called the Livestrong line and got to talk to someone who not only had
empathy but also lists of local resources that they had not previously
encountered. There are some extraordinary people working for Livestrong, and
the worst thing that could come out of all this is that those people become
disillusioned and leave, rather than continue their good work.
Besides, you discredit your attempts to discredit Lance when you go after
all-things Lance instead of focusing on one key thing that can be followed
through to a conclusion you feel appropriate. Acting like a "Lance hater"
does nothing to hasten justice, whatever justice happens to be.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Anton Berlin
I take charity pretty seriously and even the misuse and waste of a
single dollar is money stolen.
Lance has used the cancer card for doping immunity and personal
privilege far too long.
LAF doesn't, won't and can't help in the "fight for 18million" the
wasted dollars sent to Livestrong are dollars that could have gone to
legitimate research, support and with far greater efficiency.
Charity (like a lot of things is a zero-sum game) Lance didn't raise
any additional money for cancer he only took a percentage of the pie
through his funnel. As to the extraordinary people - they will land
on their feet. If their purpose is true they will find a way to help
under a different umbrella. There are many legitimate ones.
I donate often to charitable causes. My only criteria are that they
are secular and above 95% efficient. (Many are 100%) Taking
(misdirecting/skimming) from a charity is about as low as a human can
get. (only thing lower is the promises of heaven, god and other
corrupt bullshit and perhaps being a politician)
I suppose when I get to the core of it - my contempt for Lance is less
about doping and more about the fact he only takes and takes from
everyone while forgetting that it's their shoulders he stands upon.
He owes a debt to cycling and coming clean about his doping would be a
start to it. We all know he doped. Lance is a coward and a common
psychopath that happened to ride a bicycle.
Mike Jacoubowsky
> Sorry Mike but with all due respect - fuck you.
Nice opening. It certainly adds a lot of credibility to the idea that
there's something beyond emotion to your claims. I'm trying to figure out if
I said something to drag a discussion down to that level, but I'm not seeing
it. --Mike--
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Anton Berlin
And yeah fuck anyone that defends him for that reality.
Mike Jacoubowsky
> Lance is a net "taker". This is way more apparent than his doping.
>
> And yeah fuck anyone that defends him for that reality.
I don't think you'll find evidence of me defending Lance, within a context
of saying I don't believe he doped, for quite a long time. Many, many years.
Possibly never.
That's very different from saying there are serious issues with many of the
charges leveled against him. What I'm "defending" is accuracy over emotional
rantings.
RicodJour
wrote:
> "Anton Berlin" <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a96cf575-e7a7-41b3...@z19g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Lance is a net "taker". This is way more apparent than his doping.
>
> > And yeah fuck anyone that defends him for that reality.
>
> I don't think you'll find evidence of me defending Lance, within a context
> of saying I don't believe he doped, for quite a long time. Many, many years.
> Possibly never.
>
> That's very different from saying there are serious issues with many of the
> charges leveled against him. What I'm "defending" is accuracy over emotional
> rantings.
Anton's got himself in a lather. The problem is that he's been waxing
it for so long that now that some fallout is occurring he's having
trouble controlling himself.
I find it curious that someone that is "all about charity" has never
exhibited it on this newsgroup, and insists that a scorched earth
policy is the only solution. If a single dollar is wasted, nuke the
charity. That if some people have been helped, but the charity spends
some money as there aren't enough volunteers (probably too busy
posting on newsgroups), that it has to be crushed and obliterated.
Makes perfect sense.
R
Anton Berlin
I decided to look up the AIP's report on LiveStrong. Although the AIP
doesn't go into a lot of details on LiveStrong, they are critical of
how inefficient the organization is and groups it as one of many
"cancer charities" that are in need of a "dose of organizational
chemotherapy." In reference to LiveStrong's predecessor organization,
The Lance Armstrong Foundation, AIP says:
The Lance Armstrong Foundation (now LiveStrong), founded by
the champion bicyclist and cancer survivor of the same name, is
celebrating its 10-year anniversary this year. Wouldn’t you think a
charity that receives massive publicity for having one of the most
popular causes and most admired celebrities as the face of the
organization would be able to easily raise lots of money?
Unfortunately this is not the case. LAF spent as much as $45 to raise
each $100... (A)fter spending $10 million in solicitation costs, the
group brought in only $22 million in contributions, according to AIP’s
analysis of LAF’s 2005 financial statements.
In other words, LiveStrong appears to be spending a lot of money to
get contributions which should, on the face of it, come pretty easily
to this organization. In fact, when this report was written, Lance's
foundation spent 45 cents to raise a dollar! That's outrageous if you
ask me!
Vagina Gorilla
Dumbass you left this part out
My guess is that if we got a detailed report from AIP they would say
that Lance is spending a lot of LiveStrong's money to travel in a
private plane, stay in nice hotels, eat the finest meals, and promote
himself along with his charity.
DirtRoadie
You're right, he should ONLY be traveling by donkey cart, living in a
thatched roof hut and eating military MRI's. Maybe make an appearance
once a month or so when he can get there.
It would be foolish for anyone (like him or hate him) to think that he
has any drawing power or any ability to "promote" his organization.
And the organization if, it is truly charitable, should somehow be
readily be able to function with no overhead costs whatsoever. It is
pretty clear that every dollar spent on an employee's salary is a
dollar stripped from directly from some unwitting cancer victim.
Now if you want to delve into the actual overall function and/or
benefit of LIVESTRONG - that's a whole different issue.
DR
Vagina Gorilla
Lance can't afford gourmet food, private jet travel and 5 star hotels
on his own. So if he takes 5-10 minutes out of his busy having sex
with anyone that remotely resembles his mother schedule, why should
that matter to the 18 million cancer patients that can barely afford
their treatment yet alone the their post-recovery EPO and steroids?
Maybe if they saved the money they spent on cigarettes or wasted on
taking testosterone in the early 90s they would have the money they
need for the cancer treatments.
Certainly they shouldn't bug the greatest athlete of all time to put
down the Musigny, take off his lobster bib and extract his cock out of
the Olsen twins.
dave a
>
>
> Lance can't afford gourmet food, private jet travel and 5 star hotels
> on his own.
Really? What makes you think that?
Simply Fred
> Certainly they shouldn't bug the greatest athlete of all time to put
> down the Musigny, take off his lobster bib and extract his cock out of
> the Olsen twins.
The Olsen's must be Siamese twins if he can have it in both simultaneously.