I hate it when people say, "Look at all the money he raised for cancer research!" He didn't. He raised money for cancer awareness. While a very small amount of money in the early years went to research, none went to research in the later years. It was for awareness, raising more money, flying Lance around on private planes, and raising even more money.
I certainly recognize the distinction, but isn't raising awareness ultimately going to lead to raising money for research? In fact, I'd be hard pressed to imagine that's not going to be the most lucrative route to maximize money for research. The big corporate financiers are really only going to give to those funds and charities that are in the public's radar after all.
I laughed, and his point about hypocrisy, his point about how small scale the issue are all well taken.
I can't stand his American 'us v them,' attitude. Competitive cycling is a complex sport that involves most nations in the world. But to the redneck 'Muricans, it's all 'them' and LA was one of 'us.'
I would imagine it's much easier to skim off donations made for "awareness" than donations made for hard research. "Awareness" is a nebulous thing that's hard to quantify. The executives of a cancer "awareness" organization can easily give themselves nice, fat salaries without too much squawking from donors. It's a little harder to do that when your only function is to pass donations along to actual research centers.
@10 And, it's easier to crow about having achieved a goal, if that goal is some soft measure of awareness, as opposed to a goal of tangible progress towards the cure(s).
Keep giving to us: people are defintely more aware then ever!
Vs.
Give to us cause, dangit: our research has confirmed another 300 approches that won't yield a cure. Hey, only an infinite number more to try!
I certainly recognize the distinction, but isn't raising awareness ultimately going to lead to raising money for research? In fact, I'd be hard pressed to imagine that's not going to be the most lucrative route to maximize money for research. The big corporate financiers are really only going to give to those funds and charities that are in the public's radar after all.
Great video, great take.
http://vimeo.com/58191312
I can't stand his American 'us v them,' attitude. Competitive cycling is a complex sport that involves most nations in the world. But to the redneck 'Muricans, it's all 'them' and LA was one of 'us.'
I would imagine it's much easier to skim off donations made for "awareness" than donations made for hard research. "Awareness" is a nebulous thing that's hard to quantify. The executives of a cancer "awareness" organization can easily give themselves nice, fat salaries without too much squawking from donors. It's a little harder to do that when your only function is to pass donations along to actual research centers.
Keep giving to us: people are defintely more aware then ever!
Vs.
Give to us cause, dangit: our research has confirmed another 300 approches that won't yield a cure. Hey, only an infinite number more to try!
A data point in the debate over whether a rape joke can be funny:
I only want coke.