Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Lunchtime Quickie: Today In Being M… | Ada Grey, Child Theater Critic »

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Sports Lance Armstrong's Fishy Use of His Anti-Cancer Group

Posted by Unpaid Intern on Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Posted by news intern Mike Gore

Last week I wrote about charges the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) is bringing against seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong. Long story short, rats on the US Olympic team are fleeing the ship as the heat comes down on Armstrong.

Since then, not a whole lot had happened... until yesterday. A Wall Street Journal blog broke a story saying that lobbyists for Livestrong, Lance Armstrong's cancer-fighting non-profit, were lobbying US Representatives about the USADA. The report comes from a spokesman for Representative Jose Serrano, a New York Democrat, who alleged the lobbyist "broached the fairness" of USADA charges against Armstrong.

As CyclingNews.com explains, the lobbyists questioned the USADA's 'fairness,' after last week's attack on USADA funding by Congressman Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin. Relatedly, the USADA's funding is funneled through the House Appropriations Committee, which Rep. Serrano serves on.

Whether or not Armstrong doped, using The Livestrong Foundation's paid lobbyists for this purpose looks pathetic. The dude is rich—he owns parts of many companies and made millions during his racing years. If he wants to go after the USADA in retaliation, he should have the ball to use his god damn money. Instead, his Livestrong foundation, it seems, has turned into some legal defense fund for its embattled founder. What is the Livestrong foundation supposed to be doing? Let's see what their mission statement says:

We empower the cancer community to address the unmet needs of cancer survivors. To do so, we encourage collaboration, knowledge-sharing and partnership.

Then, we develop evidence-based solutions to address both the common and unique problems survivors are facing around the world.

That sure doesn't sound like a manifesto to lobby against doping investigations. But, hey, now that their founder is under investigation for doping, it's how the Livestrong Foundation is spending its resources. Perhaps his troubles with the USADA could be construed as "unmet needs of cancer survivors," but I feel that as long as people are actually dying from cancer, it sounds like bullshit to me.

FacebookShare

Comments (17) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

why is the government giving the USADA $9mil?

Posted by semi-crepuscular on July 17, 2012 at 12:38 PM

lance seems like a total ASSHOLE!

Posted by drwas on July 17, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Wow, @ 1 and 2 have written some intellectually stimulating arguments. Maybe we can call someone a fag now.

Posted by Matt from Denver on July 17, 2012 at 12:48 PM

"have the ball to use" Sorry, that line just made my day!!

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on July 17, 2012 at 12:53 PM

I don't give a flop about Lance Armstrong, cycling, or accusations of doping. However, As their founder and (probably) main supporter\voice of the organization, any damage this investigation does to Armstrong will almost certainly down onto them. Therefore it only makes sense for Livestrong to speak up for its founder. Doing otherwise would be bad business sense.

And come on. The whole 'They shouldn't do anything else until cancer is cured' line is bullshit. It's not some dude running a website out of his basement, it's an entire goddamn organization. I'm sure they have the manpower to direct funds towards cancer research and talk to US Representatives at the same time.

Posted by NateMan on July 17, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Sounds to me like another good republican at work.

Posted by kevin11 on July 17, 2012 at 1:13 PM

@6: Erm... He's not Republican. He's described himself as 'middle to left', and is on record as pro-choice. I mean, he might be, but it seems unlikely.

Posted by NateMan on July 17, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Mike Gore, for this post I will send you $50 if you want. This kind of work should not go unpaid, my dear. I loved it and it definitely improved my day.

@5, want to explain why non-profit organizations that take good people's money and get tax-exempt status should be run by "business sense"?

Posted by Alice Dreger

on July 17, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Alice you make me smile, even though you remind me of my non-existent salary!

-Mike the Intern

Posted by Unpaid Intern on July 17, 2012 at 4:11 PM

@8-not to put words in @5's mouth, but a non-profit should operate with good business sense because failure to do so could constitute a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the non-profit's board and officers; in terms of fiduciary duty, board members and officers of a not-for-profit corporation are held to the same standards as their counterparts in the for profit universe. Non-profit is not synonomous with fiscal obliviousness.

Posted by quix on July 17, 2012 at 4:24 PM

AAAK...spelling. S/b "synonymous," not the other.

Posted by quix on July 17, 2012 at 4:25 PM

@8: Umm, because wasting good people's money with pie business skills would be unethical and ineffective? Since when is it preferable for non-profits to be incompetent?

Posted by NateMan on July 17, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Pie business? Good Christ autocorrect is a pain in the ass. Poor business skills.

Posted by NateMan on July 17, 2012 at 4:34 PM

@5, Livestrong does not fund research. What they actually do is not clear.

Posted by sarah70 on July 17, 2012 at 4:51 PM