At least Lance is doing something for the cancer foundation! 'promote cancer awareness'. And these appearance fees' date=' even though they have come from various sources, and just race organisers, have not made their way to the charity. If he's not doing it for money, he's going about it in a strange way. Does Armstrong "Deserve" to make money from his "Charity". No one "deserves" anything. Being upfront and graciously accepting donations is one thing . . . but using the money to make a business in disguise is another. We're free to believe in fairy tales all we wish. . . and Armstrong can make as much as he can from this venture. What are people getting in return? Hope? Hope for what? Hope for something better? Hope for the tooth fairy? I've been there. . . hoping for something better because life in the present moment is pure hell! I learned "hope" is a blindfold that blinds us from the truth of the here and now. It's like whistling down a dark alley at night and "hoping" not to get eaten by a monster. The reality of it is you're just walking down an alley. .. . and there is nothing to fear in this life. Is that what "Livestrong" is selling? So tricking people into giving to a charity while he uses the brand that is built to put money into his own pockets is considered smart now? Armstrong is a scumbag. Anyone with a ounce of integrity would name their for profit operation differently than the non-profit one so there would be no confusion. That it was not named differently shows intent. All ad revenue for Livestrong.com goes to Demand Media, which was set up by a notorious purveyor of spyware and funded by venture capitalists. Before the global meltdown, Demand Media had plans to go public. The people enriched would have been the CEO, Richard Rosenblatt, a bunch of VCs, and Armstrong. Strangely enough, Rosenblatt, CEO of Demand Media, also sits on the board of directors of FRS. http://www.ruderfinn.co.uk/blogs/dotcom/files/2009/06/enviromental-head-in-the-sand.jpg[/quote'] Your point of view maybe!
