Rick in the D wrote:
I hope the implication here is that the only dollars that matter are the ones that go directly toward funding cancer research.
I was not. I hope I did not come across that way. But for some reason everyone I talk to seems to think that LAF is a major financier of cancer research. They are not. The Outside Magazine article does, however present Doug Ullman's argument that their foundation would merely present a drop in the bucket next to the research dollars from the National Institutes of Health.
Rick in the D wrote:
I can tell you - first person - that the research, med, and protocol side of it is surely one large facet of dealing with cancer. But don't bring the argument to ST doorstep that in the absence of granting pure direct research dollars that Livestrong doesn't do good. I can think of a ton of other things Livestrong brings - and that my family has used.
Please, there is no need to create a rhetorical false dichotomy. There might be positive impact from LAF in other areas, but direct research impact has not been one of them.
Rick in the D wrote:
Not the least of which Lance's high-profile advocacy itself
probably makes the direct research dollars boat rise, too. There was a flood of new funding at the one cancer center I know directly around the same time Livestrong was at it's hyped best, and Lance was winning tours. I can't point at it and say Livestrong was the causal, but I can't say it wasn't one of many. It sure as hell doesn't hurt.
You said it yourself, without established causation, you cannot give LAF credit.
I agree with you that the Lance factor might bring publicity to the sport and get more people into swimming, running, and cycling. I cannot argue against that. But I do not want people to think that any of $$ from Ironman will get pumped directly into cancer research.
-----------------------
My Science Blog "The only fair race is the race against the clock" -Anquetil