No one likes to be lied to, yet, for some readership, there are those moments in Statement Analysis where they come face to face with an emotion that is not expected. They believed in someone's innocence, and may have even openly defended the subject in public, yet come to the point where the analysis is clear: deception and guilt. Note the wise quote at the end of this article. It reminds me of many of the cases in which people have responded emotionally.
Armstrong steps down as chairman of Livestrong cancer-fighting charity
Please note the quote at the end of the article. It is a strong statement.
AUSTIN, Texas – Lance Armstrong said Wednesday he is stepping down as chairman of his Livestrong cancer-fighting charity so the group can focus on its mission instead of its founder's problems.
The move came a week after the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency released a massive report detailing allegations of widespread doping by Armstrong and his teams when he won the Tour de France seven consecutive times from 1999 to 2005. The document's purpose was to show why USADA has banned him from cycling for life and ordered 14 years of his career results erased -- including those Tour titles. It contains sworn statements from 26 witnesses, including 11 former teammates.
Armstrong, who was not paid a salary as chairman of the Lance Armstrong Foundation, will remain on its 15-member board. His duties leading the board will be turned over to vice chairman Jeff Garvey, who was founding chairman in 1997.
"This organization, its mission and its supporters are incredibly dear to my heart," Armstrong said in a statement obtained by The Associated Press. "Today therefore, to spare the foundation any negative effects as a result of controversy surrounding my cycling career, I will conclude my chairmanship."
Foundation spokeswoman Katherine McLane said the decision turns over the foundation's big-picture strategic planning to Garvey. He will also assume some of the public appearances and meetings that Armstrong used to handle.
Armstrong strongly denies doping, but did not fight USADA accusations through arbitration, saying he thinks the process is unfair. Once Armstrong gave up the fight in August and the report came out, crisis management experts predicted the future of the foundation, known mainly by its Livestrong brand name, would be threatened. They said Armstrong should consider stepping down to keep the charity from getting dragged into a debate over doping.
Armstrong's inspiring story of not only recovering from testicular cancer that had spread to his lungs and brain but then winning the world's best-known bike race helped his foundation grow from a small operation in Texas into one of the most popular charities in the country.
Armstrong drew legions of fans -- and donations -- and insisted he was drug free at a time when doping was rampant in professional cycling. In 2004, the foundation introduced the yellow "Livestrong" bracelets, selling more than 80 million and creating a global symbol for cancer awareness and survivorship.
"As my cancer treatment was drawing to an end, I created a foundation to serve people affected by cancer. It has been a great privilege to help grow it from a dream into an organization that today has served 2.5 million people and helped spur a cultural shift in how the world views cancer survivors," Armstrong said.
As chairman, Armstrong did not run the foundation's day-to-day operations, which are handled by Livestrong president and chief executive Doug Ulman.
Ulman had said last week that Armstrong's leadership role would not change. Armstrong's statement said he will remain a visible advocate for cancer issues, and he is expected to speak at Friday night's 15th anniversary gala for Livestrong in Austin.
"My family and I have devoted our lives to the work of the foundation and that will not change. We plan to continue our service to the foundation and the cancer community. We will remain active advocates for cancer survivors and engaged supporters of the fight against cancer," Armstrong said.
CharityWatch, which analyzes the work of approximately 600 charities, lists the foundation among its top-rated organizations. That status normally goes to groups which "generally spend 75 percent or more of their budgets on programs, spend $25 or less to raise $100 in public support, do not hold excessive assets in reserve" and disclose of basic financial information and documents.
Livestrong says it had functional expenses totaling nearly $35.8 million last year and 82 percent of every dollar raised went directly to programs, a total of more than $29.3 million.
The foundation reported a spike in contributions in late August in the days immediately after Armstrong announced he would no longer fight doping charges and officials moved to erase his Tour victories.
Daniel Borochoff, founder and president of Chicago-based CharityWatch, said last week it may take some time for donors to digest the allegations against Armstrong.
"Individuals that admire and support an individual who is later found out to be severely tarnished, don't want to admit it, don't want to admit that they've been duped," Borochoff said. "People, though, do need to trust a charity to be able to support it."
This is stated with regard to charitable giving, but I believe it is something of value for those of us who study deception in language. We do not like being deceived and sometimes we have an emotional backing of someone of whom we later come face to face with analysis that shows guilt or deception.
There have been a number of cases like this for readership.
"I love statement analysis but..."
Those who donated money to Charlie Rogers likely feel embittered and perhaps even jaded, yet these emotions may fade.
Those who have felt strongly about certain criminal cases (Jonbenet Ramsey, Amanda Knox) see that the principles of Statement Analysis remain the same and indicate the deception of Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson, but feel an emotional resistance when applied to Dennis Dechaine, Patsy and John Ramsey, or Knox.
It is the emotional honesty that elevates and clarifies.
Those who donated money to Charlie Rogers likely feel embittered and perhaps even jaded, yet these emotions may fade.
Those who have felt strongly about certain criminal cases (Jonbenet Ramsey, Amanda Knox) see that the principles of Statement Analysis remain the same and indicate the deception of Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson, but feel an emotional resistance when applied to Dennis Dechaine, Patsy and John Ramsey, or Knox.
It is the emotional honesty that elevates and clarifies.
15 comments:
Nike has also dropped him.
At the same time, one of his long-time corporate sponsors, Nike Inc., said it could no longer ignore the growing evidence of his illicit behavior as one of the cycling world's premier athletes and dropped its sponsorship of him.
http://news.yahoo.com/armstrong-steps-down-charity-nike-drops-sponsorship-124049064--spt.html
The part of the statement that stood out to me was "people don't want to be duped." We are prideful creatures and hate to admit when we are wrong. But "Pride goeth before a fall." Some people would rather abandon their own personal morals and values than to admit they were wrong about anything. In this upcoming election I have seen folks forsake religious beliefs and strong family values rather than forego politics. It makes me cringe. Things I have been taught were wrong my entire life are now being brushed under the rug because one candidate is affiliated with a particular political party. I understand that no one can represent 100% of who you are, but there are core foundational principles that we used to say we would die for that we are now overlooking because of hate in our hearts. I know this is wrong when I see both sides hating the other in such an extreme way. It scares me. And I can only pray that I don't get swept away by rhetoric someday. For there are those stronger than myself surcumming to the pressure to be right and it all goes back to my original statement, for pride.
Seeing how advance his doping was. how far he went to protect his image. to protect his income, to win at all costs, to threaten and demean others, it makes me wonder just how bad was his cancer?
Did he even have cancer at all?
He is a proven liar, i have to ask myself he lied about doping, what else did he lie about?
It is not unknown for people to lie about having cancer or its severity. their treatments and so on.
Sad to say everything he has ever said has now to be taken with a pinch of salt.
He may well have had the cancers he claimed, he may well have had the treatments, it may have been as severe as claimed, hiowever in my mind and probably the minds of many others there will now be that little seed of doubt about the truth.
He is now untouchable, for all the wrong reasons he hoped for.
I will not be surprised if the charity changes it's name and kicks him off the board simply because he is no longer desirable, rather he is a hinderance to donations.
People do not donate to liars.
He is now a liability, will he jump before he is pushed?
Will it fold and crop up in a new guise without his taint, a clean sheet so to speak.
If Shakespeare were alive, he could write a modern tragedy about pride and ambition from this. It's as if Lance Armstrong took the words out of Iago's mouth. "Demand me nothing. What you know, you know. From this time forth I never will speak word."
I have to admit Hobnob, this is something I too thought about, wondering if he ever had cancer at all; or at least as extensively as he claimed he did. From the testicular to the lungs and to the brain? That is a VERY extensive cancer spread. Did any of his physicians ever publically make any statements about it during those years he claimed to be undergoing treatments, and his prognosis? He was a public celebrity back then, so why wouldn't they? Yes, I do wonder how much of that story is true.
A lot of people get duped into supporting the cancer foundations, which, while their intentions are good, I wonder just how many of them have ever checked into the programs these foundations are spending these vast amounts of money on, or if any of them have ever been in the position where they've needed to call on one of these foundations for help?
Well, to be brief, let me tell you a little about it, although I can only speak in generalies based on my own experiences. As a result, I ask; WHO are they helping other than themselves? How are they helping them? This is huge, big big buiness, massive, the world over. Does it ever occur to anyone to wonder, 'why would they find a cure' when they will be shooting themselves out of a job should they find one? They will still be "looking for a cure" fifty years from now!
They pile up millions, billions of dollars every year. All under the guise of "cancer research". They build big buildings, pay themselves big salares, employ many, buy massive and expensive equipment and do vast experiments in their pursuit of a 'cancer cure', all to their own advantage; which IS, to keep themselves employed, and that, quite lucratively.
I am not speaking of Hospice where it's too late by the time you get to Hospice; I am speaking of all those cancer research organizations who are in the business of seeking huge donations, claiming to seek a cure for cancer, WHICH our various forms of government ALSO support. I could not find a single one who would actually help me with the cost or treatment of my own cancer. NOT ONE. They are in the business of bringing in money, NOT spending it on your little bitty personal situation.
They don't give a damn whether you can pay for your treatments or not. I'm almost glad I can't afford it because it is causing me to turn towards alternative treatments and run from their killer chemo and radiation treatments they so widely recommend and use which has never cured anybody to my knowledge, and it never will; maybe a scattered out handful here and there. But NO WAY do they actually help anyone with their cancer treatments.
I use as an example; why is someone like Susan Malino Murphy not being helped by them? I'd guarantee you that Susan had already appealed to every one of the cancer foundations to help her, like I have so many. Why was she put in the position of having to go public to plead for assistance to help pay for her treatments that she cannot pay? Because they wouldn't help her. Where is all that money going that these cancer foundations are raking in hand over fist? Certainly not to HELP any of us!
I carefully observed how Lance's cancer foundation claims they use so much of their donations towards cancer research and it's various programs, but how much towards treatment? I'd guarantee it, not one thin dime! They claimed a large percentage for various programs under the umbrella cloak of cancer research, but they did NOT specify what those separate programs ARE being used for and how they are spending that money. While it sounds good, they did NOT mention a single program that is HELPING anyone directly who HAS cancer! Anyone who doesn't believe me, look into these cancer foundatios yourselves!
Doctors would not be allowed to speak about his condition under HIPAA laws. The cancer was most likely caused by the doping and spread quickly as a resolve of drugs causing his body to function at warp speed - good cells and cancer cells. His doctors probably knew he had illegal drugs in his system but couldn't speak out about it because it was part of his medical record.
That's nonsense. You mean hospital spokespersons without permission, don't you? Doctors give interviews all the time concerning a patients condition. Perhaps with the patients' or guardian's consent, but they DO give interviews and updates relative to a patients' condition.
I'm sure his doping didn't help matters, but the testicular cancer probably had to do with the constant friction caused by his riding the bike all the time. One CAN over exercise a particular area (or areas) of their body. Doctors in sports medicine warn against it all the time.
WHY NOW give up the fight? Did the report really change his mind, or do you think there is more to it than meets the eye? He fights this for ages and then just gives up (and may have consequences play out with a vengeance)? He's giving up so many benefits. There has to be some benefit to him giving up, right?
MOO
As a physician, I cannot discuss any patient without their consent. I cannot say that they are my patient. If they want me to speak or share info about them, they may specify what they want to share. If I had a public patient who claimed medical diagnoses that were exaggerated or untrue, I would not legally be allowed to correct him/her unless they gave me written permission to do so.
Much like the "Susan G Komen" foundation, Armstong's "Livestrong" foundation is just too big for any real accountability.
Before you donate to ANY foundation, particularly big ones such as "Komen" and "Livestrong," ask yourself where your $$$$$$ is REALLY going. If you're satisfied with the answer, then God Bless, donate money. If you are unsure exactly where your money is going, then pause.
Not to pick on "breast cancer research," but when I read about people from my local community being flown down to places like Boca Raton, Florida to receive awards for their "fund-raising efforts to combat this terrible disease," makes me wonder that if said award-recipient was so damn concerned about breast cancer research, they'd donate the cost of their plane ticket/& other incidentals toward actual, breast-cancer research.
Like we say at our house, lying poisons all your words. We did an object lesson, mixing pepper (dark color being easily visible, representing lies) into salt (representing the pure truth). We invited family members to separate the two (a task not easily done). Then we explained how lying "contaminates" all our words, just like the pepper ruins the salt. It causes people to be unable to trust any of our words. It's impossible to have both total darkness and bright light at the same time. Likewise, the truth and the lie cannot co-exist. Our saying: "It's either dark or light, black or white, wrong or right."
* This lesson can be even more effective using cayenne pepper or another sharply flavored powdered spice. Then simply offer it to your family member to add to their meal. When they decline, objecting to the taste, remind them that lying is equally distasteful.
I thought about it too Hobs. He having cancer. I don't believe anything he says. I've read on the news site comments made by people excusing the fact of his doping because they believe he being a "hero" excuses the fact that he doped. Wow. I hope he crashes hard.
It's all about the donations Anony @ 7:44 pm!! REaping the rewards of how much money they pulled in and making their plans for their NEXT big drive to pull in MORE donations! It's not about a cancer cure at all and it's NOT about helping you find help when you have cancer either. They would be putting themselves out of business to ever "find a cure" or start doling out money to help needy people who have cancer.
Like most big churches, they want the money and NEED the money to keep up their big buildings, expensive trips and fat payroll! As for the smaller churches, they don't have any money, can't even pay their mortgage payments, and need help themselves. Go ask just about any big church if they will help you financially and see what kind of an answer you get. Ask your cancer foundation to help you pay for your treatments and see what you get. They will screen you and send you an independent housemaid for $20 an hour, YOU pay.
They are all about pulling IN money, not spending it. Granted, there are some churches who have food banks and clothing corners and will help those with these items when/if they come in for help, but these donations are all made by church volunteer members and NOT purchased from the church coffers. Same for the Meals on Wheels program. They have charitable volunteers who deliver the meals to those infirmed at home, using their own gasoline, autos and time, it is no cost to the program. They have a different volunteer every day who prepares the meals. The recepients of the meals, donate, I believe $3.00 per day for the lunch they receive, which offsets the cost of the (very) sparse meal, not even worth $3 per day. Bread, drinks and fruits are donated by grocery stores.
I could go on and on about how they all operate but why bother? Nobody seems to care, until the day comes that they need help themselves then can't get any.
Anony 1, good example using the salt and pepper method to distinguish the difference, but unworkable. Some people can lie so affectively and you can know they are lying but at some point you just give up and let it go. It's like the lesson of using deception by deflection. That being when the liar, the one being deceptive, turns the direction away from themselves and towards blaming someone else for something that was totally unrelated to the lie they just told, thereby changing the subject to take the focus off themselves. With some people you never win. They are very good at it.
Your example #2 is unfair. It would be cruel to put hot pepper (cayenne) or some sharply flavored spice into someones food and force them to eat it. Cruel. I'm sure that's not what you meant, is it?
Another thing about many of the wealthy foundations Anon from 10/17, is that they are set up in family trusts that are managed by accountants and attorneys (who are paid for their services out of the foundation funds,) and used as tax shelters and writeoffs. They are primarily focused on the arts and sciences and are designated to donate so much annually to these causes for tax benefits to the foundation. They protect their wealth.
For example, Caroline Kennedy might sit on the board of a Kennedy Foundation as a board member or director, as well as other Kennedy family members. She may or may not pay herself an annual salary (likely does) out of the foundation funds, her decision; or it may have already been pre-established at the time the foundation was established. It is another way for an inheritance to be passed on, enjoyed and protected for the heirs.
These vastly wealthy foundations have a base of operations that they never go beneath and the money is always there, and always accumulating more wealth due to their investments. They are closely guarded and managed and are untouchable.
Post a Comment