If you've been keeping up with cycling blogs in the last few days, you may have come across some comments concerning the Lance Armstrong Foundation . A few days ago over on Joe Lindsay's Boulder Report a commenter there, Elizabeth, claimed that Armstrong was "using cancer as a front to feed his own ego for his own personal gain" and that the Charity Navigator efficiency rating for the Lance Armstrong Foundation was only one. She further claimed that the Foundation was in "deficit to the tune of over $5 million." That comment got picked up by another commenter, Lucas Cato, who wanted to make a big deal of the Lance Armstrong Foundation's fund-raising expenses, claiming that the "efficiency of this foundation ranks among the worst-organized and worst-run charities in the US." The story then got picked up by another blogger, the Cozy Beehive . He also questioned the Foundation's fund-raising efficiency. Then he started making some unusual claims: "LAF has a working capital ratio of 0.59. Which simply means their liabilities are more than assets. Which further means that the company only had 59 cents of current assets to pay for every 1 dollar in current liabilities in 2006." And then he hit on a screamingly capitalised REVENUE REPORT DISCREPANCY between the numbers presented on Charity Navigator and the numbers in the Lance Armstrong Foundation's annual report. Finally there came a withering look at the Foundation's CEO salary packag ...
Anytime
