Robin Williams did a routine during his 2002 DVD ‘Live on Broadway’ that talked about the French drug administration’s fastidiousness when it came to Lance Armstrong’s urine samples.
It struck a chord (and some laughs) in a nation who believed in Armstrong over a bunch of fussy bureaucrats who seemed to be more interested in cynical gossip than hard facts.
Armstrong was not only a cyclist but he was an institution. Livestrong, the charity that he set up to help cancer sufferers, has raised somewhere around half a billion dollars in support of people with the disease.
I highly doubt that Livestrong, Williams or any of his other famous friends knew what was really happening behind the closed doors of the hotel rooms during race meets, but they were prepared to take Lance at his word.
Williams of course will not be hurt by the scandal – he is a comedian and the joke was funny – just erroneous. Nor will countless other celebs that Armstrong has posed with over the years, though that scene from ‘Dodgeball’ now has a horribly hollow feel to it.
Livestrong, on the other hand, could be hurt badly as it was established by Armstrong, was continually mentioned and plugged by him during his reign on top of the Tour.
For many people, therefore, Livestrong and Armstrong are one and the same. One cannot help but feel then there are people who will identify, with no basis in fact, the charity as having some knowledge of what Armstrong was doing.
Others may look at the charity as merely a cynical exercise to allow Armstrong to take the moral high ground while stooping to some very low levels indeed.
Cycling cannot forget how it profited out of the Livestrong exercise either. Who could forget the images of riders from different teams coming together to wear the Livestrong wristbands to support cancer survivors?
At a time when the drug scandals were beginning to take shape in the sport, some good PR would have been welcome. Furthermore, when Armstrong himself was leading a bunch of cyclists on a ride for charity, there was no doubting that cycling would get a pat on the back by association, particularly when some of Lance’s teammates from the Tour helped out.
The sad thing about all this, therefore, is that Livestrong will probably take a sizeable hit because of something it knew next to nothing about.
And yet the sport which allowed Armstrong to flout the rules so arrogantly will wash its hands of the charity despite feeding off Livestrong’s good publicity in the better times.
It’s the sort of thing a comedian could write a routine about.
Baldrick44
Roar Pro
True, but Oakley, Nike and Trek have other sportsmen to rely upon. Armstrong is just one big fish. To Livestrong he was THE big fish- their founder. Furthermore, how much blame can be placed at the companies feet when the sport itself cannot police its athletes? Where does one seek to find legitimate sources of fact when the institution that is supposed to be responsible for it is inherently corrupt?
Lee Rodgers
Expert
Well it's similar with Trek, Oakley and Nike, they milked the golden udder that was LA for years and they also heard the rumors, Betsy, Greg etc etc, and also chose to look the other way then washed their hands of him when the truth 'came out'. There has to be some responsibility from these companies and institutions or it will happen again. If anything it's a sad indictment on human beings, that we'll hide behind the facade of half truths and the corporate t-shirt, shifting responsibility and never questioning. I don't think there was anything they 'had' to do at all, they chose to do it.
Baldrick44
Roar Pro
Difficult to say. As you correctly say, the Armstrong name has benefited greatly from the Livestrong charity and there is little doubt that the members of the charity would have heard some of the rumours. But would they have been able to find the truth out even if they asked? Armstrong doesn't seem to me to be the type to let people in- indeed those who asked questions were more or less cut off and bullied into submission. It seems to me that Livestrong had to take the founder of their orginisation at his word.
Lee Rodgers
Expert
I think you're being generous all round. First of all, how did the Livestrong people not have doubts over LA with all the media reports about his then alleged doping? Were they all oblivious? Or just desperate for it to be not true? Secondly, LA used Livestrong to get sponsorship deals and to promote himself. Bill Gifford wrote this about a year ago: 'One thing [Livestrong] doesn't do – contrary to popular opinion – is fund cancer research, in the sense of guys in white lab coats looking for a cancer cure. Your Livestrong donation will not hasten that cure. It does help cancer patients and their families "navigate" the patchy and hostile realms of the US healthcare system. But it also does quite a lot to boost the stature and brand value of one Lance Armstrong.' *full article here: http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all If Livestrong can help people with cancer, great, but what he got from it was a shield to cheat behind, and a heck of a lot of dough... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/sports/cycling/lance-armstrongs-business-brand-and-livestrong-are-bound-together.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Baldrick44
Roar Pro
I am being a tad generous possibly. It's hard to know exactly what Armstrong's exact motives were for setting up the charity- whether it was a mere PR exercise; whether it was his way of justifying his cheating to himself and/or whether he actually had some genuine empathy because of what he went through. But you're right in that it is a hard road forward for the charity.
Brad Cooper
Roar Guru
Good points, but I wonder if you're a tad generous with your line 'others may look at the charity as a cynical exercise.' The Livestrong concept was more like a reserve PR 'chute anticipating the inevitable implosion of team Pharm-strong. The name is so loaded with the hypcorisy of its founder that it may need to a new one. The next instalment of cycling's darkest hour will come when administrators choose between genuine root and branch reform, or a root and branch image makeover.