tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/livestrong-4130/articlesLivestrong – The Conversation2013-01-20T01:45:41Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/116162013-01-20T01:45:41Z2013-01-20T01:45:41ZSpin: Lance Armstrong’s confession and Livestrong’s future<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19395/original/qtjpjmbx-1358646150.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Lance Armstrong surprised many by the extent to which he confessed to cheating, arrogant denial and bullying in his interview with Oprah.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/Oprah.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In his much anticipated interview with Oprah, Lance Armstrong surprised many by the extent to which he confessed to cheating, arrogant denial and bullying. But is this enough to protect the Livestrong Foundation, which is so intrinsically associated with the name and the reputation of its founder?</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/what-lance-armstrongs-interview-with-oprah-means-for-livestrong-11612">Positive brand image</a> can result in higher donations for non-profit organisations. Association with high-achieving sports people can add to that positive brand image. So will its association with Lance Armstrong reduce the credibility of Livestrong now that Armstrong has confessed to being a cheat, when he had spent many years not only denying it repeatedly, and under oath, but also savagely attacking those who dared speak the truth?</p>
<p>Before looking into the crystal ball, let’s look to what has occurred to date. Over a period of 15 years, Livestrong raised $480 million dollars and inspired many cancer sufferers. For the past decade, the Foundation has had a full-time president and a board including members independent of the charity’s founder. </p>
<p>Even when it was still the Lance Armstrong Foundation, its website used the name Livestrong, which is associated with its popular yellow wristbands. According to Oprah, 80 million of these wristbands have been sold worldwide. </p>
<p>In October 2012, the Foundation <a href="http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/1986/armstrongs-foundation-still-thriving">advised ESPN</a> that the Livestrong donor base was holding up despite the ongoing controversy surrounding its founder. In fact, for the year to 30 September 2012, revenues for the Foundation were up 2.1% (to $33.8 million). In addition, both the number of donations to the Foundation and the average size of those donations had increased by more than 5% compared to the previous year. </p>
<p>But these figures pre-date the 10 October 2012 <a href="http://www.usada.org/default.asp?uid=4035">release of findings</a> by the <a href="http://www.usada.org/">United States Anti-Doping Agency</a> (USADA), which show “systemic, sustained and professionalized doping conspiracy” by Lance Armstrong and the US Postal Service cycling team.</p>
<p>So, how has the Foundation itself sought to manage its brand in the aftermath of the USADA’s announcement? Initially, it sought to “control” the situation. On the day the USADA findings were made public, the Foundation went on the attack with a <a href="http://mediaroom.livestrong.org/press-releases/statement-from-doug-ulman-president-and-ceo-of-th-0940476">press release</a> that began by questioning the impartiality and fairness of the USADA proceedings. </p>
<p>That approach, however, was short-lived and only a week later, Armstrong <a href="http://mediaroom.livestrong.org/press-releases/lance-armstrong-to-step-down-as-chairman-of-livest-0942846">stepped down</a> as the Foundation’s chairman. Armstrong stayed on the board however, until November when he severed all ties to the Foundation.</p>
<p>In his interview with Oprah, Armstrong revealed that his stepping down as chairman was prompted by people in the Foundation saying, “We need you to consider stepping down, for yourself.” He added that severing ties with the Foundation was the lowest point in the whole of the saga for him. </p>
<p>The post-Armstrong leadership team at the Foundation has started charting a new course distancing the Foundation from its erstwhile namesake. In recognition of the enormity of the media and communications challenges ahead, within a month of Armstrong standing down as chairman, the Foundation took two significant steps to position itself better for the credibility challenges ahead. </p>
<p>First, it <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/15/us-cycling-armstrong-livestrong-idUSBRE8AE00020121115">formally changed</a> its name from the Lance Armstrong Foundation to Livestrong. And it <a href="http://mediaroom.livestrong.org/press-releases/livestrong-foundation-appoints-new-leadership-posi-0954432">announced the appointment</a> of a new vice president of marketing. In both, the lead-up to the interview and in the time between, the Foundation has been on the front foot with messages focusing on the good works of Livestrong in its own right.</p>
<p>Lance Armstrong is a genuine survivor of cancer and has inspired many who have been similarly afflicted. The Foundation he established has made a difference to the lives of many. So, will the Lance Armstrong interviews with Oprah be enough to protect Livestrong? </p>
<p>It’s likely that people who were looking for an opportunity to find a reason to pardon Lance Armstrong or to maintain their support for Livestrong have found enough in the disclosures. Similarly, people who were already sceptical towards Lance Armstrong or condemnatory of him will have found little reason to change their opinion. </p>
<p>The overwhelming majority in the latter category, however, have not been and were not likely to become Livestrong supporters. So little may change.</p>
<p>The big challenge for Livestrong is capturing the attention of potential future donors given there are many worthy charitable organisations working to support and inspire cancer sufferers – and they are not associated with a sullied name. In a market where trustworthiness is paramount and competitors many, Livestrong will for the foreseeable future be operating at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>Personally, I hope Livestrong weathers this storm. I’m not sure the interviews have helped. But I can’t help thinking of the adage – when it comes to trustworthiness, integrity is key. When you can fake that, you’ve got it made.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/11616/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher Baker does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In his much anticipated interview with Oprah, Lance Armstrong surprised many by the extent to which he confessed to cheating, arrogant denial and bullying. But is this enough to protect the Livestrong…Christopher Baker, Research Fellow: Social Investment and Philanthropy, Swinburne University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/116122013-01-15T19:57:55Z2013-01-15T19:57:55ZWhat Lance Armstrong’s interview with Oprah means for Livestrong<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19233/original/t4mkvzj6-1358229189.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Oprah Winfrey in Sydney in 2010 and Lance Armstrong on his way to win his seventh Tour de France title in 2005.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Tracey Nearmy & EPA/Gero Breloer</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>How Lance Armstrong handles his <a href="http://www.oprah.com/own-oprahs-next-chapter/Lance-Armstrong-on-Oprahs-Next-Chapter">soon-to-be aired interview</a> with Oprah will impact on the fate of Livestrong, which he founded in happier days. That’s because organisations, including non-profits such as Livestrong, live and die based on how those in the market assess their brand.</p>
<p>Organisations with positive brand images are seen to effectively deliver higher value. In the case of non-profits, this results in increased donations from the community, as well as being in demand as a partner by other non-profits, governments and businesses. </p>
<p>Indeed, protecting their brand may even be more important for non-profits than other brands because their brand encompasses all their activities, including charitable works. And brands that are formed around individuals, as well those that extensively link themselves with spokespersons or celebrities, are potentially at risk when the celebrity or founder falls from grace and their personal brand becomes tarnished. </p>
<p>The value of having celebrity spokespersons is that the organisation gains market credibility because the celebrity has expertise, trustworthiness, or they’re attractive. In this way, the celebrity becomes the voice of experience that stakeholders (donors, those being helped and partner organisations) can relate to. </p>
<p>Having a sports hero as a spokesperson is beneficial because sportspeople exude confidence, technical proficiency and expertise in their chosen area. These characteristics are then transferred to the brands that they’re representing.</p>
<p>It’s not surprising that there are many examples of firms cutting their ties with celebrities who have fallen from grace as the result of inappropriate individual behaviour. In these cases, the celebrity brand loses its shine and organisations become concerned that the celebrities’ negative image will be transferred to them. The firms that Tiger Woods was sponsored by <a href="http://faculty.gsm.ucdavis.edu/%7Evstango/tiger004.pdf">lost substantial share value</a> after the Tiger Woods scandal, at least in the short term. </p>
<p>So it wasn’t surprising when Lance Armstrong resigned from the board of Livestrong after the <a href="http://www.usantidoping.org/">US Anti-Doping Agency</a> (USADA) implicated him in doping. This was clearly his attempt to distance himself from organisation and protect Livestrong’s brand. But given the close link between Livestrong and Armstrong, it’s unclear whether donors and organisations working with the non-profit will make any distinction between them.</p>
<p>The problem is that, for years, and despite rumours elsewhere in the sport, Armstrong vehemently argued that his performance was a testament to his dedication and effort – and that it was unaided by performance-enhancing drugs. He lambasted “drug cheats” claiming that they tarnished the cycling profession. And he used his “drug-free performance” to position his life and Livestrong, promoting the idea that people could overcome cancer and succeed in life’s challenges. </p>
<p>So, not only was he the spokesperson for Livestrong, Armstrong was the “poster boy” for all the positive values that it represented. He was a shining example to all cancer sufferers that there was life after cancer and showed that they too could be highly successful if they put in hard work and dedication.</p>
<p>Armstrong’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/lance-armstrong">fall from grace</a> was significant. His silence on the US report into drug abuse in cycling was unfortunately seen as a sign of his guilt, especially when he <a href="https://theconversation.com/lance-armstrong-drops-his-doping-fight-with-usada-what-now-9055">refused to dispute its claims</a> or fight to stop the stripping of his seven Tour de France titles. </p>
<p>Armstrong’s recent “no-holds barred” <a href="http://www.oprah.com/own-oprahs-next-chapter/Lance-Armstrong-on-Oprahs-Next-Chapter">interview with Oprah Winfrey</a> (to be aired at 4:30pm AEST on <a href="http://www.oprah.com/index.html">oprah.com</a>) is supposed to clear the air and is thought to feature his admission that he took performance-enhancing drugs. On the same day the interview was taped, he [met with Livestrong staff](http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/01/14/cycling-lance-armstrong-doping-livestron-idINDEE90D0GQ20130114?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FINtopNews+(News+%2F+IN+%2F+Top+News) and apologised for “any stress that they’ve suffered over the course of the last few years as a result of the media attention.”</p>
<p>But how this controversy and Armstrong’s apology impact Livestrong partly depends on what he says in his interview and how it is received. If he gives an apology that comes across as insincere or incomplete (not a full and frank admission of events), then it’s highly likely that people will have a negative reaction and potentially transfer this negative credibility onto Livestrong. </p>
<p>On the other hand, if the interview seems credible, heartfelt and sincere, there may be a positive impact on Livestrong. That is, people may feel sympathetic toward Armstrong and want to show their support through the Livestrong cause.</p>
<p>The fate of Livestrong is, at least in the short term, clearly linked to Armstrong and how he handles the interview is critical. It’s possible that the only way he can minimise any negative backlash to Livestrong is to apologise and seek forgiveness humbly and with contrition. </p>
<p>Doing this frankly would support the values that made Armstrong such an iconic celebrity. It would show him, once again, standing up for what is right and showing that surviving cancer, like surviving life, is difficult, but something we can all succeed at.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/11612/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Polonsky does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How Lance Armstrong handles his soon-to-be aired interview with Oprah will impact on the fate of Livestrong, which he founded in happier days. That’s because organisations, including non-profits such as…Michael Polonsky, Alfred Deakin Professor and Chair In Marketing, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/102532012-10-22T23:21:55Z2012-10-22T23:21:55ZThe Lance Armstrong paradox: how saving lives can be wrong<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16780/original/sywtwvx5-1350945209.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Lance Armstong listens to the national anthem on the podium after winning the 2005 Tour de France.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/SRDJAN SUKI</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="http://www.uci.ch/Templates/UCI/UCI8/layout.asp?MenuID=MTYzMDQ&LangId=1">Union Cycliste Internationale</a> (UCI) has <a href="http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails2011.asp?id=ODgzNA&MenuId=MTYzMDQ&LangId=1&BackLink=%2FTemplates%2FUCI%2FUCI8%2Flayout%2Easp%3FMenuID%3DMTYzMDQ%26LangId%3D1">officially upended</a> the Elysian podium that held Lance Armstrong aloft as victor of seven Tours de France. Its ruling comes in the wake of the damning judgement of the <a href="http://www.usantidoping.org/">US Anti-Doping Agency</a> (USADA). Crashing down, the podium has obliterated perhaps the greatest ever sporting achievement, taking with it the vicarious elation of millions. </p>
<p>But this skydive from grace is extraordinary for another reason. Armstrong’s drug-fuelled dominance saved thousands from cancer and, if his charitable foundation <a href="http://www.livestrong.org/">Livestrong</a> survives the cataclysm, could deliver many more. </p>
<p>Why shouldn’t we, then, embrace Armstong as the Maria Theresa of the mountain stage, rather than shun him as the pariah of the prologue? If it’s okay to take drugs to cure cancer, what’s wrong with taking drugs to win bike races to cure cancer?</p>
<p>Indeed, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/lance-armstrong-charged-with-blood-doping-and-epo-use-so-how-do-they-work-7666">effects of EPO</a>, the principal agent in Armstrong’s alleged pharmaceutical arsenal, are achievable through a host of legal means. EPO increases the red blood cell count, aiding oxygen delivery to the out-sized leg muscles that propel elite cyclists over towering peaks. </p>
<p>Similar shifts come from training at altitude, sleeping in a low-oxygen air tent, or being born with the genetic variant that saw Finnish skier Eero Maentyranta win two gold medals at the 1964 Olympics. If EPO simply mimics the body’s normal physiology, don’t we have further reason to forgive Lance?</p>
<p>The reality is that most will concur with the UCI’s edict. We will not exonerate him despite the downstream good that has flowed from his misdemeanours. And our reasoning can be traced to values and, in particular, our finicky propensity to distinguish between means and ends. </p>
<p>In medicine, we tend to care a lot about getting better and not so much about the route there. In 2001 surgeon Jacques Marescaux, in New York, used remote-controlled robotics to remove a patient’s gallbladder in Strasbourg, France. But we didn’t hear cries of “cheat” resound through the operating suite. Rather, the innovation was extolled as creative genius. </p>
<p>By contrast, when four riders took “training” to a new level in the 1906 Tour de France, and caught a locomotive to gain competitive advantage, official and public umbrage took swift effect.</p>
<p>In sport, it seems we have a taste for doing it the hard way. We can overlook the genetic lottery that confers the giant’s monopoly on basketball, or the African’s command over endurance events. But they must struggle for their victories, face down imposing hurdles over years, and overcome them through brute determination and obstinacy. </p>
<p>We need our sporting heroes to undergo excoriating trials before we baptise them as gods because it fuels hope in our own lives. The legacy of athletic nobility is to show us commoners what’s possible, if not in our weekend outings with the Lycra brigade, in our mundane grappling with daily adversity.</p>
<p>Ironically, it’s our need of hope that prevents us finding inspiration in the team doctors of pro cycling who deftly administered a dazzling array of enhancers. If those same doctors wielded syringes to banish diabetes, heart disease or indeed cancer, we would embrace their dexterity with tearful gratitude. </p>
<p>In medicine, pharmaceutical expertise gives succour. In the peloton it erases the dreams that ease spectators through their quotidian struggle.</p>
<p>In Lance Armstrong, fallen cycling deity, and Livestrong, cancer charity extraordinaire, we saw an unprecedented conflation of the sporting and medical ends of pharmaceutical use. And it’s ever so tempting to see the sporting infraction justifying the ends of therapeutic success. But unless we disentangle these twin goals we risk bringing each to its knees. </p>
<p>Professional doping, regardless of lives spared, alienates fans and sponsors, jeopardising the future of the affected discipline. And benevolent foundations that nail their colours to a tainted sporting mast risk their brand becoming repugnant to other donors.</p>
<p>The lessons are complex but compelling. The public is merciless when betrayed by the guardians of their athletic aspirations. And organisations that rely on brand leverage from celebrity sportspeople face perilous times when the anointed stars misbehave. Even more so when they owe their very birthright to the star himself. </p>
<p>When those companies are dedicated to medical research, and not the bottom line, the stakes are high indeed. As Armstrong cedes chairmanship for a background boardroom seat, Livestrong attests to the pitfalls of aligning divergent institutional and sporting goals.</p>
<p>In the wash up, it must be made clear that sport is about bringing personal resolve to bear on anatomy under physical challenge. For the time being, the doggedness of some athletes who submit to chronic drug use and its side effects doesn’t count. But things may change. After all, our values may be entrenched, but they are not carved in stone.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/10253/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Biegler receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a keen cyclist and was the principal investigator on the Monash Alfred Cyclist Crash Study.</span></em></p>The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) has officially upended the Elysian podium that held Lance Armstrong aloft as victor of seven Tours de France. Its ruling comes in the wake of the damning judgement…Paul Biegler, Adjunct Research Fellow in Bioethics, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.