Perhaps Livestrong should strip Lance Armstrong of one more title: chairman

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2012/oct/12/livestrong-lance-armstrong-chairman

Version 0 of 1.

There's one victory that the US anti-doping agency can never strip from Lance Armstrong: he beat cancer. More than that, he inspired a major cultural shift in how we view the disease and people afflicted with it: they're no longer cancer "victims", "patients" or "sufferers". They're cancer survivors. The disease is no longer to be endured; it's to be fought.

In 1997, during his successful treatment, Armstrong established a small foundation, known as Livestrong. The purpose was to fund testicular cancer research. In its first year, it took in less than $250,000. Nine years and seven Tour de France titles later, Livestrong had sold more than 75m $1 yellow wristbands, and had made Armstrong a global hero to millions. But now that Armstrong has been stripped of those Tour titles, the question has been raised: does his charity work somehow make up for his bad behaviour as a sportsman? Is it OK that he cheated, somehow, because (as more than one influential US sports columnist has written) he "does so much for cancer"?

Last year I made a thorough investigation of Livestrong for Outside magazine – what it does, and what it doesn't do. One thing it 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. In August 2009, for example, the foundation spent about $7m – a quarter of its annual spend – on a Dublin "summit" whose main purpose seems to have been presenting Armstrong as a kind of global statesman, on the same plane as his role models, Bono and Bill Clinton.

That seems a very long time ago. This week, the US Anti-Doping Agency (USASA) released about 1,000 pages of evidence and testimony that Armstrong used banned performance-enhancing drugs and blood transfusions throughout his Tour de France career. It is gruesome reading. There is no more room for reasonable doubt. In the sporting realm, he is utterly disgraced. Should that opprobrium also extend to Livestrong?

Without doubt, Livestrong has helped many people with cancer. There are some good, dedicated people who work there (their PR director certainly deserves a raise after what she's been through this year). And without doubt, Armstrong has inspired many more cancer survivors, just by having survived the disease himself, and triumphing as an athlete. But as we now know, he has also been lying to them, for years. He lies to them still, every time he repeats his tired denials. How is that OK?

A year ago, I predicted that Armstrong would lose his Tour titles. I did not foresee, however, the extent to which Livestrong would be enlisted in his defence. Every time there was a new eruption in the doping case, it seemed, Livestrong was launching some sort of new campaign or new "outpouring of support" for cancer survivors. Anything to change the subject. His lawyers shamelessly cited Livestrong in their letters and press releases, and even in court filings. On more than one occasion, Livestrong-paid lobbyists were reported to have questioned congressmen and senators about the USADA investigation. Charity funds were apparently being used to help the charity's founder avoid doping sanctions. Again: how is that OK? Why would anyone (but a true believer) ever write them a cheque, ever again?

Livestrong may survive this storm. If it does, one would hope that it is because of the public's generosity toward its cancer-stricken fellows, and not because people have suddenly decided, in the 21st century, that poor ethics don't matter any more, so long as the person in question has done sufficient charity work (historical note: the Catholic church tried that during the middle ages, selling indulgences to make up for sins. It didn't work out so well).

My analysis of Livestrong's behaviour and its spending, though, leads to one inescapable conclusion. In order to survive, perhaps it needs to strip Lance Armstrong of one more title: chairman.