THE FALL OF LANCE ARMSTRONG
Caroline Duley
COM302: Fall 2013
Public Relations: Crisis Management Final Paper
December 7, 2013
2
Abstract
In this paper, I will argue the importance of ethical actions of professional athletes
whom are covered by social media, drawing facts and ideas specifically from the
Lance Armstrong doping crisis. Armstrong, like many other professional athletes, is
tied to specific sponsors, foundations and other organizations, such as the
Livestrong Foundation and Nike. When sponsored athletes act unethically and
irresponsibly, the organizations tied them are also put at risk. In this light, I will
analyze the effects of Lance Armstrong’s thirteen years of an unethical behavior, in
route to seven Tour de France victories, and how this behavior negatively impacted
not only his individual reputation, but also the reputations’ of all organizations
associated with his name. With reputations constantly being put at risk, it is clear
that ethical guidelines are needed to uphold the integrity of all industries involved.
After analyzing the means to which the Livestrong Foundation and Nike dealt with
Armstrong’s behavior, final implications indicate that as one single member of a
larger group of united organizations fails to act honestly and appropriately, every
member is affected and must implement a plan to manage the crisis.
3
From the late 1990s to the early 2000s, Lance Armstrong won the Tour de
France a record seven consecutive times and became known as one of the world’s
best road racing cyclists; however, with these outstanding winnings came along
numerous doping allegations throughout most of his career. In October 2012,
Armstrong was stripped from all seven Tour de France titles and banned from
competitive cycling for life by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) for
doping offences. Even after the hundreds of rumored claims, Armstrong continued
to deny all allegations until a painful and partial confession interview with Oprah
Winfrey in early 2013. Due to his continual denial and the lack of remorse in his
partial confession, I will argue that Lance Armstrong failed to manage doping
allegations ethically, tarnishing not only his individual reputation, but also the
reputations of organizations affiliated with his name, including the Livestrong
Foundation and Nike.
A few years back, Lance Armstrong was one of the most famous athletes, not
only in America, but throughout the world as well. With countless winnings,
including seven Tour de France victories, Armstrong was considered the best cyclist
in the world. However, being on top came with rumors and accusations of alleged
drug use, all of which he denied for thirteen years. Along with these allegations,
Armstrong dealt with a truly life-threatening situation in 1996, when he was
diagnosed with testicular cancer that had spread throughout his brain and lungs.
After multiple surgeries and extensive chemotherapy, Armstrong was pronounced
cancer-free in February of 1997. This same year, he founded the Lance Armstrong
Foundation – better known now as the Livestrong Foundation. Everything seemed to
4
be going great for Armstrong – he had beat cancer and founded what would soon be
a billion dollar foundation, providing support for people affected by cancer. When
doping allegations continued to follow him, Armstrong continued to deny them until
he announced his retirement from competitive cycling in 2011. Coincidentally,
Armstrong was also facing a US federal investigation based off of these allegations.
After the USADA did their own investigation, though, he was stripped of all his wins
and future involvement in competition. This year, Armstrong finally admitted to
using performance-enhancing substances and offered his apologies. I argue that
Armstrong, as an American athlete whom beat cancer, created a cancer foundation
and won the Tour de France seven consecutive times, simply failed to realize his
position in the public eye. Everyone was watching his every move, because all of
these feats seemed too good to be true. In one aspect, he was considered a survivor
and a hero – that was true. However, to be a seven time winning Tour de France
cyclist as well? That was in fact, too good to be true. This puzzled and disappointed
the entire public – the person that they had admired may have been a survivor and a
hero, but he was also a liar and a cheater. The public watched his every move – with
the Livestrong Foundation and Nike logos stapled to him in every aspect of his life.
Due to the unethical actions of one individual, both of these incredibly large and
successful corporate organizations were drawn into the media and forced to
address and manage this crisis.
To fully understand how crisis management impacts athletes and their
corporate sponsors, it is important to understand the how the contemporary Public
Relations world is inflated by social media. For instance, as stated by Timothy D.
5
Noakes in his article, “Tainted Glory – Doping and Athletic Performance,” the public
relations industry must work with athletic industries to maintain the integrity of
modern sports and ethical actions of the athletes whom perform in these
professional sporting events. Not only do unethical actions pose a health threat to
each individual, but they also pose a threat to the athletic industry. Because of this,
the public relations world must do everything they can enforce ethical actions
across the board. However, when ethical actions do occur, crisis management is a
key component to whether these athletes and organizations to which they are tied
to, sink or swim. This article relates the “tainted glory” of unethical performance to
how athletes, whom are caught, successfully manage their unethical actions into an
ethical and effective public message – covered on every social media platform.
When crises do occur, it’s important to realize the ways in which sponsors
and other organizations that are tied to this athletes name are affected. In this
paper, I argue that as one athlete acts unethically, their sponsors and organizations
are burdened with their own association in the athlete’s crisis. To do so, I utilized an
article written by Professor Trevor Slack from De Montfort University, UK –
“Studying the Commercialization of Sport: The Need for Critical Analysis.” In this
article, Slack presents the idea of large corporate businesses teaming up with
athletes to market and sell both the athlete and their product. By doing this,
organizations take the risk of future crises and must have a plan for crisis
management. If crises are not managed promptly, honestly and affectively, both
athletes and sponsors and negatively impacted and subsequently fall.
6
Lastly, I drew important facts and ideas from a study by Hela Sheth and
Kathy M. Babiak – “Beyond the Game: Perceptions and Practices of Corporate Social
Responsibility in the Professional Sport Industry.” In this study, I examined the
emphasis of a corporate social responsibility (CSR) put on athletes. Implications
indicated were that professional sport executives view CSR as strategic and
imperative for a successful business. Partnerships and ethical concerns are put at
the top of lists for athletes, due to the fact that social media records every move
professional athletes, their sponsors and organizations make. Social media can be
detrimental to those whom act unethically; however, if utilized successfully, social
media can also be a platform for effective crisis management. In this paper, I will use
all three sources as platforms and resources to argue how effective crisis
management is needed for both athletes, their sponsors and organizations to remain
successful after any crisis occurrence.
On January 14, 2013, Lance Armstrong reluctantly decided to come clean to
the world in a so-called “no-holds barred” interview with Oprah Winfrey. As this
news came out that Armstrong would finally come clean about doping, millions of
Americans were hopeful to see a side of the superstar that no one had ever seen
before: remorseful and apologetic. However, after the interview was aired, most of
America seemed to be disappointed with Lance Armstrong’s overall attitude.
Responses to the interview included descriptions such as “arrogant,” “distant” and
“flippant.” In the interview, Oprah started off by asking simple, however seemingly
painful, questions that everyone wanted the truth from:
7
“In all seven of your Tour de France victories, did you ever take banned
substances or blood dope?”
“Yes.”
The interview went on by talking about why Armstrong did not simply just deny the
allegations against himself, but he brazenly and defiantly denied everything for
thirteen years. He also commented that he believed he deserved to be able to
compete again, rather than being banned from competitive cycling for life. Overall,
the interview did show a real emotional apology, but only a forced apology to say
the least. Armstrong did not seem to fully understand the capacity of what he had
done, nor did he fully disclose his infractions seen by one of the last questions Oprah
asked:
“When you placed third in 2009, you did not dope?”
“The last time I crossed that line was 2005.”
Days after Armstrong’s interview with Oprah Winfrey aired, the Livestrong
Foundation issued a public response statement. The statement was short but to the
point, stating that, “We at the Livestrong Foundation are disappointed by the news
that Lance Armstrong misled people during and after his cycling career, including
us.” They went on to say that Armstrong had apologized to the Livestrong staff and
that the Foundation had accepted his apology and moved on into a strong,
independent course. The statement stated that they are extremely grateful for Lance
as a survivor and the drive and devotion that he brought to their foundation to help
the entire cancer community. The statement clearly states that he will no longer
serve on the Foundation’s board, however, they will forever recognize him as the
8
founder of the Foundation that has served millions whom would have died without
their help. Overall, the Livestrong Foundation response focused more on the good
rather than the bad, by using positive aspects of the Foundation as the framework
for a negative, but necessary statement.
On May 28, 2013, four months later, Nike released a public statement stating
their separation from the Livestrong Foundation. The statement, similar to the
Livestrong Foundation’s statement in January, stated that
“Nike has made the decision to stop producing new LIVESTRONG product
after its Holiday 2013 line. We will continue to support the Livestrong
Foundation by funding them directly as they continue their work serving and
improving outcomes for people facing cancer.”
The statement did not once directly mention Lance Armstrong, however it is
indirectly implied that the corporation has cut ties with him. It also showed that
they would continue to support the Livestrong Foundation, even though Armstrong
no longer serves on the Foundation’s board.
Mid-November marked the most recent Sportsmail interview with Lance
Armstrong, by the United States cycling team’s soigneur, Emma O’Reilly, discussing
Armstrong’s doping charges. O’Reilly was in charge of feeding, clothing, massaging
and escorting riders on the team – including Armstrong. Of course, Armstrong used
this opportunity as an advantage to help reduce his life ban of competitive cycling.
In the interview, he claimed that the former head of the Union Cycliste Internationale
(UCI) knew about his drug use and encouraged him to cover up his doping.
Armstrong stated that because of this, he was able to continue in the 1999 Tour de
9
France, despite his positive drug test. He even went into depth on prescriptions
provided by the US medical staff, blaming them for being allowed to escape
punishment. It was clear to Armstrong that his cooperation could be rewarded with
a reduction to his lifetime ban, however, he stated in the interview that, “I’m not
going to lie to protect these guys. I hate them. They threw me under the bus. I’m
done with them.” In response to the interview, the head of the UCI wrote, “Cover-ups
never took place. Not only would this never have been allowed, but there simply
was nothing to cover up. Armstrong, nor his teammates, never tested positive.”
Because it was been brought to Armstrong’s attention that with his cooperation
could bring alone a reduction to his ban, the true facts will remain unknown to who
was telling the truth: Armstrong or the UCI. Due to Armstrong’s previous lying
record, fingers point to him; however, if cooperation and so-called “silence” would
lead to a reduction to his lifetime ban, why wouldn’t he cooperate. He even stated in
his previous “tell-all” interview that he believes he deserves to compete again –
showing that with his competitive mindset, he would do anything to make that
dream a reality.
Drawing from both the Oprah Winfrey interview and Sportsmail interview,
there are many similarities in ways that Lance Armstrong attempts to manage his
individual “public face.” His scripts are similar in what he does and does not admit
to, and his overall harsh and arrogant tone. In both interviews, he seems to blame
the industry rather than himself. By doing this, he was able to give the public
apology that America so badly wanted, though it was not willing or remorseful. Both
interviews draw from the similarities of Armstrong using scapegoats, rather than
10
fully admitting fault and regret. It must be reminded that these allegations were not
brought up just before his first interview; he had been accused of doping his entire
competitive cycling career. He overtly denied every accusation for thirteen years, as
he continued to win the Tour de France year-after-year. Due to this past, it would
have made sense for Armstrong to finally come clean and tell the entire truth to the
world; however, he was unable to do so. By displaying his naturally selfish and
arrogant attitude in both interviews, Armstrong destroyed his public image. Though
he did agree that what he did was wrong, he also believed his victories were not
attainable without performance-enhancing drugs. As a former role model, this is a
major issue due to the face that, “Today individuals, including adolescents, continue
to employ a wide variety of drugs in the hope of improving their athletic
performance and looking better” (Yesalis 1). In both interviews, Armstrong had the
chance to repair his already tarnished public image by coming clean; however,
instead of taking this more ethical route, he continued to point the finger at other
people.
Regarding both interviews and his previous track record with lying,
Armstrong was disreputable in the way he managed the crisis. Major violations from
the PRSA’s Code of Ethics include advocacy, honesty, independence and fairness.
Based on advocacy, Armstrong represents himself as an individual former
professional cyclist, the UCI as a member of the US cycling team, and the Livestrong
Foundation as the founder of the cancer foundation. For thirteen years, and even in
both interviews, Armstrong failed to act completely responsible for those he
represented. In doing so, he not only risked hurting himself, but he also brought
11
down the integrity of the sport. This may have been expected of an amateur rider,
but not a world-ranking professional. He was completely aware that “Performanceenhancing drugs pose a great threat not only to the health of users, but to the moral
integrity and hence the continued relevance of modern sport” (Noakes 2), and he
simply did not care. Armstrong targeted the UCI by saying they were involved in
covering up positive drug tests and allowing him to race, and barely touched on the
subject of being the founder of the Livestrong Foundation – All in an attempt to make
himself look better. While he did admit to the most obvious accusations against
himself, he was not completely honest in both interviews. He denied doping in 2009
in the Oprah Winfrey interview and stated that the UCI is responsible for allowing
him to compete in the Sportsmail interview. All of this complicates what could have
been the most ethical and logical way out of this crisis – to promptly come clean to
all allegations and then be done with it. The negative media coverage and press
response directly shows that he was not accountable for all of his actions. Though he
did state that the UCI took part in covering up positive drug tests, he is still
completely at fault for taking the drugs in the first place. Even if it is true that the
UCI played a role, an ethical statement would have been, “Yes the UCI helped me
cover-up my doping by allowing me to compete, however I should have known
better in the first place, and therefore, it is completely my responsibility.” Lastly,
unethical responses based on fairness include the way he responded to questions
provided by Oprah. He did not fully admit to every allegation, especially one
regarding doping during the 2009 Tour de France, where he finished third.
Armstrong veered away from the initial question and did not answer whether or not
12
he used drugs for that race. Overall, I argue that due to this unethical route,
Armstrong dug himself deeper and deeper into a tarnished public image – an image
that could have been partially repaired if he were to take the ethical route. These
interviews may have worked to repair his image if there weren’t a countless number
of allegations and evidence against him; however, because of this overwhelming
amount of proof, Armstrong’s unethical route in handling the crisis forever
tarnished his public image.
These interviews, and primarily the initial Oprah “tell-all,” led to public
statements from The Livestrong Foundation and Nike. Both statements are similar in
their content, addressing doping issues pertaining to Lance Armstrong in a concise
way. Additionally, after a few sentences, they both bring the attention back to their
specific companies, rather than discussing Armstrong as an individual. Livestrong
and Nike end on positive notes about their corporations – Livestrong closes by
mentioning the tremendous amount of people that they have helped battle cancer,
while Nike ends by celebrating the amount of money that their products have raised
for cancer research and support services. In managing their public images as they
relate to Armstrong, Livestrong specifically addresses Armstrong as no longer being
on the Foundation’s board, while Nike simply says that they would no longer
produce new Livestrong products after their Holiday 2013 line. Though these
differences may seem large, they correctly reflect Lance Armstrong’s role in each
organization. He was the founder of Livestrong; therefore, it was necessary for them
to address his involvement in their foundation. Also, since Nike sponsored him and
the foundation, it was important they state how their company was severing ties
13
with both Armstrong and Livestrong because of his doping admission. I argue that
these organizations acted ethically in their statements and actions after Armstrong’s
admission in the Oprah interview. However, because of the numerous prior
allegations against Armstrong, they acted unethically by not further investigating
the claims, in order to avoid damaging their reputations by allowing it to continue.
Based on the PRSA’s Code of Ethics, both Livestrong and Nike’s statements
are ethical, but their actions before each of their statements were far from ethical.
Since Armstrong was the founder of Livestrong, the foundation had a responsibility
to recognize the issue, as advocates for Lance Armstrong. However, in their
statement, they do not once talk negatively about him; rather, they state that, due to
his actions, Armstrong will no longer serve on the board. The Foundation was
ethical not only by addressing the painful, but also by stating that without
Armstrong’s contribution, the organization would not exist – meaning that they gave
credit where credit was due. Nike went about this a bit differently, but still ethically.
Days following Livestrong’s statement, Nike severed ties with Livestrong products in
their own statement. However, in doing so, the company acted as ethical advocates
by acting responsible crediting the amount of money raised, due to Armstrong’s
contributions. Based on expertise, both Livestrong and Nike acted ethically and
responsibly, as the knowledgeable and experienced organizations that they are. As
large organizations, they needed to keep their credibility by recognizing the issue athand, and responding to it. If they had not issued public responses to Armstrong’s
doping charges, their credibility and consumer image would have been tarnished.
Due to their timely responses to Armstrong’s initial interview, these organizations
14
were able to stay creditable and uphold their respectable reputations. The last
major ethical contribution of both organizations deals with loyalty. In both
statements, Livestrong and Nike attempt to recognize their past relationship with
Armstrong while still honoring their obligation to serve the public interest. They
both are grateful for what he has done; however, they understood that the only
ethical way to act after his confession was to no longer support him, based off his
illegal actions. While these previous points support the organizations’ ethical
actions, they can also be used to demonstrate their unethical actions leading up to
their public statements. Livestrong and Nike both supported Armstrong through
years of alleged allegations, which were clearly justified with an overwhelming
amount of support. Due to this, neither organization acted ethically based on
advocacy, expertise and most importantly loyalty. They kept faithful to Lance
Armstrong, but completely disregarded their obligation to serve the public interest.
It was not until after his direct confession did these organizations release public
statements. This selfish behavior was unethical because they failed to recognize or
believe in any of these allegations. Neither organization wanted address any
allegations until they were absolutely forced to when Armstrong confessed – By not
acting quickly, these organizations tarnished their public images as creditable
sources. Once Livestrong and Nike realized that they absolutely had to address the
public, they gave brief, yet ethical statements and have acted in ethical manners
since.
Through the mixed use of both ethical and unethical actions, I argue that
both Livestrong and Nike failed to manage the crisis in a completely appropriate
15
manner. However, by changing course from an unethical to ethical route, quickly
after Armstrong’s initial interview, control the damage to their public images. On the
other hand, Armstrong’s reputation was not so fortunate. Due to his arrogant and
distant attitude, Armstrong further tarnished his public image. It can be inferred
through this crisis, that the sport industry, and in fact all industries dealing with
deviant behavior, must create and follow guidelines to address similar situations.
Such guidelines are the only possible way to promote ethical actions and lower the
effects of crises. By providing an ethical framework for representatives of their
companies, these organizations would likely reduce similar crises. However, that
does not mean that a crisis management team will no longer be needed. It is evident
that no matter how many guidelines industries implement, crisis management plans
will always be needed for when the unexpected inevitably occurs.
16
Bibliography
Lawton, Matt. “Lance Armstrong World Exclusive: Cycling chiefs helped me cheat!
Disgraced star’s explosive new drug claim rocks sport.” 2013.
McLane, Katherine. “Official Statement from the Livestrong Foundation.” 2013.
Nike. “Nike Statement on Livestrong.” 2013.
Noakes, Timothy. “Tainted Glory – Doping and Athletic Performance.” 2004.
Sheth, Hela. “Beyond the Game: Perceptions and Practices of Corporate Social
Responsibility in the Professional Sport Industry.” 2010.
Slack, Trevor. “Studying the Commercialization of Sport: The Need for Critical
Analysis.” 1998.
Telegraph Sport. “Lance Armstrong’s interview with Oprah Winfrey: The
Transcript.” 2013.
Yesalis, Charles. “Doping among adolescent athletes.” 2000.