October 17th, apparently, was the official “National Let’s Dump Lance Armstrong Day.” Virtually all of Lance Armstrong’s sponsors ended their arrangements with him today, beginning with Nike, and including RadioShack, Trek, Giro helmets, Anheuser-Busch and FRS. Wednesday morning, shortly after Armstrong announced that he was stepping down as chairman of the Livestrong foundation, Nike dropped their bombshell. As the day went on, other sponsors issued their own statements. Even Honey Stinger, in which Armstrong holds an ownership stake, announced that they were removing his image from their packaging and ads. By the close of business, only Oakley and a couple of smaller-scale sponsors had not made an official announcement as to whether they would continue sponsoring the disgraced cyclist. With all the articles that keep appearing, it’s hard to keep up. One of the best I’ve seen is from Bicycling Magazine’s Joe Lindsey, who gives a very good round-up of the day’s events.
After a week to digest the information contained within USADA’s “reasoned decision” and other documentation, it should come as a surprise to no one that Armstrong’s sponsors would pull the plug. The cyclist chose not to fight the anti-doping agency’s allegations. Did he really think that he would be able to walk away from USADA’s case fundamentally intact, save for whether cycling fans believe he was the winner of seven consecutive Tours de France?
With nothing to contradict USADA’s allegations and evidence, the only reasonable conclusion one can draw is that Armstrong did what he was accused of doing. Yes, he basically pleaded “no contest” and didn’t admit guilt. Even if the evidence was thin, or poorly documented, or ancient allegations that had been addressed in years past, the new material from people like George Hincapie, Levi Leipheimer, and Dave Zabriskie pretty much puts the last nails in the coffin of Armstrong’s credibility. And with Armstrong’s credibility in tatters, what benefit could a sponsor possibly get by continuing their association with him?
One writer at Forbes estimates that the loss of sponsorship deals will cost Armstrong about $150 million in future earnings. A truly staggering amount of money for those of us who work “regular jobs” to imagine. Still, with an estimated fortune of $125 million, Armstrong is unlikely to wind up drunk and homeless. Drunk, maybe — though not on any free Michelob Ultra, given that they’ve dropped him like the proverbial hot potato — but homeless? Not likely.
Meanwhile, Levi Leipheimer was in the news, too. Omega Pharma-QuickStep decided to sack Leipheimer, basically for admitting to doping as part of cooperating with USADA’s investigation. Leipheimer’s firing illustrates the dangers of speaking out, of admitting to what happened in the past. It’s great to see riders come forward and tell their stories — even if very belatedly. Doing so sheds light on the culture within the pro ranks back in the day. No matter what, it helps expose the magnitude of doping during the late 90s and the early 2000s. But at the same time, a message is being sent by the team owners and sponsors to their riders. And that message is, “Shut up if you want to keep your job.”
Someone like Levi Leipheimer, who is in the twilight of his professional career might not be so worried about losing his job. If he’s been smart with his money, he shouldn’t have to be too worried about income at least in the near term. George Hincapie had already decided to retire, so he clearly doesn’t have too much to lose — at least in day-to-day employment. But younger riders? My guess is they will look at Leipheimer’s firing and conclude that if they doped or if they are doping, there is little upside to admitting to it and even less to speaking out.
By contrast, Jonathan Vaughters, who runs the Garmin-Sharp team, has said he’ll stand by his riders who worked with USADA in their investigation. Dave Zabriskie and several of his Garmin-Sharp teammates who were involved in USADA’s investigation will have jobs waiting for them when their suspensions end early next year.
It seems to me that Vaughters’ approach is the better one, in terms of encouraging transparency about the past. The riders still face sanctions (though much reduced for assisting the authorities) and they will lose income during their layoff. But once the time is served, they should be able to return to competition. Levi Leipheimer may well find a team for next year — and he will be available just in time for a number of spring classics — but his now-former team’s approach will guarantee that their riders, at least, continue the code of silence.
It may be tempting to think that because “the world’s biggest doper” has been brought down, along with some of his key helpers and enablers, that somehow the sport of cycling will be cleaner as a result. That’s not necessarily so. It depends, to a large degree, on whether the teams and the UCI really want to put a 100+ year “tradition” of doping into the past. Cyclists don’t dope in a vacuum. The teams have been involved — even if only by tacit approval — every step of the way. And it appears that the UCI may also have known about, or been willfully ignorant and blind to what was (and is?) endemic in the sport.
If teams follow Omega Pharma-QuickStep’s approach, I would guess that few cyclists will be willing to cooperate with future investigations. If they follow Jonathan Vaughers’ approach, there may be some hope for a cleaner sport. But there will also need to be a concerted effort from those who govern the sport. One part of the solution is deterrence. If riders think that they can find a sympathetic official who, for a fee, could make a positive test vanish into the haze, they aren’t likely to stop using performance enhancing drugs and techniques.
Yesterday was probably about the worst day of Lance Armstrong’s professional life, aside from the day he was diagnosed with cancer. Armstrong has clearly suffered a big setback, especially for someone who enjoys being famous and being the powerful center of attention. I can’t imagine him quietly fading away and living off his investments. No word on whether Mellow Johnny’s, Armstrong’s bike shop in Austin, will be able to continue as a Trek dealer. If not, expect the shop to close in relatively short order. No word, either, on whether Anna Hansen, Armstrong’s girlfriend and mother of his two youngest kids, will stand by her man.
Lance Armstrong may be down, but I wouldn’t count him out just yet. The big question is: Where does he go from here? For the immediate future, he has a long walk in the wilderness. Where that leads, I have no clue.
Jason Gay, of the Wall Street Journal, pens a good commentary, and ends his article by observing:
… there’s another opportunity here, for all of us to avoid falling prey to the easy myth-making and try to see athletes for the humans they really are.
Exactly. The lesson from the fall of the house of Lance is pretty clear. It’s dangerous to put athletes on a pedestal (or anyone else for that matter). We’re better served by remembering that these people are human, subject to the same temptations as the rest of us. There are other heroes — real heroes — who actually make a difference in our lives. People who do amazing things, not for the money or the glory, but because they are the right things to do. Not that we should put them on pedestals, either. But these are the people we should hold up as examples of the best we can be, not athletes — no matter how compelling a story they might have to tell.
And there is one BRIGHT SIDE! Wanna bet that Lance Armstrong/pro-cycling movie gets made NOW (or within next 10 years)?
This is cat-nip to Hollywood! Fractured early family life, supreme athletic gifts & sacrificial training, LIFE THREATENING disease, cheats death, COME BACK (!), 7-time winner of hardest endurance sport in the world, fractured relationships within team, & finally the dramatic fall from grace prompted by revelations of drugs! It’s got EVERYTHING!
Only questions – who will play Lance? And which part will McDreamy play? And motion picture or TV miniseries?
I’ll bet ya a case of PEETS for a case of Diet Pepsi! (I get the latter when you lose. 🙂
Susie B.
Matthew McConnaughey would be a natural to play Lance. They’re best buddies, after all.
And about that bet. You’re on. But just to keep the cost comparable, rather than a case of PEETS, let’s just make it a pound of their coffee. 😀
I think it would make a better opera than movie!
Too bad Freddy Mercury passed away. He could pen a very campy (pun intended) rock opera. 🙂
Susie B– Movie rights could earn Armstrong $1 MM or more. Not bad in my book.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see Armstrong downsizing to start conserving cash. He won’t be able to support his current cash burn rate at these negative real interest rates that Mr. Bernanke has given all of us. Anyone need a mansion in Austin TX?
BuzzyB,
If I had the money, I’d be more interested in purchasing his place in Aspen. Austin gets too hot in the summertime for my taste. 😉
And it has begun….Rabobank is dropping sponsorship. From the VeloNews article:
The Dutch bank said Friday the USADA report outlining a doping ring spanning nearly 20 years was the final nail in the coffin for the sponsor that’s endured its fair share of doping scandals over the years.
Board member Bert Bruggink said the report made the bank lose confidence in the sport’s ability to compete clean.
“It is with pain in our heart, but for the bank this is an inevitable decision,” Bruggink said in a statement Friday morning. “We are no longer convinced that the international professional world of cycling can make this a clean and fair sport. We are not confident that this will change for the better in the foreseeable future.”
Well, I guess if there’s no sponsors, then there will be no money and no one will be able to afford to dope, thus ending the problem.
Hard to tell at this point. Six years ago, some sponsors were dropping and there were some people making dire predictions, which didn’t come to be.
Rant, I suspect that much of what we’ve seen over the last 7 days was orchestrated by Armstrong. There’s a rule in public relations: if you’re going to take a hit from bad news, take it all at once. From the moment Armstrong lost his case in District Court, his strategy (at least, as it appears to me) has been to make this story go away as quickly and quietly as possible.
Tomorrow UCI will announce that they won’t appeal the USADA decision, and the Tour de France will follow by erasing Armstrong from the record books. By the end of the week, this chapter in Armstrong’s story may be closed.
OK, perhaps ASO tries to get Armstrong to repay his Tour prize money … but my guess is that the Tour folks are just as anxious as Armstrong for this story to go away. Also … Armstrong’s opponents may not want to go TOO far in their efforts to punish him. As far as I know, no one ever asked Jan Ullrich to return HIS prize money. If Armstrong is singled out for special punishment (and to an extent, this has already happened), the other side risks something of a backlash, where Armstrong is turned into a sympathetic figure. They also risk losing the American audience for European cycling (though this has already happened to an extent).
Once this page is finally turned, Armstrong can begin the process of rebuilding his reputation. Americans are a forgiving lot, and we love a good redemption story.
Well it’s official now:
http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/8536389/uci-agrees-strip-lance-armstrong-7-tour-de-france-titles
William,
Thanks for the link. Other than the IOC stripping Armstrong of his bronze from the 2000 games in Sydney, I can’t imagine that there’s much more that will happen — at least on the sporting front. Oakley dropped Armstrong this morning. Whatever minor sponsors he has left are likely to follow suit.
And speaking of suits, it will be interesting to see if SCA pursues action against Armstrong, or if any of his sponsors sue to get their money back.
Still got a ways to go before hitting rock bottom, I suspect.
Larry,
I don’t know if Lance was actually able to orchestrate what happened on Wednesday or if it just kind of happened, but if he did, then from what you’ve said, it was a brilliant strategy. Get the pain and suffering over with quickly and try to rebuild.
I wonder if he can succeed in doing so without addressing his actions as a pro cyclist. I can’t imagine that would be the case, but you never know. I guess we’ll see as time goes on. Too bad he dumped Sheryl Crow. He could have had a bright future as her guitar tech (as he once said he might be, just prior to his first retirement from cycling).
Drug usage is not much of a hindrance to a career in the world of music, in fact, to some it seems almost de rigeur.
While the sporting world is quite dead set against Armstrong now, the cancer world seems to have more mixed feelings. I have read or heard of cancer survivors who say “I don’t care if he doped, Livestrong helped me.” There is little doubt that Livestrong is a legitimate charity which has done positive things and it is here that perhaps Armstrong can redeem himself. He will probably have to maintain somewhat of a lower profile, and alter his story from “I am a cancer survivor who went on to be a champion cyclist” to simply “I survived cancer”.
Rant, if Armstrong did not orchestrate Wednesday’s events, then we’re left with the remarkable coincidence that his major sponsors hung with him as long as they did, then all dropped him at the same time, a decent interval before today’s announcement by UCI.
In my view, everything that has happened so far has unfolded as Armstrong’s team knew it would, once UCI decided to cede case management to USADA, and once the Armstrong team decided not to appeal the District Court decision to allow USADA to pursue arbitration. Putting aside the possibility that the District Court decision might be reversed on appeal, at that point Armstrong was defeated and the strategy shifted to cutting his losses.
Armstrong’s team doubtless knew how USADA’s decision would read, at least in rough terms. They also knew that UCI would not stand in USADA’s way (this was obvious — UCI’s best opportunity to oppose USADA was to seize management of the Armstrong case), at which point the Tour championships would be lost.
My guess is that the Armstrong team has already made some kind of peace with SCA (on private and confidential terms), and that the team is gambling that ASO will not pursue Armstrong to get prize money refunded (ASO is ALSO interested in putting this matter behind them as quickly as possible).
But of course you are right, no one can ever be sure about hitting “rock bottom”. There are still “60 Minutes” pieces that can be aired and tell-all books that can be published. More seriously, there’s still the pending arbitration with Johan Bruyneel, and if that goes forward in the style of the Landis arbitration, that would not be good news for Armstrong. But I doubt that the arbitration will proceed in the mode of Landis. Bruyneel’s only possible hope is to get the arbitration dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and that effort will be a dry and technical matter of little interest to anyone other than a few of us here.
Moreover, unless it turns out that Armstrong also held up liquor stores or took money out of the church’s collection plate, what is left to reveal? The public interest in this story is already beginning to wane. That’s another lesson to be learned from the public relations experts: the long run is on Armstrong’s side.
Indeed, I am not sure how much the general public paid much attention to things the past few months, at least here in the IS, where cycling is still pretty much a minor sport. Sure, lots of people knew who Armstrong is and probably saw the headlines, but to really care about things? Nah! It’s just those crazy guys in the dorky shorts most of whom have unpronounceable names and don’t speak English anyway.
Some Reactions:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/reactions-to-ucis-confirmation-of-lance-armstrongs-ban
On one hand, Laurent Jalabert told L’Equipe that it was “difficult for the UCI to react differently. … Anyway, he’s a great champion, he was a huge talent”, while on the other Eric Boyer called Armstrong “manipulative, narcissistic and wicked”.
Christophe Moreau reflected on the scandal of his time, the Festina affair, that embroiled his own team in the 1998 Tour de France. “After 98, it was thought that cycling was running smoothly. But it is even worse. Festina was painful for everyone and fourteen years later, nothing. It did not help anything. For me, it’s shit.”
My take:
Paddy did what he was forced to do, and nothing more, by agreeing with USADA.
I have mixed emotions.
Long believing LA to be a dirtbag of a person, it’s still a dark day for cycling and a darker day for the soup.
I agree with both Jalabert and Boyer. LA was a great champion who was manipulative, narcissistic, and wicked. (still is)
The soup is declaring a significant victory, while the dossier, as it were, shows they were incompetent in the extreme. Catching a guy, LA or anyone else, a couple of years after they have retired, and then stripping results for 10+/- of their most productive years as a pro is futile, ridiculous, and impotent. Truly a limp dick response, after so many more preceding.
I took the time to follow the tours during LA’s era and Floyd’s win too.
Handing off titles to anyone close to them is laughable. Those guys didn’t follow the published rules of their time, but they did follow the practical, customary, and accepted rules (perhaps minus a pay off or two by Floyd?).
The stupidity continues.
The soup has made virtual criminals of professional riders.
According to the soup, in order to run drug uncorrupted competitions, riders must declare their whereabouts everyday of the year.
They must be available to be poked, prodded, pee, and/or give blood at any hour of any day.
They may not re-infuse fluids via IV even if dangerously dehydrated in competition.
They may not take a myriad of over the counter medications for typical ailments because the soup considers them possible masking agents, even if their is little to no scientific basis for the claim.
If they pop an adverse analytical result, they must cave and accept punishment, or submit to a stacked deck arbitration process that offers little hope of exoneration, even if the athlete in question was actually squeaky clean.
And even if by some miracle, the athlete prevails, he will have done it on his own dime, will not be made whole by the soup, and can expect his reputation to remain tarnished, along with reduced employment opportunities.
Don’t even get me started on Sky’s bs with their “I was never involved in doping declaration”, which for anyone who was, is a clear incentive to lie………
I see that SCA is looking to get back their bucks:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sca-to-seek-dollar-7-5m-from-lance-armstrong
Clawbacks and moral clauses discussed here. There appears to be no incentive for L.A. to admit to anything.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-22/lance-armstrong-unlikely-to-face-clawbacks
So if L.A. cracks and commits suicide (it does happen — not a happy phone call to get), who does his estate sue? Oh right, first rule of lawyering, sue all solvent parties.
When the hell do the riders finally wake up and unionize?
When does phase II of Tygert’s grand plan see the light of day? Politics, power and money….
Sponsors probably got their money’s worth, at least until now, and by formally and publicly severing ties now, will probably avoid much negative publicity. There is the question that perhaps they, the sponsors, should have realized that something was rotten in Denmark, and dropped Armstrong sooner. Obviously, they didn’t feel all the rumors and allegations were doing them much harm. Or was it that Armstrong had the locked into some long term contract that would have been hard to break?
More important is the question of what UCI,s role was in this affair. Was it the case, as McQ suggests, that the tests used in those days weren’t up to the task? It certainly seems that it wasn’t all that hard to avoid detection, and Armstrong/USPS weren’t the only ones doping and getting away with it. Or was UCI simply incompetent? Or maybe they were content to not look to hard just as long as the tests were coming back negative, giving the appearence that all was well? Or we’re they unduly influenced by Armstrong? And who is going to investigate UCI, if anyone? Enquiring minds want to know.
Larry,
I suspect you’re right about SCA and the ASO. What I’m not so sure of is whether Lance was able to persuade his sponsors to announce their decisions at roughly the same time. A week’s time should certainly have been enough to review USADA’s materials and make their determinations. I’m not sure why Oakley waited for the UCI’s announcement. Perhaps some sort of personal loyalty there.
Right now both SCA and the ASO are making noise about wanting their money back. Maybe at some point in the future they will quietly let the matter drop — after sufficient restitution has been paid or some sort of agreement is reached. I think it was Tim Herman who said that the settlement with SCA was airtight, and that they won’t be able to clawback their money. Maybe by making noise about a lawsuit, Armstrong will be convinced to pay to make it go away. Most likely wouldn’t be the first time he’s done that, I suspect. 😉
Rant, agreed about SCA. I doubt that they have any ability to toss aside the settlement, but the SCA clawback effort may have some nuisance value.
I have not seen until just now the stories about ASO wanting money back. I think ASO is in an odd position if they demand money back from Armstrong when (to my knowledge) they did not do so with Contador, not to mention Ullrich, Riis, etc. At some point the U.S. public is going to feel that U.S. riders are being singled out for harsh treatment.
The ADAs are running the risk that they’ll transform Armstrong into a sympathetic figure. It can be argued that Armstrong didn’t do anything that the rest of the peloton did not also do, but no one (not even Landis) has been punished with 1/10 of what’s been doled out to Armstrong. Or so the argument will go. Again, I suspect that this is part of Armstrong’s long-term PR strategy.
If LA confirmed the UCI cover up Landis & Hamilton allege, he might receive some sort of deal from USADA and some form of redemption from the public? I don’t think he sees an upside to that.
The others look to be smaller players. Still, the soup’s reaction does seem well out of proportion wrt the official punishment. (as close to the death penalty as they can get because LA won’t play ball on their field with their refs on the soup payroll – and I can’t blame him for that part) However, in terms of financial losses, I’m pretty sure Floyd lost just about everything. He went from the expectation of a big payday to being required to pay a % of the FFF, a % because he is insolvent. Even if LA pays back millions to the insurance folks and prize money, He’s still going to be left with the kind of walking around money most would envy. In terms of finances, he can easily afford to walk away showing the middle digit to USADA. Just saying……….
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/potential-tax-implications-lance-armstrongs-113039311.html
Another Bonnie Ford piece:
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8539490/uci-upholds-usada-ruling-lance-armstrong-escape-blame
Lance Armstrong is nothing more than a dellusional piece of human garbage. His ego overpowers his mind so much that he won’t fess up. Had he told the truth, he would have at least been forgiven to some extent, but since he won’t, he’s paid the ultimate price and rightly so.
Great lessons to be learned but your advice inevitably will fall on deaf ears.
“Put a 100+ year “tradition” of doping into the past”? Of course, not. History tells us this will not happen. Rather, practically everyone will be happy to scapegoat Lance Armstrong. According to this narrative, doping began and ended with Lance but the “next generation” believes in “clean” cycling. But just like the people who continually tell us how good of a Christian they are, such loud proclamations usually mean little.
And they don’t want to stop putting athletes on a pedestal. They are already building pedestals for so-called “clean” cyclists. Are they just repeating the hero-worship cycle that ends in destruction?
No one is listening to this advice. They just want to burn a witch.
Millard,
I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re right. And when the person put on a pedestal and held up as a “virtuous” and “clean” cyclist stumbles, those who are clamoring to burn a witch right now will be right back at it.
That could help
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/10/14/bernstein-lance-armstrong-is-a-witch/
http://theconversation.edu.au/the-lance-armstrong-witch-hunt-is-over-and-hes-a-witch-10122