Lance Armstrong steps down from Livestrong Foundation, gets dropped by Nike

Lance Armstrong is no longer running the Livestrong Foundation, nor is he sponsored by Nike

10/17/12 in Cycling   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

Blog Photo - Lance Armstrong steps down from Livestrong Foundation, gets dropped by NikeThe public takedown of Lance Armstrong continues, as Nike announced they dropped his sponsorship on the same day that he stepped down as the chairman of the Livestrong Foundation.

Now that the US Anti-Doping Agency has gone all out on Armstrong, people are taking everything they can possibly take, in an attempt to remove all shreds of his legacy and somehow make themselves feel better about cleaning up a sport that will continue to be the dirtiest sport in the world.

In the 7 times that Armstrong won the Tour de France, more than 40 of the 70 top-10 finishers eventually were caught doping. Sure, Armstrong was cheating... but so was everyone else.

It's eerily reminiscent of the steroid era in baseball, when steroid-aided pitchers were throwing to steroid-aided batters, who were hitting the ball over the heads of steroid-aided fielders into the waiting arms of fans who were having the time of their lives, watching an exciting new brand of offensive baseball.

Before Armstrong, the average American couldn't have possible cared less about the Tour de France, or cycling in general.

The same applies to the time period after Lance's retirement.

So truthfully, we don't care about cycling. Lance Armstrong and his success, dirty or not, was the only reason most Americans even expressed interest in an otherwise irrelevant sport.

Armstrong took the popularity from his record-breaking championship run, and parlayed it into a charitable foundation that has raised almost a half billion dollars for cancer research, a cause that was obviously near and dear to his heart, as a cancer survivor.

Now that we've found out that he's as dirty as everyone else in the sport, why vilify Armstrong?

SI's Peter King even went so far as to say that this countered the good that Armstrong did, because the money was raised under false pretenses

While he has a point, if he's saying that fewer people would have donated to the foundation if it weren't run by a 7-time Tour de France champion, that doesn't mean the money was raised under false pretenses.

Armstrong raised the money under the pretense that it was going to cancer research. If that's where the money went, then he did nothing wrong there.

If anything, it speaks volumes about us as Americans if we will only donate to a charity that has a celebrity figurehead.

At the end of the day, the hatred towards Lance Armstrong is laughable. He's no more guilty than anyone else in his sport, and it's not like cycling was a staple of our daily lives before he came around, anyway.

Lance Armstrong cheated. Most people are ready to admit that by now. But what did he really take from us? Nothing at all. For some, he was an inspiration during difficult times. And he has also done a lot of good, with his foundation.

There's no need to feign hatred for a man who really hasn't affected your life in a negative way. Just go back to being apathetic about cycling, like you always were.
Notify me by email about comments that follow mine. Preview

10/17/12   |   george9846690537

Only Armstrong, his wife, his teammates and his sponsors can break the anti-doping rules -- for almost a decade -- and also leave us feeling bad for finally imposing them. 
Collective hypocrisy and acquiescence had never reached such heights. 

10/17/12   |   beerstudk   |   1538 respect

It's not the situation, it's the fact that you always want to bash not only the culprits but also the fans/followers/anyone-even-remotely-associated with the culprit.  It's a total change in character and SOP for you to still applaud Lance and his work raising money for cancer research, even though it's almost certain he was dirty.

10/17/12   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

beerstudk wrote:
Very well said Pat... It's almost shocking to me that you have this opinion considering your stance on Penn State/Jerry Sandusky and the "Steriod Era" in baseball.

I don't believe this situation is even remotely comparable to Penn State. I'd rather see every athlete on drugs than allow one child to be molested. Totally different.

10/17/12   |   beerstudk   |   1538 respect

Very well said Pat... It's almost shocking to me that you have this opinion considering your stance on Penn State/Jerry Sandusky and the "Steriod Era" in baseball.