Ethics experts weigh in on Lance Armstrong stepping down as Livestrong chairman

TORONTO – Lance Armstrong stepped down as chairman of his Livestrong cancer-fighting charity as Nike terminated his contract on Wednesday.

Global News explored what Lance Armstrong now means as a sports hero, role model, do-gooder and brand in the wake of the USADA report, but now we hear from two ethics experts on how today’s news will affect his charity work.

University of Toronto bioethicist Kerry Bowman says you can’t separate the act of alleged cheating in cycling races from the Livestrong foundation.

“For everyone that gave money to Livestrong foundation, unfortunately there’s a certain amount of fraudulence to that,” said Bowman.

“The assumption was that you had a seven-time Tour de France winner who transcended cancer… So even if a person bought a dollar bracelet, there’s still a problem there because they likely did that on the assumption that all those facts are true, and they may not be.”

Bowman says that the mounting evidence combined with the layers of issues at hand (lying, cheating, bullying, illegal drug use) may mean the foundation needs to be “rethought and reorganized to some extent.”

“Would the foundation have mounted this much resources and stature if he had not allegedly won the seven Tour de France and transcended cancer? Likely not. So all that money entered under a false assumption.”

Western University bioethicist Ken Kirkwood-who incidentally had the same cancer as Armstrong-says the illegal drug use may not have been a surprise to everyone.

“I think doping in cycling is just an occupational requirement and he just was really, really good at it,” said Kirkwood. “He beat all these other dopers and yet he’s supposed to be drug free? I don’t think many people were buying it, and I don’t think people are as upset about doping as they were 20 years ago.”

Kirkwood says cancer groups may not want to be associated with him, and people may no longer pay “big money for plates of food to go hear him speak now,” but he’s not sure it will affect donations to Livestrong.

Kirkwood adds that Livestrong may not be as dominant a figure on the “charitable landscape” because Armstrong was the cancer survivor figurehead, but that donations to cancer groups in general are unlikely to be negatively affected.

According to CharityWatch, an American nonprofit charity watchdog, Livestrong reported a spike in contributions in late August in the days immediately following Armstrong’s announcement that he wouldn’t fight doping charges and officials moved to erase his Tour victories.

Founder and president of CharityWatch Daniel Borochoff told Globalnews.ca that this may be because it takes time for news to sink in, particularly if you’ve made a donation or have been identified wearing a yellow Livestrong bracelet.

However, he notes that there’s nothing to stop Livestrong from rebuilding and becoming an even stronger organization, and that the sports culture is different from that of charity work.

“While sports may have the culture of win-at-all costs, that’s not true in the world of charity and philanthropy,” he said. “The scandal is not something that happened at the charity, it’s something that happened in the sporting world.”