Let me clarify my thought, I think the public views Livestrong as MORE than just Lance Armstrong. I bet 50% of the people who know what the yellow bracelet stands for knows little about Armstrong. Look, I'm not a fan of his, but it's sort of like the Jerry Lewis MDA telethon, he's associated with it but the organization/event is still going on without him.
They have known the possibility of this, they were asked about it around the time the name was announced and this was their comment in June from their VP of communications "For us, it's all about Livestrong and helping raise $500 million for fighting cancer and all the good they've done." http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycl...aycomSports-TopStories+(Sports+-+Top+Stories)
how many important races besides tdf did lance armstrong win? very few, and for a simple reason. he didn't run that many. he was basically a one race guy. while everyone else was riding the circuit so that there might be such a thing as professional cycling, he was training for the tdf. it's a little as if an nfl team could skip regular season games. it used to bug me when liggett and scherwin used to tell us how familiar armstrong was with that day's tough finish because he had spent two weeks training on it. while everyone else was taking part in the racing season. it was like looking at the questions before the test. that way of riding may not have been cheating, but already it was coming closer than one would like...
and regardless if Armstrong's cycling career "doping" or "clean-record" could ever be proven one way or the other, the LiveStrong Foundation is what it is. no matter if there is "doping" or "clean" footnote in the TdF, US cycling and USADA record books with respect to Armstrong the sportsman, that will not change what LiveStrong is, and what it will continue to be. MLS and SKC will likely be glad to have (and hopefully maintain) that corporate partnership/sponsorship. http://blog.chron.com/randyharvey/2...-lance-armstrong-loses-tour-de-france-titles/
As of now, Sporting Kansas City should not get involved in the case. This country has the rule, innocent until proven guilty and it would be best if SKC followed that. It's a rule that is forgotten here a lot.
Is this a court of law or something? This is Big Soccer, and I maintain that all the favorites at the Tour de France, and many of the Olympic disciplines, are doped to the gills. If you want I can link an interview with the Mexican doping doctor explaining that all world-class endurance athletes are doped and exactly how they do it. (It's in German though.) Feel free to keep believing the Wizard of Oz is real though...
This isn't about sending Lance Armstrong or anyone at SKC to jail, so I don't think "innocent until proven guilty" applies ... it's about whether this is a public relations risk for SKC. If SKC decides it isn't, then fine, end of story. Personally I remember being taken aback when SKC announced the partnership with Livestrong, because it seemed risky to me from a PR standpoint.
from a "sporting/competitive" standpoint, an association with Lance Armstrong the TdF champion (or non-champion as the case may be decided) could certainly be viewed as a bit "risky." But SKC was (and still is apparently) partnering with LiveStrong. That is solid PR, imo, and not all that risky -- based on what the LiveStrong Foundation has done and will continue to do. I would imagine the thought is that Livestrong (the foundation) is and always will be bigger and more important (and more worth partnering with/supporting) than is Lance Armstrong (the person/athlete).
Sporting KC doesn't receive a dime from Livestrong, so peddle the "tainted money" BS somewhere else. As for whether raising money for Livestrong is now something SKC shouldn't do...maybe the foundation should consider a name change. I'm a cancer survivor, and that yellow seat and the giant yellow banner over the Cauldron give me a little bit of inspiration every time I go in the place. Those who think something's wrong with that can spend their weekend attempting the anatomically impossible.
Whenever a team gets involved in charity, there will be controversisy. When Barcelona signed their deal with UNICIEF, I'm sure people against the UN were mad. But most people will see it as a positive, and it will still be a good thing for Sporting Kansas City to be involved with Livestrong
Cause: A guy is accused of cheating in a bicycle race. Effect: stop contributing to cancer research. Yeah. That seems an appropriate response.
I believe Landis has said he doped, Vaughters has been more circumspect though according to Landis that's what Vaughters advised Landis to do as well. Vaighters seems to want to fight the doping through the UCI/USADA, not the media. I can't remember specifically what Hamilton said about Lance. Go ahead and show me where I said that. Don't worry, I'll wait...
If that's the case, then pick another charity. There are plenty of fine charities that do great work in cancer research. I would not bet on the organization cutting their ties to Armstrong any time soon.
OK- its ok to have had tons of discussion about whether we should take Red Bull should be involved with MLS, but this doesn't warrant one thread?
Hey, I heard Barry Bonds charity wants to have their name on the new San Jose stadium. You guys ok with that?