So Lance Armstrong (Probably) Cheated. Now What?

Even without positive drug tests, I think it's likely that Lance Armstrong cheated -- there's too much evidence stacked against him. Even Armstrong's most trusted confidant, George Hincapie, was likely going to testify for USADA . Many Armstrong fans are currently in denial about what his refusal to fight the charges really means, but I think that will change as we find out more during his compatriots' arbitration.

"But Chris, he passed every drug test!" My response is that no one is threatening to put Armstrong in jail for this. The burden of proof isn't a "beyond a reasonable doubt," as in a criminal trial, but "to a comfortable satisfaction." That is defined by the World Anti-Doping Code as "greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt." This is the standard USADA follows, and I think it's the appropriate one if we're to disincentivize clever athletes from doping. I'd also remind the reader that eyewitness accounts constitute direct evidence, not circumstantial evidence as commonly claimed.

The real tragedy of the Armstrong affair isn't that Armstrong (likely) won with help from cheating, but that others lost because of it. Who knows? Maybe if the USPS team hadn't doped we'd be singing the praises of a clean athlete who unfortunately -- thanks to doping -- never got his shot. Or maybe if no one had ever doped, Armstrong would still have been the best in an all-clean sport.


I realize that Lance must find all of this terribly unfair. As the old saying goes "Everyone was doing it," and he was just doing what was necessary to achieve his dream after a near-death experience. I bet Armstrong truly doesn't believe he cheated because of this. (I call this the Gattaca defense.) But thanks to USADA's vigilant prosecution of cheaters, hopefully no young athlete will have to face the awful choice Armstrong circa-1998 had to make.

I bet that secretly pleases him. 

Stand by your man
The good news for Armstrong is that it appears his sponsors are staying put. Nike (NYS: NKE) is standing by the cyclist: "Lance has stated his innocence and has been unwavering on this position. ... Nike plans to continue to support Lance and the Lance Armstrong Foundation, a foundation that Lance created to serve cancer survivors."

The story is the same with Budweiser brewer Anheuser-Busch (NYS: BUD) . Paul Chibe, Anheuser-Busch's VP of U.S. marketing, said in a statement, "Our partnership with Lance remains unchanged. ... He has inspired millions with his athletic achievements and his commitment to helping cancer survivors and their families." 

Oakley sunglasses, which is a subsidiary of Luxottica (NYS: LUX) , is taking a more lukewarm but still supportive approach. "As Lance's longtime supporter and partner, Oakley respects his decision and his restated commitment to focus on the foundation he created to help battle cancer," Oakley said in a statement. "Oakley supports its athletes who respect and honor the ethics of sports until proven otherwise."

Thanks to Lance's refusal to fight the charges, he will never be "proven otherwise." Perhaps that is the point. 

Is it good for business?
RadioShack  (NYS: RSH) still hasn't issued a statement either way, but my hunch is they will stick around like the other sponsors. Their corporate citizenship page still sings the praises of Livestrong.

Despite the likely cheating, it's hard to deny what Armstrong did was a tremendous physical achievement. Nike's sponsorship still makes some sense because of this. Heck, if Nike can stand by Tiger Woods, it can certainly stand by Armstrong. 

I'm not sure if the sponsorship still makes sense for Luxottica, RadioShack, and Anheuser-Busch. These companies have little to do with athletic achievement (though Luxottica may beg to differ). Their partnership with Armstrong is more based on his character and charity, and more importantly the public's perception of his character and charity. The latter has obviously taken a beating in the past week. 

What do you think?

The article So Lance Armstrong (Probably) Cheated. Now What? originally appeared on Fool.com.

Fool contributor  Chris Baines  is a value investor. Follow him on Twitter, where he goes by @askchrisbainesChris' stock picks and pans have outperformed 96% of players on CAPS. He owns no shares of the companies mentioned. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools don't all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Copyright © 1995 - 2012 The Motley Fool, LLC. All rights reserved. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Learn about investing from the comfort of your own home.

Portfolio Basics

Take the first steps to building your portfolio.

View Course »

Investment Strategies

Learn the strategies you need to build a winning portfolio

View Course »

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

2 Comments

Filter by:
Turbozonk

another douchbag who never rode a bike more than a mile downhill. this isn't about lance it's about some ******* in the government with an axe to grind. remember mcarthyism? it's about people in power going after a single person that pisses them off. it's a slippery slope. you know it's all well and good to call him a cheat untill they come for you and you have no defense against hearsay!

August 28 2012 at 8:19 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
JohnnyMissoula

Good article. The majority of reasonable adults believe he likely cheated (there are those that steadfastl believe he didn't, but they're also the crowd that believe Obama isn't a citizen and the world is 6,000 years old). Even amongst those that believe he likely cheated, there will always be a divide between whether it matters or not. The group that believe that it does matter seem like they're in the minority, but then again that's why they call the path of righteousness and right living a straight and narrow path.

August 28 2012 at 12:44 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply