IN WHAT has shaped up into the Grand Canyon of falls from grace, the once legendary Lance Armstrong is grasping for a semblance of credibility as his legacy turns to dust around him. On a tell-all with Oprah Winfrey, Armstrong confessed to being a performance-enhancing drugs (“PED”) user during his unprecedented run of seven Tour-de-France victories.
An erstwhile tale of courage and superhuman will-power, Armstrong is now confirmed as the single biggest ‘Brand-Kill’ in the history of world sports. Today, he has supporters and critics, and unfortunately his overcoming testicular cancer en route to being arguably the most revered athlete perhaps of all time remains a mere footnote to what was and will now never be. Armstrong was inspirational because he won despite the setbacks, and he was seen as the face of resistance in the wake of a killer disease, leading to the creation of the global behemoth charitable foundation – ‘Livestrong’. Very little now is left of Armstrong’s legacy despite his unreal fight against cancer, and the reason for this is his perceived reputation as a systematic ‘bully’, if you will.
Everyone loves the underdog in sports, and Hollywood (and now Bollywood) has made a mantra out of stories that trace the challenges and struggles of the bullied against the bullies. The haves against the have-nots. The clichés endure, but in Armstrong’s case, so did his legend and the greater good. Now however, as the United States Anti Doping Association (“USADA”) in its 1000-page report has conclusively proved, Armstrong was the epicentre of the systematic and wide-spread doping that sullied the sport of cycling since the beginning of this generation.
Not only that, as the report has shown, he stands guilty as charged of bullying and tormenting individuals into crossing the line in his favour. Now, no one for the time being knows what exactly took place, and while there are no innocents in a whistle-blowing/covering up of this magnitude, it is the perception of Armstrong as a bully who lied himself blue in the face denying his PED use, which is going to take a huge toll on his brand value.
A remorseful superstar may face challenges, but for the most part their brands resurrect with their humility and on-court achievements. Armstrong will not be granted that consideration, because an admission of PED use will push his life-time ban until he’s at least 50, even if truncated.
Athletes make mistakes, and are forgiven no matter how egregious the mistake may once have seemed. From the looks of it however, Armstrong may not have made a mistake here – in fact he may have been the perpetrator of the entire PED chain in cycling during his reign.
Since he is indeed guilty and has repeatedly lied about his PED use, there isn’t a rule in the fictional code of brand-endorsement that he hasn’t broken. There could be numerous fans of his who feel that his deception is minor when compared to what he has done to further the fight against cancer, or when compared to other athletes who are found guilty of assault, battery, or even more grievous crimes.
Had it been restricted to mere PED use to overcome the battle with cancer in a tainted sport, Armstrong may have been forgiven and reinstated. But, given the unjust enrichment, the coercive and bullying tactics, and the most damning of them all – the use of PEDs even before his battle with cancer, makes his case one of ‘Brand-Kill’.
And it extends beyond just Armstrong, because in the wake of his confession, there will be a serious investigation into whether or not cycling will remain an Olympic sport. The current wisdom is leaning towards cycling no longer being an Olympic sport, which in effect would ring the death knell for a predominantly amateur-driven sport with athletes experiencing an Olympics-success driven professional career. So, while Armstrong may not be entirely to blame for the seeming end of amateur and professional cycling as this generation has known it, his is the defining Brand-Kill that will seal cycling’s fate.
Sponsorship and endorsement agreements are an interesting construct. They tend to be onerous on emerging stars, and deferential towards established superstars. Commercially acceptable negotiation points have a large say in how an agreement is typically drafted and signed. Sponsorship agreements are where industry and sport-specific knowledge have the most value-addition during the entire process. However, if there is one clause in most sponsorship agreements that remains firmly embedded in the essence of the agreement, it is the clause where either party to the contract ensures that he/she/they must at no time do anything that is likely to adversely impact the brand, goodwill, reputation, or wholesomeness of the arrangement that both have entered into. Materially detrimental acts or omissions of the preceding sentence’s nature, transcend superstar status, relationships, or hand-shakes that are seemingly more solid ‘than oak’ a la Jerry Maguire.
So, when the seemingly most wholesome brand ambassador comes a cropper due to poor results on the field of play, or personal issues such as infidelity, the relationship between the sponsor and athlete often endures and survives. But, when the action, omission, or alleged conspiracy and systematic fraud has a material adverse impact on every aspect of the sponsorship arrangement, even the ‘bloodsucking lawyers’ (of Jurassic Park infamy) counsel is taken and adhered to – both within the construct of the agreement, and the termination of the once mutually beneficial arrangement.
And that is why the once seemingly impeccable and implacable brand that Armstrong had built is coming crashing down – because the allegations are impacting the reputations of those who supported him, and those who engaged him as their brand ambassador for all the erstwhile right reasons.
It will be well nigh impossible for him to come back from this – whether or not his confession was contrite or sincere (and there are not many that have bought into it), because his mistakes go much beyond repetition, knowledge and vindictiveness. And because a willful breach of contract is the most grievous breach there is in sponsorship agreements, as his lawyers must have told him.
Perhaps I’m wrong, and Armstrong will remain a divisive but popular icon, but if ever the odds were stacked against an individual retaining his or her brand, then this situation has got to be it.
