Nike cuts ties to Livestrong

[tuxbailey]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nike-cuts-ties-livestrong-145947147--spt.html

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Nike, which helped build Lance Armstrong's Livestrong cancer charity into a global brand and introduced its familiar yellow wristband, is cutting ties with the foundation in the latest fallout from the former cyclist's doping scandal.

The move by the sports shoe and clothing company ends a nine-year relationship that helped the foundation raise more than $100 million and made the charity's bracelet an international symbol for cancer survivors.
But the relationship soured with revelations of performance-enhancing drug use by Armstrong and members of his U.S. Postal Service team.
Nike dropped its personal sponsorship of Armstrong last October after U.S. Anti-Doping Agency exposed the team doping program and portrayed Armstrong as its ringleader. And after years of denials, Armstrong admitted earlier this year he used performance-enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France seven times.

Officials at Livestrong, which announced the split on Tuesday, said the foundation remains strong and committed to helping cancer patients worldwide through its survivorship programs.
Armstrong, who started the charity in 1997 as the Lance Armstrong Foundation, was pushed off the board of directors in October and the organization later changed its formal name to Livestrong.
In a statement, Livestrong officials said the foundation is ''deeply grateful'' to Nike.

''Together, we created new, revolutionary ways of thinking about how non-profits fuel their mission and we're proud of that,'' the foundation said.
A Nike spokesman did not immediately return a telephone message seeking comment.

Armstrong declined comment, noting he no longer has a relationship with Livestrong or Nike.

Livestrong officials say the charity remains on solid financial ground.
''This news will prompt some to jump to negative conclusions about the foundation's future. We see things quite differently. We expected and planned for changes like this and are therefore in a good position to adjust swiftly and move forward with our patient-focused work,'' the foundation said.
The foundation said it reduced its budget nearly 11 percent in 2013 to $38.4 million, but said Tuesday that revenue is already 2.5 percent ahead of projections. The foundation also noted that last month, it received a four-star rating from Charity Navigator, which evaluates charities based on financial health, accountability and transparency.

[binxnyrwarrsoul]

Took them long enough.

[bostondrunk]

But apparently a doping, wife cheating Tiger Woods is still a good company representative..
:banana:

[firerescuefin]

But apparently a doping, wife cheating Tiger Woods is still a good company representative..
:banana:

No...he just still sells....as does Kobe....but you already knew that.

As soon as/if Nike can turn a dollar having Lance repping them again...he'll be back.

Edit: Wasn't aware Tiger has been caught doping.

[bostondrunk]

No...he just still sells....as does Kobe....but you already knew that.

As soon as/if Nike can turn a dollar having Lance repping them again...he'll be back.

Edit: Wasn't aware Tiger has been caught doping.

Well known that Tiger has been 'treated' by a Canadian doctor supplying doping products to athletes. I know, I know, he's never been caught doping. He just really wanted to go to Canada for his checkup.

OH, neither was Lance Armstrong (caught doping).....

[firerescuefin]

Well known that Tiger has been 'treated' by a Canadian doctor supplying doping products to athletes. I know, I know, he's never been caught doping. He just really wanted to go to Canada for his checkup.

OH, neither was Lance Armstrong (caught doping).....

I've done Platelet Rich Plasma...which is what Tiger was being treated with for a ligament injury. The doctor came to him...yes, the same doctor that was found transporting HGH over the US/Canada Border. So, I would not put it past him. I've just noticed a trend from you to post in a Lance thread wherever you can to justify what he did or in some way try to skew the argument.....and I pretty much post in every thread I read, because I think he is a dispicable human being as well as a complete fraud. Curious where the foundation of your argument or allegiance is? (not baiting, genuinely curious)

[bostondrunk]

I've done Platelet Rich Plasma...which is what Tiger was being treated with for a ligament injury. The doctor came to him...yes, the same doctor that was found transporting HGH over the US/Canada Border. So, I would not put it past him. I've just noticed a trend from you to post in a Lance thread wherever you can to justify what he did or in some way try to skew the argument.....and I pretty much post in every thread I read, because I think he is a dispicable human being as well as a complete fraud. Curious where the foundation of your argument or allegiance is? (not baiting, genuinely curious)

It's not so much that I want to defend Lance.....I have no doubt the guy is a douche to many people.......the problem I have is that I do in fact believe he has been unfairly singled out. I think it is ridiculous that guys like Zabriske, etc., received almost no ban. I know, Lance didn't want to talk... But still, it's like the world wants him to shoulder the responsibility of what every pro athlete has been doing for the past 50 years.
Want to ban him for life from any sport? Great. Do the same to the rest of them.

[crossjunkee]

Hmmm, I'm not an Armstrong supporter, but this kinda stinks. Armstrong isn't on the board, and Livestrong is still a worthy cause.

[mktng]

Im sure they will venture into other research focused groups. Livestrong is just one in many out there. But business is business. If they are losing potential sales due to the tarnished rep of the name "livestrong" because lets be honest... first thing people think about when you hear livestrong is Lance himself.


Tiger and Kobe. Still winning and still making the big bucks :P
If Tiger spiraled down after all that crap. Im sure he woulda been cut fast too.

[67-59]

As others have said, if Lance was still riding and winning, he (and Livestrong) would still have the swoosh like Tiger. Nike's decision about Livestrong has nothing to do with right and wrong. It's all about the $$$$.

[gone]

It's not so much that I want to defend Lance.....I have no doubt the guy is a douche to many people.......the problem I have is that I do in fact believe he has been unfairly singled out. I think it is ridiculous that guys like Zabriske, etc., received almost no ban. I know, Lance didn't want to talk... But still, it's like the world wants him to shoulder the responsibility of what every pro athlete has been doing for the past 50 years.
Want to ban him for life from any sport? Great. Do the same to the rest of them.

I agree with this. I also am no apologist for Lance but do think he's been unfairly singled out due to the "prick factor". He might be a prick but rules are rules and they're not being applied equitably. Somehow it appears the general public bought into the notion that between them Lance and Johan strapped down nice guys Hincapie, Zabriske, et al., and forced them to dope. Nothing could be further from the truth and they're either still competing or retired with their ill-gotten gains while everybody and his brother goes after Lance for fraud in addition to his lifetime ban.

[Tony T]

But apparently a doping, wife cheating Tiger Woods is still a good company representative..
:banana:

Tiger is on the tour promoting Nike -- Nothing else is relevant.

[CunegoFan]

I agree with this. I also am no apologist for Lance but do think he's been unfairly singled out due to the "prick factor". He might be a prick but rules are rules and they're not being applied equitably. Somehow it appears the general public bought into the notion that between them Lance and Johan strapped down nice guys Hincapie, Zabriske, et al., and forced them to dope. Nothing could be further from the truth and they're either still competing or retired with their ill-gotten gains while everybody and his brother goes after Lance for fraud in addition to his lifetime ban.

How many of the others sued people to hide their doping? How many paid bribes to the UCI? How many ran teams where they would keep informed about whether the team members were abiding by their doping schedule and threaten to fire them if they did not? How many conspired with team staff to cover-up a doping positive with a fraudulent TUE?

Armstrong did way more than the others, and he was too stupid to take a good deal when one was offered.

[Lewis Moon]

Hmmm, I'm not an Armstrong supporter, but this kinda stinks. Armstrong isn't on the board, and Livestrong is still a worthy cause.

This.

[Rueda Tropical]

The greediest take the biggest falls. 7 TdF wins plus a comeback? Thats like a hedge fund taking on 1,000% leverage on a position. If things go South you are going to take it up the ol' wazoo big time. No sympathy for either situation. He got what he deserved.

[Keith A]

How many of the others sued people to hide their doping? How many paid bribes to the UCI? How many ran teams where they would keep informed about whether the team members were abiding by their doping schedule and threaten to fire them if they did not? How many conspired with team staff to cover-up a doping positive with a fraudulent TUE?

Armstrong did way more than the others, and he was too stupid to take a good deal when one was offered.My thoughts exactly. While there are plenty of other riders who doped just as much as LA, I don't there anyone else out there who orchestrated an extensive drug program for both himself and his teammates and then attacked anyone who dared to expose the truth.

[gone]

My thoughts exactly. While there are plenty of other riders who doped just as much as LA, I don't there anyone else out there who orchestrated an extensive drug program for both himself and his teammates and then attacked anyone who dared to expose the truth.
The thing is though, the others didn't need to. Lance was on the point so they could sit in the shadows and reap the benefits. Seriously, if I'm Hincapie et al and I'm free to dope while winning races & stages and Lance is taking all the heat, suing people, threatening, etc., I don't need to do anything. It doesn't mean I'm a nice guy, it doesn't mean I'm not complicit, it just means someone else is the front man and I don't need to be.

Sure, Lance benefited more but Hincapie's net worth is estimated at $40M so he made out allright.

Oh, and George does actually seem like a nice guy and I was always pulling for him to win Paris Roubaix even though I didn't think he ever would.

[Keith A]

Gone -- No argument there, people certainly did benefit from the LA train. However to my recollection, I don't remember anyone suing or threatening people like LA has done to keep their secret covered up. Additionally, after reading Tyler's book, I caught a glimpse of who the real LA is and how ruthless he can be.

[slidey]

+1

the greediest take the biggest falls. 7 tdf wins plus a comeback? thats like a hedge fund taking on 1,000% leverage on a position. If things go south you are going to take it up the ol' wazoo big time. No sympathy for either situation. He got what he deserved.

[gone]

Gone -- No argument there, people certainly did benefit from the LA train. However to my recollection, I don't remember anyone suing or threatening people like LA has done to keep their secret covered up. Additionally, after reading Tyler's book, I caught a glimpse of who the real LA is and how ruthless he can be.
Keith,

As I said earlier, I think he's a prick too (I read Tyler's book also) and based on what I read there and elsewhere threats and intimidation were part of the toolset. The general point though is that all of the other "nice guys" benefited from that which allowed them to maintain both their doping programs "under the radar" and their nice guy status. I'm reasonably sure that there were lots of other dopers in the peleton who, if threatened with exposure, would have dropped their "nice guy" personas and the claws would have come out - after all they had livelihoods and reputations to protect too.

Being a prick certainly has had consequences for Lance which in the general karma sense is fair enough. It just seems to me that his punishment both in absolute and relative terms is disproportionate to that received by anybody else in cycling. As bostondrunk said, it's as though the world has made him a scapegoat for all doping that ever took place.

[Dave B]

What gets me is the article says Nike made $150 million last year on this stuff. Thier largest year ever. That amount even for Nike is a tough cut atmo.

I could care less what Armstrong did, the foundation has helped people in some form or another. How do you stop supporting that because the guy who made you billions finally got busted.

Maybe he was a terrible prick to deal with.

[BumbleBeeDave]

The Armstrong USADA news broke last fall. Nike almost certainly had an endorsement contract with Livestrong that was up for renewal on June 1. They also probably had signed, sealed orders from dealers for more Livestrong gear and contracts with vendors to produce it.

So this decision was very likely made within days after the USADA report went public. Honor existing contracts with vendors to produce because its cheaper than trying to get out of them. Don't let dealers get out of signed orders because they don't want to be stuck with the merchandise. Better them than Nike.

Meanwhile, publicly announce you are no longer backing the person, but you will continue to back the foundation and the cause because "it's the right thing to do." Behind the scenes do whatever it takes via social or editorial media to stoke interest in the gear--subtly urge customers to "do the right thing" and keep supporting the foundation by buying the gear. This also just happens to also help Nike clear out their backstock and be able to tell disgruntled dealers "Hey, we're helping you clear it all out" since they made them buy it in the first place.

So over the past 8 months Nike runs out heir contracts, sells off backstock with minimal losses, and cuts Livestrong loose June 1, and moves on to find whatever other sports stars will help them sell more gear of every type and make more $$.

Cynical. Exploitative. Calculated. Profitable. It's all about the $$ for Nike. It wasn't ever about anything else.

BBD

[tch]

...but I can't help but stick my $0.02 in here about the doping issue. To my mind, this Nike thing simply confirms my feelings that the real culprits are MUCH higher up the food chain than the athletes.

Lance doped, acted like a pr*ck, and got pilloried for it. But what about the big-money interests that not-so-subtly encouraged and condoned his behavior? Don't you think the TdF, UCI, the team sponsors, the team directors, etc. all really knew deep down what was going on??? They set up the situation as a cutthroat competition where only the very best survive and prosper, and then act surprised and indignant when athletes do what they have to do to succeed in the system.

Wow, what a surprise that someone would dope to win a race that guarantees financial security for life and instant fame -- especially when they're part of a team that will cut them loose the instant they fall behind.

Nike got what it paid for in Lance Armstrong, and now that he and his cause is radioactive, they're willing to drop him like a hot potato.
I don't have any love for LA...but I think almost all the athletes are simply pawns in a larger and much more brutal machinery.

[tch]

cynical. Exploitative. Calculated. Profitable. It's all about the $$ for nike. It wasn't ever about anything else.

Bbd

+ 1,000,000

[cmg]

Nike pulled sponsorship because it no longer made financial sense. They benefitted from the relationship and when that was removed so was their interest. It's always about money, morallity doesn't play into it. Livestrong is a viable charitable organization and will probably survive in a smaller form. Cancer research needs them. Lance........ who?

[Keith A]

...Lance........ who?I saw someone had carved out this exact statement in the snow during the Giro d'Italia :)

[Joachim]

Cancer research needs them.

You probably do not mean basic biomedical research, since Livestrong does not provide funding for that.

[572cv]

Nike pulled sponsorship because it no longer made financial sense. They benefitted from the relationship and when that was removed so was their interest. It's always about money, morallity doesn't play into it. Livestrong is a viable charitable organization and will probably survive in a smaller form. Cancer research needs them. Lance........ who?

This is a good refocusing of the thread: it was posted about Nike and Livestrong. Livestrong was professional in expressing gratitude to Nike for all the support. Nike is professional in living up to its contract. Armstrong had nothing to say except to carefully note that he had long since severed ties with Livestrong. So however one may feel about LA, this is now a different issue, about a corporation supporting a nonprofit.

In that regard, comes the issue of how public corporations are structured. There is no morality in the goals of a corporation, there is just the goal of offering the best return to the stockholders. That is the duty. Supporting a nonprofit is sort of like an ad campaign for the company: do some good work but get your name out there through association. Most ad campaigns have useful lives, and a corporation measuring the value will shift them periodically. A number of them also seem to shift support for non-profits, but maintain that support as a percentage of net, while shifting it to different organizations. In doing so, they are maximizing the value in return for the corporation. The equation has to work.

The actions that appear to have led to this moment are unsupportable in any way. But Nike might well have shifted the support anyway, with LA out of the limelight as an active athlete even without the revelations. We don't really know. I don't think there is anyone here who would truly begrudge Livestrong continuing to thrive and execute its mission to support cancer victims. Looking at it dispassionately, It would appear that Nike and Livestrong have behaved with dignity.

[tch]

So however one may feel about LA, this is now a different issue, about a corporation supporting a nonprofit.

In that regard, comes the issue of how public corporations are structured. There is no morality in the goals of a corporation, there is just the goal of offering the best return to the stockholders. That is the duty. .

Just for me... I have a problem with this sentiment. I'm not going to dispute the factuality of it; I take issue with the concept itself. It strikes me that this is among the main issues I have with the capitalist system -- it operates in a value-free universe and boils everything down to the bottom line.

The problem is that this makes values and morals and ethics unwanted and irrelevant concepts. In a bottom-line environment, it's easy to conceptualize all business dealings as simply governed by what one can get away with.

While it seems hopelessly anachronistic and naive to wish that corporations were governed by something other than the profit motive, I'd argue that this is exactly what corporations need to think about if they want to remain relevant. And, on a practical level, I believe some measure of corporate responsibility and commitment to values is the only thing keeping business from suffering the ultimate backlash of overweening regulation.

In Nike's case, I'd argue that supporting research into cancer is something they owe society for the right to take so rapaciously from consumers.

[Lewis Moon]

Just for me... I have a problem with this sentiment. I'm not going to dispute the factuality of it; I take issue with the concept itself. It strikes me that this is among the main issues I have with the capitalist system -- it operates in a value-free universe and boils everything down to the bottom line.

The problem is that this makes values and morals and ethics unwanted and irrelevant concepts. In a bottom-line environment, it's easy to conceptualize all business dealings as simply governed by what one can get away with.

While it seems hopelessly anachronistic and naive to wish that corporations were governed by something other than the profit motive, I'd argue that this is exactly what corporations need to think about if they want to remain relevant. And, on a practical level, I believe some measure of corporate responsibility and commitment to values is the only thing keeping business from suffering the ultimate backlash of overweening regulation.

In Nike's case, I'd argue that supporting research into cancer is something they owe society for the right to take so rapaciously from consumers.

The problem is, the "rules" that govern corporations are somewhat analogous to the "rules" that govern pro bike racing....or human nature itself. If cheating is profitable, someone is going to do it, and if your competitor is cheating, you're going to lose.
Study after study has shown that the real "conscience" of corporations; the share holder, doesn't really care about anything but the return on investment. You might get a few "loons" protesting at shareholder meetings, but by and large, most investors are either too isolated from their portfolio to even know what companies they hold, or they are actively ignorant of what is happening, as long as the dividends roll in.
As for overweening regulation, take a look at what Eugine Scalia (Antonin's son) and his cadre of lawyers are doing to Dodd-Frank. Wall Street is the defacto government of the United States.

[crossjunkee]

Nike has to make up the difference in rising labor costs. Especially since they pay their workers so well. :rolleyes:

I can't support nike as a company, but this attitude goes waaaaaaaay back.

[gasman]

You probably do not mean basic biomedical research, since Livestrong does not provide funding for that.

I bet most people on this forum and the public in general don't know this.

[Scuzzer]

In Nike's case, I'd argue that supporting research into cancer is something they owe society for the right to take so rapaciously from consumers.

How much do they owe for cancer awareness?

[djg]

No...he just still sells....as does Kobe....but you already knew that.

As soon as/if Nike can turn a dollar having Lance repping them again...he'll be back.

Edit: Wasn't aware Tiger has been caught doping.


LA spoiled the genius marketing phrase, "just do it."

Fortunately for others, Nike never ran a "just do her" line of commercials. Which reminds me of another sports ethics story in the news, that sage, balanced decision by the University of Maryland that, hey, maybe she was only 13 when the abuse started, but she was 19 by the time we found out about it, so we, as an institution, have no duty to report anything . . . at least not as one of our attorneys reads a particular legal obligation. Yeah. Go terps. Way to keep developing those scholar-athletes for the good of your academic community.

[54ny77]

well, there's always crocs. think of the marketing angle: "what a croc!"

;)

[retrogrouchy]

Keith,

As I said earlier, I think he's a prick too (I read Tyler's book also) and based on what I read there and elsewhere threats and intimidation were part of the toolset. The general point though is that all of the other "nice guys" benefited from that which allowed them to maintain both their doping programs "under the radar" and their nice guy status. I'm reasonably sure that there were lots of other dopers in the peleton who, if threatened with exposure, would have dropped their "nice guy" personas and the claws would have come out - after all they had livelihoods and reputations to protect too.

Being a prick certainly has had consequences for Lance which in the general karma sense is fair enough. It just seems to me that his punishment both in absolute and relative terms is disproportionate to that received by anybody else in cycling. As bostondrunk said, it's as though the world has made him a scapegoat for all doping that ever took place.

Really? You can defend perhaps the biggest fraud in the history of organized sport (with a straight face)? Really? Hmmm....

[retrogrouchy]

The Armstrong USADA news broke last fall. Nike almost certainly had an endorsement contract with Livestrong that was up for renewal on June 1. They also probably had signed, sealed orders from dealers for more Livestrong gear and contracts with vendors to produce it.

So this decision was very likely made within days after the USADA report went public. Honor existing contracts with vendors to produce because its cheaper than trying to get out of them. Don't let dealers get out of signed orders because they don't want to be stuck with the merchandise. Better them than Nike.

Meanwhile, publicly announce you are no longer backing the person, but you will continue to back the foundation and the cause because "it's the right thing to do." Behind the scenes do whatever it takes via social or editorial media to stoke interest in the gear--subtly urge customers to "do the right thing" and keep supporting the foundation by buying the gear. This also just happens to also help Nike clear out their backstock and be able to tell disgruntled dealers "Hey, we're helping you clear it all out" since they made them buy it in the first place.

So over the past 8 months Nike runs out heir contracts, sells off backstock with minimal losses, and cuts Livestrong loose June 1, and moves on to find whatever other sports stars will help them sell more gear of every type and make more $$.

Cynical. Exploitative. Calculated. Profitable. It's all about the $$ for Nike. It wasn't ever about anything else.

BBD

Bada-bing! Great summary. The only prick larger than LA is Phil Knight.

[PaMtbRider]

I was in a local Dick's sporting Goods today and noticed a lot of the Livestrong merchandise on the sale rack. I wonder what the change in sales, if any, of Livestrong products has been.

[gone]

Really? You can defend perhaps the biggest fraud in the history of organized sport (with a straight face)? Really? Hmmm....

Since you obviously didn't read what I wrote there's not much point in responding. Suffice to say my opinions aren't created for me by the media (nice quote (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/usada-report-reveals-lance-armstrong-as-the-greatest-fraud-in-american-sports.html) of the headlines btw). We can all relax. Cycling is clean now. They got Armstrong.

[Rueda Tropical]

It just seems to me that his punishment both in absolute and relative terms is disproportionate to that received by anybody else in cycling.

Perfectly appropriate. He was the 900lb gorilla going up and he's got to be the 900lb gorilla going down. Karma's a bitch. Now if Verbuggen and McQuaid could join him that would be even better.

If LA had given them up he would not have to had that "disproportionate" punishment.

[rugbysecondrow]

Outsiders perspective, cycling is dieing in America. Whatever prominance it held due to Lance, Livestrong, Nike is now nevermore. What major brand is going to touch the sport next?

Folks have tossed around Kobe (NBA) Tiger (Golf)...cycling couldn't even come close to comparing to those two sports in American culture.

People liked Lance and Livestrong, they never really liked cycling. They sort of had to take cycling with their love of Lance and Livestrong, but now they can ditch it without a second thought.

I am certain many cycling fans revel in the fact that they now have their niche sport back, all the bandwagon folks and Lance/yellow bracelet folks have deserted. You all have won.

[merlincustom1]

It's not so much that I want to defend Lance.....I have no doubt the guy is a douche to many people.......the problem I have is that I do in fact believe he has been unfairly singled out. I think it is ridiculous that guys like Zabriske, etc., received almost no ban. I know, Lance didn't want to talk... But still, it's like the world wants him to shoulder the responsibility of what every pro athlete has been doing for the past 50 years.
Want to ban him for life from any sport? Great. Do the same to the rest of them.

LA has not been singled out. Kirk O'Bee received a lifetime ban for two infractions, much, much less than what LA was guilty of in the reasoned decision. Facts are stubborn things.

[Elefantino]

Bada-bing! Great summary. The only prick larger than LA is Phil Knight.
Except for all the money he dumped on Oregon athletics, which makes him our prick and the money well spent.

Unless we wind up on probation, in which case many grads of the farm school to the north will start crowing.

[weiwentg]

Nike pulled sponsorship because it no longer made financial sense. They benefitted from the relationship and when that was removed so was their interest. It's always about money, morallity doesn't play into it. Livestrong is a viable charitable organization and will probably survive in a smaller form. Cancer research needs them. Lance........ who?

Don't forget: Livestrong is NOT a cancer research foundation currently. It used to. But I'm pretty sure that this was only a minority of its total operating budget, and in any case, they phased out research grants completely in 2010. They mainly provide support to cancer survivors.

Charity Navigator rates them highly, meaning that from inspection of their accounting statements (IRS Form 990s), there were no major issues like a large percent of revenues being spent on salaries or on fundraising. But Livestrong had a very incestuous corporate relationship with Lance, who profited from Livestrong's for-profit arm and from the false image that it gave him. That last bit's in the past now. Nonetheless, for me, Livestrong isn't a cause especially worth supporting. Others can make their own decisions, but remember that they are no longer a research foundation and they never were primarily a research foundation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestrong_Foundation

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/01/news/must-read-livestrong-facts-and-fiction_203023