Lance Armstrong’s Reputation Is Forever Tainted

Over at Forbes, PR executive Aaron Kwittken asks, “Did Lance Armstrong Make The Right PR Call?”   

Regarding the superstar athlete’s decision not to continue arbitration with the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) over doping allegations, Kwittken (a fan of Armstrong and CEO/Founder of Kwittken & Co. Worldwide) states: “In my more than two decades of experience dealing with executives and organizations facing similar lose-lose scenarios, I think Lance knew that whatever path he chose would inevitably result in a career-ending, painful finish. He just had to decide if he wanted this to be an endurance race (fight and lose) or a sprint (surrender early but still lose).”

Noting that PR also stands for “personal record” in the cycling world, Kwittken writes, “Ultimately, he likely made the right call from a PR perspective to stave off further short-term brand agony, but his reputation is irreparable regardless in the lose-lose race created by his own hand.”

Armstrong took much into account when making his decision. As Kwittken notes, in addition to his reputation and record, the fate of Armstrong’s extremely visible cancer foundation (a key component of his brand) also hangs in the balance. And then there are the threats of future litigation and loss of endorsements and his fan base.

I agree with Kwittken that Lance Armstrong’s reputation has suffered permanent damage.  No matter the strength or weakness of USADA’s case against Armstrong, and in spite of Armstrong’s insistence that he did not wish to continue to participate in an unfair process, his decision has been seen by many as an admission of guilt. 

All the public sees is a famous athlete who has “stopped fighting charges” that he used illegal performance-enhancing substances during his cycling career. The truth is that Armstrong is not admitting he is guilty of having taken banned substances; he just feels the USADA arbitration process is stacked against him. However, most news consumers do not read beyond a headline and rely on short sound bites.

Armstrong should have mounted a robust PR campaign to convey exactly why he felt the USADA arbitration process was unfair. For whatever reason, he has not. From a PR perspective, he should have done more than issue a statement.

Kwittken is right.  In the short term, Armstrong may indeed have made the right PR call in a lose-lose situation, but his record – as an athlete and as a brand – has been forever tainted.