SUBMITTED BY: A1

ETHICS AND VALUE IN

MANAGEMENT
FINAL REPORT-ETHICS OF LANCE
ARMSTRONG

Contents
1. Abstract................................................................................................................ 1
2. Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1
3. Ethical issues and dilemma....................................................................................... 3
4. Theories and Observations....................................................................................... 4
4.1 The Doping Arms Race as Prisoners Dilemma........................................................4
4.2 Theory of cognitive dissonance and Heinz dilemma..................................................5
5. Recommendations to resolve the Dilemmas..................................................................6
6. Recommendations to avoid the recurrence of such issues................................................6
7. Conclusion............................................................................................................ 8
8. Bibliography.......................................................................................................... 9

1. Abstract
Lance Edward Armstrong (born Lance Edward Gunderson; September 18, 1971) is an
American former professional road racing cyclist. Armstrong had won the Tour de France a
(then) record seven consecutive times between 1999 and 2005 before being disqualified from
those races and banned from competitive cycling for life for doping offenses by the United
States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) in 2012. He is the founder of the Livestrong
Foundation, originally called the Lance Armstrong Foundation, which provides support for
cancer patients (Lance Armstrong, 2014). He was an absolute gem till he was caught in the
doping scam. He was a role model for millions of people who were battling cancer. He was a
source of inspiration. In America he was one of those athletes who the world would
remember for his achievements and for his work towards the establishment of cancer
foundation. But the things changed, the perception towards the athlete changed after he was
caught in the doping scam. Though his work for the social cause is remarkable, the question
would be that should the athlete be given a second chance?
Armstrong should not be given a second chance is the severity of his actions (Sivakumar,
2013). There have been many scandals regarding athletes, like Tiger Woods or sprinter Ben
Johnson that found their way into the headlines of many newspapers. You may argue that
these athletes got second chances, but the lengths Armstrong went to keep his doping ring
alive is beyond what other athletes have done.
He was the leader in his teammates doping scheme and used his power to prevent them from
telling the truth. He sued anyone who got in his path, even though he knew the truth. After all
of his ill-gotten victories, he had the spine to paint the story of a man who defeated cancer
and went on to win seven Tour de France titles (Sivakumar, 2013). He made others believe
that he was a hero, even though he wasnt.
Its clear what we all need to do. We need to show athletes that cheating doesnt work by not
giving Armstrong a second chance. This will set an example for other athletes who consider
cheating as a means for winning, and usher in a new era of sports where athletes realize the
implications of using performance enhancing drugs. Armstrongs mistake should be a lesson
for all to learn from, and the only way to learn this lesson is to not give him a second chance.
2. Introduction
Given the reality of the time during which Lance Armstrong competed i.e., in 90s where the
cyclists doped to attain the fame and glory and there was no legal authority to test the doping,
its easy to understand why he was inclined to cheat. In this light, its not his doping that
bothers us (Rishe, 2013). But what we felt unethical was, its the lying and bullying of those
that dare attempt to illuminate the truth that was considerably more sinful. He owes
considerably more apologies to the people he tried to intimidate and bully while trying to
maintain his lucrative sponsorships and his perch atop the cycling world. When we
researched the history of doping in the sport, it becomes clear why any professional cyclist
with pure intentions of racing clean in the late 1990s or thereafter could be drawn to the dark
side of the peloton.

Cyclist Lance Armstrong overcame incredible personal adversity to reach the highest levels
of success. Then, just as spectacularly, he fell from grace in a public scandal that destroyed
not only his reputation, but also the reputations of many others who had devoted themselves
to him in the end, tarnishing the entire sport of professional cycling (Blanding, 2013). When
Armstrong confessed to Oprah Winfrey in January 2013 that he had "doped" taken
performance-enhancing drugsto win his record seven consecutive Tour de France victories
from 1999 to 2005 it was a surprise for millions of people. Though the rumors and allegations
had been swirling around the cyclist for years, nothing was proved. At the peak of his career,
Armstrong was one of the most celebrated athletes in the world, earning $28 million a year
from team salaries and sponsorship deals.
The Lance Armstrong doping scandal hurt not only Armstrong's own reputation, but the
reputations of his teammates too.
More than that, Armstrong had transcended himself to become an icon, having overcome
testicular cancer and then raising nearly $400 million to fight the disease through his Lance
Armstrong Foundation which is now the Livestrong Foundation. Since 2004, the yellow
Livestrong bracelets on the wrists of his supporters had become a ubiquitous symbol of hope
and determination (Blanding, 2013).
When Armstrong chose to break the rules of professional cycling by taking illegal substances,
he did more than put his own career in jeopardyhe betrayed millions of people who
believed in him, and risked the reputations and careers of teammates in order to win personal
glory. Once he decided to cheat, it was not just about him, he needed to create the whole
infrastructure around him with the incredible organization to facilitate itched not only
indulged in doping but also forced his teammates to take up the same footsteps as he did. He
made his followersfellow riders, medical staff, and training staffto go along with his
deceptions. Armstrong's story an ideal vessel for teaching lessons about business ethics and
leadership. Despite its emphasis on individual heroes, cycling is very much a team sport, one
where the team supports the leader and works for his success. Riders help shield their leader
from other cyclists in tight packs, draft in front of him to reduce wind resistance during
climbs, and chase down rivals who break from the group. So when Armstrong decided to
dope, he required other riders to dope as well to match his escalating performance level, and
the rest of the support team to facilitate the doping and manage the cover-up to achieve
victory.
He was never alone. By the 1990s, doping in the sport had become widespread and common.
Of the top three finishers in the seven years Armstrong won the Tour de France, 20 out of 21
of them had doped at some point in their careers.
When asked about the doping, Lance admitted that because doping was so widespread in the
sport, the action was a necessary evil. "The definition of 'cheat' is to gain an advantage on a
rival or foe that they don't have. He also told he didn't view it that way but instead he viewed
it as a level playing field. This meant that he took the performance enhancing drugs
knowingly to have a competitive advantage over others.

In the United States for the average person, he is the only cyclist you know, so his downfall
carries with it the weight of an entire sport. That wasnt the case in sports like baseball in
which you certainly had fallings, people like Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds whose legacies
are forever marked because the sport isnt so focused on just one person.
But there is also the additional element of how Armstrong denied these charges for so long.
And even if he didnt outright say he wasnt doping, he had said hed been tested and it didnt
show he was certainly being misleading about it and violating not only the rules of the sport
but also basic ethical standards by allegedly lying and cheating.
Armstrongs biographical narrative that he had cancer then fought back with strength,
willpower and effort was the crucial basis for his foundation, which focuses on adversity and
recovery powered by those same characteristics. Because these cheating charges are so
counter to the narrative built around Armstrong and the central message of Livestrong, it
makes them feel even more wrong and undercuts the foundations credibility, even as it does
worthwhile work.
Its troubling how these two sides of his career are linked. Its not like he was being deceptive
and cheating in his athletic career but his charity was completely independent of that. Again,
the power of the Livestrong message is in part based on Lance Armstrongs accomplishments
as an athlete, done through effort, perseverance and strength of will their desire to get their
money back.
3. Ethical issues and dilemma
How should we feel about an athlete who cheated to achieve fame and glory in the era where
there wasnt a legal authority to test doping, but who also has been remarkably charitable?
Such is the case with Lance Armstrong, the one-time winner of seven Tour de France cycling
races. Unfortunately for him, the Tour itself, and fans of both, Armstrongs wins were ill
begotten. He cheated; he used performance enhancing drugs in each of the seven years that he
won the race.
Its natural to condemn an athlete for taking an unfair advantage over his or her opponents.
He violated the rules as well as basic moral principles. But if he used the fame and fortune
that he gained from his supposed accomplishments for the betterment of society, should
we let him off the hook? (Lieber, 2012) Should we say that it doesnt matter how he
accumulated the money since much of it has gone to a worthy cause? Should we also give
him a break on his cheating because cycling is a sport in which a competitor can justify
using performance enhancing drugs because everyone else is using them too?
Here the American people are the real winners from the Armstrong saga because they have
generally been able to see it clearly and they have the benefits of all the work that he has
done to increase cancer awareness in the United States and beyond. The Americans are
referred here because it was Lance who created an awareness with his foundation that a
disease of cancer sort can be treated effectively with a foundation which was a charity
foundation. Also no foundation in the past was this effective as the Livestrong did.

When Armstrong was twenty-five years old, he was diagnosed as having stage three testicular
cancer. It spread to his lungs, abdomen and brain. Armstrong chose an alternative treatment to
avoid additional lung toxicity. If he was going to recover sufficiently to resume his cycling
career, he needed to take special care of his lungs. Fortunately for him the treatment at
the University of Indiana in Indianapolis cured his several cancers.
Even if Armstrong was taking performance-enhancing drugs, his performance at the Tour de
France, other cycling events, marathons, and in several triathlons was remarkable. Like
athletes in other sports who have taken various forms of illegal drugs such as baseball player
Mark McGwire, Armstrong put himself through exceptional rigorous training regimens.
In June, 2012, Armstrong was charged by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency with using
performance-enhancing drugs. In October he was found guilty of the charges and stripped of
his seven championships in the Tour.
But while Armstrong was winning the Tour from 1999-2005 and in the years since, he
established the Lance Armstrong Foundation and its Livestrong program to raise awareness
of cancer and to support research and care for patients. Since its inception, Livestrong has
raised over $250 million for its cause. Lance was one of the highest earning athletes in the
world earning up to $20 million per year from endorsements and prize money. In retirement
Lance has continued to earn roughly $15 million per year from speaking engagements, public
appearance fees and sponsorships. During his interview with Oprah Winfrey in January 2013,
Lance estimated that the loss of endorsement deals from this scandals will cost him a
minimum of $75 million over the next few years.
When Armstrong was found guilty of using illegal drugs while cycling, he resigned from all
positions that he held with Livestrong. He said that he did not want his travails to reflect upon
the foundation and its work (Lieber, 2012). Currently Livestrong is reorganizing its
governance and planning to proceed without Armstrong. It is hoped that despite the scandal
that has shrouded Armstrong the Foundation will continue to receive its level of donations
and will be able to continue with all of its work.
So is Armstrong both a heroic athlete and a charitable person? This is not an easy dilemma to
reconcile.
4. Theories and Observations
4.1 The Doping Arms Race as Prisoners Dilemma
Athletes, cyclists will continue to dope because the Prisoners Dilemma forces them to do so
(Schneier, 2006).Sports authorities will either improve their detection capabilities or continue
to pretend to do so, because they depend on fans and associated revenues. And as technology
continues to improve, professional athletes will become more like deliberately designed
racing cars.
In this context lets consider Lance and his competitors, who deciding whether to take drugs
or not. Lance thinks:

If my competitors dont take any drugs, then it will be in my best interest to take
them. They will give me a performance edge against my competitors. I have a better
chance of winning.
Similarly, if my competitors take drugs, its also in my interest to agree to take them.
At least that way my competitors wont have an advantage over me.
So even though I have no control over what my competitors chooses to do, taking
drugs gives me the better outcome, regardless of their action.

Unfortunately, the competitors go through exactly the same analysis. As a result, they both
take performance-enhancing drugs and neither has the advantage over the other. If they could
just trust each other, they could refrain from taking the drugs and maintain the same nonadvantage status, without any legal or physical danger.
But competing athletes cant trust each other, and everyone feels he or she has to dope
continuing to search out newer and increasingly undetectable drugs so they can compete. And
the race continues. The main dilemma here has been an athlete thinking that everybody are
doping. If I dont then the others who dope will have a competitive advantage over us and
they will succeed. The other side is that if I dope then there are every chance that I am better
than the fellow competitors and I have a greater chance to win the title because I have taken
up the performance enhancing drugs.

4.2 Theory of cognitive dissonance and Heinz dilemma

There has been a psychological theory of cognitive dissonance, and how sports figures often
put us in perplexing positions when they mess up. On one hand, we admire their great talents
and abilities, but on the other hand we must sort out in our minds that they are the same
people who sometimes screw up and screw up badly, as Lance Armstrong did. Cancer
survivors who feel Live Strong gave them the support to press on and beat cancer are
especially vulnerable to the cognitive dissonance currently associated with Lance
Armstrong, as they must now accept the fact that Live Strong really only existed
because of Armstrongs fame, the fame that was built entirely upon a house of lies
(Stankovich, 2013). Still, to each their own when it comes to whether or not to continue
being a fan of Lance Armstrong.
In an attempt to minimize cognitive dissonance, people are offering various excuses, alibis,
and rationalizations about what Armstrong did. Some of the things we regularly hear today
include:
So what, he cheated in bike racing just like everyone else did
I dont care if he cheated, his contributions toward helping people with cancer easily
offset the ways in which he achieved these goals. This is true according to
utilitarianism theory as well which says
Hes not such a bad guy since he is now coming clean with the truth
Theres a great moral dilemma psychologists often use when teaching about the complexities
of making sound moral decisions its called the Heinz dilemma by Lawrence Kohlberg.

Would you steal a drug if you didnt have the money but by stealing it you would save your
spouses life? That is, in essence, the main question pertaining to the Heinz dilemma.
5. Recommendations to resolve the Dilemmas
Some people are so driven by the need to prove something that they'll do whatever it takes to
win. It's a powerful motivator in lots of successful people. And sometimes, they cross a line.
For others, ethics and morals are a really big deal. They simply won't cross that line no matter
what. We think these two groups of people are at opposing ends of the bell curve, and
everyone in the middle has some aspects of both extremes.
There is a fundamental spiritual component in every professionals life. Neglecting
spirituality comes with serious consequences. In this context, spiritual does not mean
religious, but rather a sense of self and how it contributes to an organizations corporate
culture. The motivation factor becomes a huge difference in anybodys life. If a person is not
motivated, then it really doesnt matter what the government policies are and whatever the
internal protocol is. As long as professionals are not encouraged to look into personal nature
of ethics in their lives, businesses can expect scandals and non-ethical issues. If some safety
measures are also put into place that can also act as a problem, and may negatively impact
profits, morale, productivity, or employee turnover
What drives people to do unethical things? Its easy to talk about Armstrongs ego. A healthy
ego that slips into a super-ego is a form of delusion and insecurity. However, there is the
potential for everyone to be just like him on a smaller level when career or societys
perceptions of success are permitted to define an individuals personhood. Solitude is one of
several ways every busy professional has at his or her disposal to stay grounded (Jesep,
2013). Theologian Henri Nouwen wrote solitude is the place where our aloneness can bear
fruit. It is the home for our restless bodies and anxious minds. Solitude, whether it is
connected with a physical space or not, is essential for our spiritual lives. It is not an easy
place to be, since we are so insecure and fearful that we are easily distracted by whatever
promises immediate satisfaction. He further reflected, Solitude is not immediately
satisfying, because in solitude we meet our demons, our addictions, our feelings of lust and
anger, and our immense need for recognition and approval. Armstrong never found solitude.
The cyclist didnt acknowledge his demons until their mounting damage could no longer be
denied.
Professional ethics have limited value if they are detached from the individual. They should
never be viewed as merely rules followed in the workplace. Too often ethics are
compartmentalized. They must be integrated into the individuals understanding of him- or
herself and outlook on life. Ethics training and seminars often overlook the need for
wholeness. If Lance Armstrong had disciplined himself to find solitude with the same passion
as he trained as a cyclist, chances are he may have asked the right questions about priorities
and behaved differently.

6. Recommendations to avoid the recurrence of such issues

Clean athletes need to step up and speak out about competing clean because some
athletes buy into the myth that all athletes in their sport are doping and use it as a
rationale or justification for their decision to dope. The main theme of this is that we
shouldnt go much by what others follow unethically. Be true to one self and take an
ethical path. May be in a short run we may not see the success but by the virtue of
hard work it definitely earns us the success. Its a real shame when you have to hand
over the titles won after one is caught in a scam.
Sport governing bodies, cannot be left to police doping within their sport. Test
planning, sample collection and results management must be outsourced to an
independent anti-doping organization. Sport organizations that carry out their own
anti-doping work in-house are fraught with conflicts of interest.
Investigations are very effective in catching dope cheats. Whether its police and other
public authorities providing information to anti-doping agencies or eye witness sworn
testimony from athletes and others within the athletes entourage.
Corporate sponsors should build significant financial penalty clauses for doping into
their agreements with athletes. As the sponsors would be paying these sporting
athletes a huge amount, they should come to an agreement in the beginning to be
scam free till the contract if off. If the sporting celebrities are caught in the scam then
the agreement should be such that they should pay back the sponsors a huge financial
penalty.
Doping is an ethical issue. It is about making the right choice. We need to make sure
that in sport, the easy choice for an athlete is to not dope. The lure of fame and fortune
and the willing support of doctors, trainers and other hangers-on made the doping
choice the easy choice for Lance. Here in the case of Lance, it would be impossible
for Lance alone to just take the performance enhancing drugs to achieve the feat.
There was equal support from the whole crew members. The whole team was
unethical. Thus it is important to have a crew who believes in moral values and are
against the doping.
A strong foundation of values, built from an athletes earliest sport experiences, is the
ultimate defence against doping in sport.

7. Conclusion
There are two Lances in this story and are currently outspoken against a bigger and more
contemporary Lance who, for the past several years has truly devoted himself to cancer
advocacy, and we are outspoken against the Lance Armstrong Foundation, Livestrong and the
company partners who also promote cancer advocacy (KELLEHER, 2012). We have to be
very thoughtful about our position and its impact in the lives of real patients. We arent sure if
we are on the right and moral side of anything. The two Lances we are speaking about
are both great and unbeatable. One is seen as a cyclist who created history by winning the 7
tour de France titles and the other is the great man who did an absolute work for the social
cause by setting up the charity foundation for the cancer patients in the name of Livestrong.
The foundation was set up during the time when the Americans had a different view about the
deadly disease cancer. He changed the perception in the people about the life after cancer.
The world of sport and cycling and triathlon is a very small one and means very little to
patients facing their mortality and their families and friends. These people dont need Lance
to have 7 Tour de France titles. But they do need advocacy. There has never been one
foundation or one man who has done more for the public face of cancer advocacy than the
Lance Armstrong Foundation and Lance himself (KELLEHER, 2012). If you throw out the
baby with the bathwater here and cant see the bigger picture- then your opinion about
Lance might say more about your own moral compass than his.
Ultimately the lessons we learnt are that winning at all costs is not winning at all. Winning is
only winning when we do it ethically, honestly, humbly and with integrity. And if we want to
feel proud of our success we need to start by ensuring we have an environment where people
can speak up about ethical concerns. Such a culture might well have saved companies from
Libor, phone hacking, PPI, horse meat and many other accidents and scandals.

And finally a word of praise on Lance Armstrong is that "LIVESTRONG".

8. Bibliography
Blanding, M. (2013, December 18). Lessons from the Lance Armstrong Cheating
Scandal. Retrieved from Harvard Business School:
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/7308.html
Jesep, P. (2013, January 21). Ethics and solitude: lessons from Lance Armstrong.
Retrieved from Examiner.com: http://www.examiner.com/article/ethicsand-solitude-lessons-from-lance-armstrong
KELLEHER, N. (2012, September 21). What if how we approach the story of
Lance Armstrong has more to do with our own moral development than it
does with his? Retrieved from NICOLE KELLEHER - Wordpress:
http://nicolekelleher.com/2012/09/21/what-if-how-we-approach-the-storyof-lance-armstrong-has-more-to-do-with-our-own-moral-development-thanit-does-with-his/
Lance Armstrong. (2014, March 2014). Retrieved from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong
Lieber, A. (2012, November 30). Lance Armstrong: A moral dilemma for all of us.
Retrieved from OCCASIONAL PLANET:
http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2012/11/30/lance-armstrong-a-moraldilemma-for-all-of-us/
Rishe, P. (2013, January 15). Lance Armstrong, Prisoner's Dilemma, and Why
Lying & Bullying is Worse Than Doping. Retrieved from Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2013/01/15/lance-armstrong-prisonersdilemma-and-why-lying-bullying-is-worse-than-doping/
Schneier, B. (2006, August 10). Drugs: Sports' Prisoner's Dilemma. Retrieved
from WIRED:
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2006/
08/71566?currentPage=all
Sivakumar, R. (2013, February 21). Teaching the cheater a lesson. Retrieved from
BVN News - Head to Head: Does Lance Armstrong deserve a second
chance?: http://www.bvnnews.com/opinion/2013/02/21/head-to-head-doeslance-armstrong-deserve-a-second-chance/
Stankovich, D. C. (2013, January 15). Chalk Talk - Lance Armstrong: Case of a
Moral Dilemma. Retrieved from The Sports Doc:
http://blog.drstankovich.com/lance-armstrong-case-of-a-moral-dilemma/