From the Director...



Dr. Daniel Wueste



“A Poster Boy for Cheating”

According to Time’s Bill Saporito that — “a poster boy for cheating"— is what Lance Armstrong has become. We knew him as a world-class cyclist (winner of the Tour de France—seven consecutive times, 1999-2005), cancer survivor, philanthropist, and co-founder of Livestrong, an organization that fights to “improve the lives of people affected by cancer.”  The New York Times reports that "...The decision to waive the right to take Armstrong’s case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the highest court in sports, formally strips Armstrong of the Tour titles he won from 1999-2005. The Amaury Sport Organization, the company that organizes the Tour de France, will erase Armstrong’s name from its record books..."

Armstrong also lost a “major endorsement deal with Nike –-once worth millions of dollars,” and his association with Anheuser-Busch will expire with his contract at the end of this year.  According to CNN, both Nike and Anheuser-Busch will “continue to support Livestrong and its initiatives.”   That is encouraging, though an expert interviewed by CNN, Howard Bragman, vice chairman of online reputation management firm Reputation.com, said “the future of Livestrong is uncertain.”  Bragman went on, noting that, with the loss of his cycling titles, endorsements and so on, “it doesn't get any worse than this…possibly the worst thing of all,” he said, is the “public humiliation." (ibid.)

There’s a lot to think about in this case.  Given the success and very good reputation of Livestrong, it’s tempting to focus on a general question about situations in which, so to say, bad people do good things: does/should the disrepute of an organization’s public face tarnish the organization or detract in any way from the good it has done and can do?   It’s a good question and it is certainly worth discussing.  But I’d like to focus attention on something else, something that jumped off the page, as it were, as I read about this case, namely, the code of silence that, along with elaborate schemes that thwarted drug tests

—Armstrong, we’re told, never failed a drug test— allowed Armstrong and others to cheat, i.e., engage in doping, with impunity. 

Recognizing the power of cycling’s omerta, indeed seeing its undoing as “a huge leap forward” that allows sport to be something that “teaches values, ethics, [and] dedication to a larger goal” (Time), ought to be a prompt for us to a turn an eye to the relationships internal to the businesses and organizations that sustain us and hold the lion’s share of the promise for our future.  I say this because, as a moment of honest reflection will confirm, such codes of silence are not confined to sport.

That others “have our back” is a good thing; it’s a way in which the value of loyalty plays out in real life.  But this value, like any value, can conflict with others, such as truth or justice.  It’s not always clear which value ought to carry the day.  That’s why ethical dilemmas are real and significant challenges for those who strive to be women and men of integrity.  However, and this is the reason to be turning an eye to the inside, as it were, an omerta, prevents recognition of the value conflict —loyalty wins, full stop— and that, as the Armstrong case shows, has ethically unacceptable consequences that are far reaching.   Taking time to (a) identify and discuss the value commitments that come with being part of something larger than oneself, such as a business, university, profession or sport, for example, and (b) to consider their limits (just how far should one go in having another’s back?) we will be better positioned to forestall the development of an omerta that can jeopardize the chances of success in our work together within a business or other organization.

Your comments on what I have said here, as well as anything else that appears in Issues and Perspectives, are welcome. 

We appreciate your interest in and support of the Rutland Institute for Ethics.