Time to forgive and forget?

[Rhiannon]

I thought this was interesting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/33549670

If it brings in more money for cancer research then why shouldn't Armstrong be involved?

[cyberman]

I thought this was interesting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/33549670

If it brings in more money for cancer research then why shouldn't Armstrong be involved?

Because he brings the sport into disrepute.

If they had a charity "It's a knockout" event, would you recommend Stuart Hall present it on the grounds that it might raise more money for the charity?

"It's for charity" doesn't really work as an excuse to overlook all objections.

[Nearly Sane]

The number of lies and number of people Armstrong lied about makes this difficult. There are ongoing legal cases which he is still fighting which are problematic. I think the issue is do you raise money or lose money because you are associated with him.

[Rhiannon]

I know so many people touched by cancer, as I think we all do. I wouldn't want to turn down a penny.

But I think Armstrong has done some pretty despicable things. Turning to at the TdeF course is much more likely to alienate people than encourage them to dig deep. Yet Geoff Thomas has a point when he said that Armstring's determination to beat aggressive cancer is highly motivational. Is there a way back for him that doesn't involve cycling?

Maybe he hasn't shown enough contrition or awareness of the impact of what he has done to others for that.

[jeremyp]

If it brings in more money for cancer research then why shouldn't Armstrong be involved?

Are there people who would refuse to donate because Armstrong is involved?

[Nearly Sane]

There is also a real issue for Armstrong being involved in that while he raised many millions through his battle and personality, he also made many millions off that. I would worry that the money raised is offset by the money lost.

[Hope]

The situation both here in the UK and in the US (possibly in Europe too) is that the fundraising industry is going through a difficult time, what with the Olive Cooke case and the issue of cold calling that is currently being addressed by the UK Government, so charities don't really wnt to be linked to people or events that have made negative headlines.

Once the new legislation, both Governmental and industry has settled in, maybe they will feel more willing to work, to an extent, with these more controversial issues/people.

[ad_orientem]

I was a big Armstrong fan (having followed and practiced competitive cycling in my younger days). Of course I felt let down when all the doping stuff came to light but despite that I kind of still see him as a hero figure. Does that make sense? He still was a great athelete, overcame great obsticles in his career, including cancer, and I personally don't have a problem with him doing this.

[Hope]

He still was a great athelete, overcame great obticles in his career, including cancer, and I personally don't have a problem with him doing this.

The problems are more to do with his attitude to others - if the stories about his outbursts at team members are to be believed - and his willingness to lie about taking performance-enhancing drugs.  Many charities would prefer to avoid the taint to their purpose that comes with a connection to such a person.

[Udayana]

Yes, he can bring "donating to charity" into disrepute.