Comments on: Update: Lance Armstrong Resigns as Chairman of LIVESTRONG Foundation

By: Special Report: Lance Armstrong Confesses, Finally | Michael Rosen Says…

Thu, 24 Jan 2013 08:16:12 +0000

[...] “Update: Lance Armstrong Resigns as Chairman of LIVESTRONG Foundation“ [...]

By: Update: Lance Armstrong Resigns from LIVESTRONG | Michael Rosen Says…

Update: Lance Armstrong Resigns from LIVESTRONG | Michael Rosen Says… — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 02:04:37 +0000

[...] Update: Lance Armstrong Resigns as Chairman of LIVESTRONG Foundation [...]

By: Michael J. Rosen, CFRE

Michael J. Rosen, CFRE — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 22:32:50 +0000

Eric, you wrote, “In many way, the standards are much higher for nonprofits compared to for-profit organizations.” I agree with you. That’s one of the reasons I get annoyed when some folks blindly suggest that nonprofits should operate more like for-profits. I always respond with something snarky like, “Oh, you mean like Enron, AIG, and Goldman-Sachs?” While both sectors can certainly learn from each other, there are some things best left alone.

By: Eric Streiff

Eric Streiff — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:03:11 +0000

Yes, its a tight-rope for most nonprofits. And the bigger you are the more you have to manage your reputation. In many ways the standards are much higher for nonprofits compared to for-profit organizations.

By: Michael J. Rosen, CFRE

Michael J. Rosen, CFRE — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 06:21:49 +0000

Brian, thank you for sharing your thoughts. While I agree that Armstrong is technically just one voice on the board, I suggest that that voice is a big, booming one. Given who he is, the fact that he founded the organization, and the likelihood he helped recruit at least some of the members of the board, Armstrong likely has disproportionate power. This is one reason that his continuing relationship with the organization is such a big issue.

By: Michael J. Rosen, CFRE

Michael J. Rosen, CFRE — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 06:16:51 +0000

Eric, thank you for your comments. Some folks think it is enough for nonprofit to do no wrong. Those folks are incorrect. Nonprofits must also avoid even the appearance that they might have done something wrong. Nonprofit organizations depend on the public trust. When trust is tainted, it's only a matter of time before the organization begins to feel some pain.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:26:17 +0000

I don’t really know where I stand on this anymore. I’ve been a believer of Lance through this whole thing, but I suppose evidence is evidence, and that being the case, I suppose it’s best to step down. I’m surprised he stayed on the board, and think he probably should remove himself from that as well, but it’s not like he has complete power, he’s merely one of the voices now.

By: Eric Streiff

Eric Streiff — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:09:59 +0000

I think this whole situation, and other celebrity driven endorsed charities or commercial products, can and will continue to be ticking time bombs for many organizations. It’s all good while its good. But the bigger they are the harder they fall. And in this case, I believe Lance waited too long to step out of the lime-light. It taints the whole organization regardless of the reality of his innocence or guilt. For a charity there is nothing more sacred than honesty and integrity. And when the founder or leader demonstrates the exact opposite of these principles it sheds an extremely poor light on the charity. In my opinion….

By: Michael J. Rosen, CFRE

Michael J. Rosen, CFRE — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 20:29:16 +0000

Heather, thank you for your comment. For me, the Armstrong doping scandal is about much more than doping. The scandal, while certainly involving the doping issue, also involves lies, cheating, defamation, and self-interest. While much remains uncertain at this point, one thing is clear: the scandal won’t be going away anytime soon.

By: Michael J. Rosen, CFRE

Michael J. Rosen, CFRE — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 20:23:34 +0000

Keith, thank you for sharing your thoughts. When it comes to moral values and judgment, I don’t believe there has ever been a time when opinion has been unanimous. Consider the downfall of U.S. President Richard Nixon. Approximately nine months prior to his resignation in August 1974, Nixon still enjoyed the approval of 27 percent of Americans according to a Gallup Poll reported by CBS News. So, I’m not at all surprised that public opinion about Armstrong is divided.

In you comment, you wrote, “The foundation will do what it thinks best…” My concern is: Will the Foundation do what it thinks best for Lance Armstrong or for the people served by the Foundation? I hope it is the latter.