Sponsors bungle Lance Armstrong scandal

Nike, Ab Inbev and Radioshack’s brands are strong enough to withstand negative headlines about u-turns and back-peddling but their decision to drop Lance Armstrong a week after backing him does send out mixed messages to the public.

Lance Armstrong’s sponsors bungle their handling of the scandal surrounding the former cyclist champion but are strong enough to handle the negative headlines.

Being charitable, it could be argued the trio took a week to come to a considered decision rather than opting for a knee-jerk reaction in the hope of tapping into the prevailing mood of disappointment among the public over Armstrong’s indiscretions. At worst, the move paints a picture of vacillating brands that reacted slowly, catching up with the court of public opinion a week later than everyone else.

The latter more likely the case. It is pretty standard practice for sponsors to put out an initial ‘holding’ statement when any sort of crisis develops involving athletes, teams or competitions. However, in the case of Nike and AB Inbev, their efforts a week ago where meagre. Both simply copied, pasted and sent press statements originally sent in August last week when asked for comment from journalists following the USADA’s latest damning allegations.

A week on, what exactly changed? Not the evidence against Armstrong, which could not have gotten any more damaging than it was. What did change is that Nike et al realised they were being viewed as standing by a man that pretty much everyone had decided was a cheat.

Nike has been in situations like this before, which makes last week’s move even more puzzling. The business has traditionally been very slow to exercise morality clauses with their troubled athletes – standing squarely behind Tiger Woods after the golfer was found to a serial philanderer, for example. However, it demonstrated ruthlessness in stark contrast to its actions of the last week when it axed US sprinter Marion Jones in 2007 for using banned substances. Such actions demonstrate that Nike’s views doping as one of the cardinal sins of sport.

Francis Ingham, the director general of PR body the PRCA, says the actions of the sponsors in question was either an “act of unbelievable trust – at worst – utter casualness”.

I’d lean towards the latter. The three bungled it. Plain and simple.

Latest from Marketing Week


Access Marketing Week’s wealth of insight, analysis and opinion that will help you do your job better.

Register and receive the best content from the only UK title 100% dedicated to serving marketers' needs.

We’ll ask you just a few questions about what you do and where you work. The more we know about our visitors, the better and more relevant content we can provide for them. And, yes, knowing our audience better helps us find commercial partners too. Don't worry, we won't share your information with other parties, unless you give us permission to do so.

Register now


Our award winning editorial team (PPA Digital Brand of the Year) ask the big questions about the biggest issues on everything from strategy through to execution to help you navigate the fast moving modern marketing landscape.


From the opportunities and challenges of emerging technology to the need for greater effectiveness, from the challenge of measurement to building a marketing team fit for the future, we are your guide.


Information, inspiration and advice from the marketing world and beyond that will help you develop as a marketer and as a leader.

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3703 or email customerservices@marketingweek.com

If you are looking for our Jobs site, please click here