Launched in 2003 as an online resource for cancer survivors, the charity achieved global brand recognition a year later by adopting a yellow wristband as its hallmark, a concept Armstrong jointly developed with his sponsor Nike.
The rubber bracelets quickly became a fashion accessory and spawned a wave of imitations in different colors from other charities.
Livestrong’s branding, however, had a special resonance for the public — the man wearing them on launch day had won the Tour de France multiple times since overcoming the disease.
But, with the cyclist’s reputation now languishing in the sporting arena and up against merciless scrutiny in the court of public opinion, experts say the charity he inspired faces a choice: speak up or stay silent?
“Lance Armstrong has gone from being Livestrong’s biggest asset to being their biggest liability,” said Sol Levine, a director at Qorvis Communications, a Washington-based public relations firm.
“They have to take care not to have him as their frontman, but it would also be a mistake to actively dissociate themselves.”
Livestrong evolved from The Lance Armstrong Foundation — which by name alone was more closely associated with the cyclist — though the two organizations are considered synonymous.
In the last nine years, however, Livestrong has developed its own brand: Armstrong does not feature on its website home page and its most prominent messages concern upcoming events and detail how people’s donations are spent.
For that reason, Armstrong’s personal troubles are not something Livestrong should address unless it is forced to, said Levine, whose employers specialize in reputation management.
“Livestrong did a lot to break taboos about cancer — the yellow band was a landmark and the organization is operating under its own power,” he said. “I don’t think Livestrong is damaged, but Lance Armstrong is no longer an asset.”
Armstrong decided not to contest the USADA’s charges and his lawyer said the probe was “pre-determined,” and “they were out to get Lance.” But the cyclist has unquestionably lost backing from those who once looked up to him.
“It’s so depressing because of the guy’s books he wrote that were inspirational to people with cancer, and his cancer charity on one side doing so many positive things. Then you find out this,” Sir Chris Hoy, the six-time Olympic gold medalist, said on Thursday.
So far though, Livestrong has stood back from the controversy. On Wednesday, when the USADA published its dossier, Doug Ulman, the charity’s CEO and president, appeared to be following the guidance to stay silent on Armstrong.
“We’ve got big plans to celebrate 15 yrs of serving survivors. Join us — Oct. 18-21!” he wrote on Twitter referring to the charity’s anniversary.
But given that a Google news search using the terms “Lance Armstrong” and “doping” was generating 51,400 hits at 1500 GMT on Thursday, the appetite for the story may soon envelop the charity, and require a more aggressive response.
Chris Edwards, the owner of Reputation Saviors, which specializes in combating negative publicity circulated on the Internet, said if attention moves to the charity’s own actions, they will have no option but to reply.
“Right now, they are running with it, but when the entire news media starts to report something it is very difficult situation to combat,” said Edwards, who is based in Orlando, Florida.
“If that happens to Livestrong they will have to do something. You can’t just not answer back.”