Lance Armstrong’s resignation from the board of the cancer charity Livestrong this week should be treated as a tragedy. Recent revelations have seen him portrayed as the biggest fraud in sport since Diego Maradona but this latest development will put sorrow on the faces of charity organisations worldwide. His stepping down to prevent the charity from suffering due to his negative perception represents the inexplicable and now irreversible blurring of celebrity image and the profile of charities. No one can deny Armstrong’s despicable behaviour in keeping the world in an elaborate ruse while he picked up seven Tour de France titles with the help of performance enhancing drugs but this proves a trivial matter in comparison to his struggle with cancer along with all the other people Livestrong has helped.
Some may argue that the bad press Livestrong has endured from elements of the fickle public is the fault of Armstrong, who made the charity his own creation and his own beast. To a certain extent this is correct, the branding of the charity being dominated by yellow, the colour of the Tour de France winner’s jersey, but one must look beyond that. He still suffered and recovered from testicular cancer, and that entitles him to project his efforts into helping people who have had similar experiences. What this represents is the superficiality of image overpowering a genuine cause, seen in the past with things such as LiveAid and the aftermath of Princess Diana’s death. So what is the solution? End celebrity affiliation with charities? This would seem the obvious solution but ignores complex cases such as with Armstrong, which has proved to be indeed a tragedy.
However at present we see a similar yet entirely different case with the horrific and largely accepted allegations placed against Jimmy Savile. Two organisations of which he was patron, The Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust and The Jimmy Savile Stoke Mandeville Hospital Trust have been forced to close, again the result of one individual overshadowing the work of the charities. With the benefit of hindsight, one can see how the link between Savile’s paedophilic tendencies and charities established to care for sick children is now untenable which adds strength to the argument that celebrities should not be affiliated with charitable organisations. Unlike Armstrong, Savile doesn’t have any credibility; the reason for which he founded charities is also ultimately the reason for his very public undoing. There is no separation between the alleged monster Savile and the philanthropist Savile, meaning that the trusts, which were thinking of continuing under a different name, now cannot. And unlike Armstrong, this issue is largely swept under the carpet with the eradication of any legacy of Jimmy Savile, ignoring the genuine work the trusts have done for the children of Yorkshire. This is a separate tragedy but one that addresses the similar conflict between charitable aims and celebrity culture.
Both the cases of Savile and Armstrong highlight how someone so celebrated can fall, taking everything they have contributed to with them. The reactionary will want to accelerate this fall, eliminating any traces of these disreputable men, neglecting the genuinely good things they have done. In the case of Savile, a moral dilemma over whether a certain charity is ‘good’ comes about, making it very hard to discuss and thus put to one side, out of the limelight. With Armstrong, he has taken the noble step to remove himself from Livestrong, tragically acknowledging the ridiculousness of distorted public perception, fed fat on celebrity culture. The solution however is not to stop celebrities from founding charitable trusts, a kneejerk reaction to current issues, but to improve the scrutiny of these organisations, who exactly establishes them and why. Charities unfortunately can no longer have a free pass; they are irreversibly part of celebrity and should thus be held to account.
Frank Kibble
exeposedev 