The Invisible Hand of Armstrong's Marketability

Like the corporate abandonment of Tiger Woods, Armstrong now watches a list of his career-long sponsors flee, including Nike and Oakley.

But the corporate and cancer advocacy worlds both were eager to align themselves with Armstrong as he built his image as cancer-surviving Tour de France champion: Nike, Oakley, Giro, Livestrong, Versus (now NBC Sports), Trek.

A few, like cycling journalist Neil Browne, have confronted the stark and ugly reality surrounding the rise and fall of Armstrong.

The facts are that Armstrong became the sport of professional cycling. Huge corporations, media outlets, cancer foundations, and the Tour de France itself benefitted greatly, and financially, from the Armstrong myth.

And the extensive list of cyclists confessing to doping alongside Armstrong have accumulated great wealth also.

While everyone who was dishonest has only him- or herself to blame for those decisions, let's not ignore the inherent flaw of monetizing everything.

The inherent flaws of competition and the interests served by the Invisible Hand of the Free Market.

Capitalism has no mechanism for the ethical—except for the conscience of those serving it.

In fact, simply looking at the Armstrong phenomenon in purely market terms, a tremendous amount of capital was generated and a large number of people benefited directly and indirectly from the sham.

And in the ledger sheet of market ideology, the losses probably were far fewer than the gains (if we can see people and their careers as only data points).

The strong-arm tactics of the Armstrong machine are real-world examples of the Invisible Hand at work.

Yes, He Cheated, But...

Two moments stick with me, one from my teaching career and one from a commercial about cancer research.

Years ago, I was joking with students about a local university football player signing a professional contract in the NFL. The focus of the joke was to raise concerns about the academic success of the player and the academic quality of the university.

Although I was genuinely just goading the students who I knew were die-hard fans of the university, one student said very calmly, "Well, he makes more money than you."

And there it was: Money trumped everything else.

A few years ago, I was at home and struck by a cancer research commercial that made a direct claim that if we simply had more money we would cure cancer. I had heard that dozens of times before, but on that day I wondered: Why does it take money to do something that we should do, if we can do it?

It is at the intersections of these two experiences that how people respond to Armstrong's situation reveals the failure of the Market, the failure of monetizing things that transcend money.

"Yes, he may have cheated," Armstrong advocates say, "but his cancer work meant so much to so many and Live Strong has been unmatched in its ability to raise money for cancer research."

The ends justify the means.

That shield and the shield of marketability were cover Armstrong counted on, believed in, and thrived behind for many years. It simply would cost too many powerful people too much money to unmask Armstrong. And for a long time, that was true.

But only because we have made the decision that it takes money for truly important human needs that should not be monetized.

In the midst of enormous capital, people die of cancer, and children live in poverty.

In fact, without the threat of cancer and the threat of poverty, the urgency the market requires might dissipate.

The Armstrong story unmasks the rugged individualism myth, but it could also give us the opportunity to reconsider our faith in the Invisible Hand of Corporate America.

We must acknowledge that Nike and Oakley are in retreat because the Armstrong revelations hurt their bottom dollar. Corporate moralizing is PR—a way to monetize Armstrong's fall after milking his rise for all they could.

The bottom line is the current le Patron of our lives, and it deserves none of our respect and a great deal of our disdain.

Like Neil Browne (@neilroad), I am unimpressed with the confessions, I am also skeptical of the corporate sponsors' moralizing, and I am puzzled by those who remain steadfast behind Armstrong.

There's a long list of people and corporations who are not surrendering the cash they've accumulated or sought to restore the lives and careers they have damaged.

Ironically, it would take money to do that, and it seems unlikely that will happen any more quickly than the cure for cancer that appears out of our cash-strapped reach.