Sad, bitter end for Livestrong Sporting Park
Yael T. AbouhalkahThe sudden end to Livestrong’s relationship with Sporting KC on Tuesday turned out to be a bitter and sad affair.
Unfortunately, the episode also created a nationally reported wave of bad publicity for Sporting KC and Livestrong.
Whom to believe: Livestrong or Sporting KC?
Livestrong accused Sporting KC of not contributing the agreed amounts of money to the organization, as worked out by the two “partners” when the new soccer stadium in Kansas City, Kan., was named “Livestrong Sporting Park” a few years ago.
Sporting KC officials fired back, saying they had made the required contributions and accusing Livestrong officials of not dealing in good faith to keep the pact alive.
Of course, the recent problems of Livestrong will help plenty of people in Kansas City take the hometown soccer team’s side in this dispute. After all, Livestrong was founded by the now-disgraced Lance Armstrong.
Still, as I wrote earlier Tuesday before the partnership publicly imploded, I thought it made lots of sense for Sporting KC and Livestrong to continue their relationship. Livestrong benefits the fight against cancer, and Sporting KC had bought into that fight, too, with its stadium agreement.
That contract was supposed to funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars over at least six years to Livestrong. It was an unusual relationship; usually the groups that get their names on sports stadiums have to pay for that privilege, not benefit from it.
But the end of that arrangement came in a depressing hail of attacks on each other through the media.
George Hunsucker
Northland
4 months, 1 week agoshould be pretty easy to determine if the soccer club did or did not pay. Maybe they will release the records to clear-the-air.
If they do not, then I think I know which side is telling the truth……
Matt Henry
4 months, 1 week agoMaybe the contrast between yesterday’s opinion, today’s news stories, and your “oops” piece today shows that, for the most part, you have no idea what you are talking about when you pontificate on a subject, at least no more than most of us do.
Phil Cardarella
4 months, 1 week agoSounds like they just decided to weasal out of a deal that did not seem as great PR as before. The charity still does good work, even if Lance proved untrue.
Gotta say, I really do not get it.
OK, so he cheated.
And, by cheating, turned a sport unknown outside a few cycle-nerds in half a dozen European countries into a multi-billion dollar world-wide industry and an activity that improves the health of millions.
And, by cheating, he raised millions of dollars for and brought to public awareness the need to cure a serious disease. Oh, and he gave hope to so many who needed it.
Sure, he made a bunch of money for himself. And he got the reward of celebrity. And, now, he gets the disgrace.
Got to say: I just wish the guys in charge had let it be. Yes, it may well have been stolen glory. And the guys who came in second may not have cheated — I suppose they will be looked at as closely as Lance. (Yeah, right!) But, the world needs heroes, folks. And the fact is, all heroes have feet of clay. Men who wrote movingly about human freedom who owned slaves. Men who went ashore on D-Day to save the world who occasionally murdered helpless German POWs.
When you go see Les Miz? Spoiler alert: Javert is NOT the hero. Sometimes it is better just to let things — and people — lie.
Matt Henry
4 months, 1 week agoThe reason, of course, is that Livestrong is synonymous with Armstrong, who is now the worst kind of cheater. He’s the “I’m offended you would even think that”, wag his finger in your face, “oh woe is me I am so persecuted”, “I would never beat cancer then put that crap in my body” kind of a cheater. Like it or not, Sporting has to sell tickets, and the last thing they want is to be married to a tarnished brand, which is what Livestrong is, fairly or not.
The ends do not justify the means. He’s Nixon on steroids, a cover-up artist who would still be telling us how wonderful he is were he not pinned to a wall.
I hope he does truly seek redemption, gets a couple of silver candlesticks and makes a real difference in the world. I’m afraid, however, that when he realizes his life’s quest lay in ruin that he might end up in the Seine instead.
Kent Mueller
4 months, 1 week agoPhil, in your pontificating crap, you forgot to mention a president who got a blow job from a 19 year old, unpaid intern only feet away from his historical Oval Office desk.
But like Armstrong, apparently it is ok for him to make millions. After all, wasn’t he supposedly bankrupted by those nasty Republicans after he left office?
Robert Copher
4 months, 1 week agoPhil, now you’re just cutting and pasting comments from other articles that have already been responded to. What is your infatuation with Armstrong? He’s the lowest of humans. And it should not be rationalized away as you seem willing to do. Everyone that suffered by his actions deserve respect. Not those that swallwed his drivel in an attempt to grab onto his fame and benefited from it.
Phil Cardarella
4 months agoRC— you may note that I added quite a bit to my second response. It is not my fault that multiple articles need a response — and even I cannot express myself better than myself all the time.
Kent, give me a break. So he had sex with a very willing 19 year old woman. Poor judgment — since this gal could not keep her mouth shut — and NOTHING more. Should have remained Mrs. Clinton’s problem. None of our business unless he did it on the White House lawn and tore up the rose bushes.
And, yes, it is OK for Democrats to make money, too.