Do you think the fact that the cyclist has raised nearly half a billion dollars for a cancer foundation makes what he did any less immoral? Should his sponsors have considered this fact before pulling their contracts with him? Explain your answers.

1. No, I do not think that the fact that the cyclist raised nearly half a billion dollars for a cancer foundation made what he did less immoral.

2. No. The sponsors were right in not considering this fact before pulling their contracts with him.

(Find the Explanations below)

Explanation:

Lance Armstrong is a Cyclist who suffered cancer at the young age of twenty. He survived the ordeal and went ahead to form a foundation known as the Livestrong Foundation which helped cancer patients obtain medical help. He was accused of doping by the United States Anti-doping agency. This led to the withdrawal of sponsorships by several organizations.

1. The fact that the cyclist fought a good cause by raising millions of dollars to fight cancer, does not make what he did any less immoral because it was his fame and the supposed integrity that he possessed that first attracted the recognition and sponsorships to him. Engaging in an illegal act to win his games and stay on top was morally wrong and it corrupted the trust that was placed in him. His career as a cyclist was the base that gave him his voice.

2. The sponsors should not have considered the fact that he raised a lot of money for the cancer cause because the wrong act of engaging in doping was morally wrong, and if the spnsors remained with him, it would be as if they supported this act. Not withdrawing their sponsorships, would also tarnish the image of the organizations.

hi, you. i think this we be deleted because it's a invalid question.

(i suggest no to do this in the