Imagining it was in 1997 and my friend is Lance Armstrong, I would tell him not to go through with his plan. This is because his decision disrespects all the sports fans across the globe. He neglected the fair play and efforts in the field for the sake of “charity.” Armstrong doesn’t seem to worry about the other people who might lose their career as a result of “charity work.” The other thing assumed in this case study is that the individuals who were giving him money in his charitable contributions were providing more money than any other time. Nevertheless, there is no evidence to show that the donations to fighting cancer increased over time. His plan, therefore, was faulty and he shouldn’t have done it.
When viewing this situation, we are supposed to examine all the people affected in the case. There were various individuals damaged by Armstrong vicious, the acts of Armstrong also ruined the careers of multiple cyclists. There were no ethics in the moral assessment of Armstrong; this is because he caused a lot of troubles to these individuals. The other thing is that Armstrong provides an awareness of the cancer disease instead of funding it. The message that he gave individuals is fighting hard to overcome the disease; this means that individuals who weren’t able to fight hard had to die. Armstrong plan, therefore, was irrelevant. A lot of people think that Armstrong won freely and fairly. However, this was not the case, it was only that he cheated wisely and wasn’t caught. What he did was completely unethical, I would, therefore, tell him not to go through with his plan.