Lance Armstrong won many prestigious cycling tournaments, including the Tour de France seven times. In January of 2013 he admitted in a television interview with Oprah Winfrey that he had used performance enhancing drugs and had lied about that use. He also had many endorsement contracts, including with his Foundation, LiveStrong, and Nike. Both of those organizations terminated their contracts with Lance Armstrong upon the news that he admitted that he continually lied about using performance enhancing drugs and techniques.
What type of contract language could these companies rely upon to terminate the contracts? Does such language rely on any ethical theories as its justification? (In other words, does Utilitarianism or Kantian Ethics justify such a termination?)
Post at least a 125 word discussion and respond to at least 2 of your colleagues' postings. Support your discussion with at least 1 Internet citation in APA style.