Leadership wise what is the moral difference between Lance Armstrong and USA Swimming Executive Director Chuck Wielgus?

Besides the fact that Lance Armstrong and his foundation has contributed more to humanity and to the morale of cancer victims worldwide, I am talking about something else here. I am talking about leadership and putting the non profit you work for above all self interest. Lance Armstrong resigned today as chairman of his cancer foundation known as Livestrong after being disgraced for doping. Chuck Wielgus stays employed despite being caught covering up a complaint of sexual abuse from a young swimmer in San Jose.

One could even argue that Lance Armstrong was arguably disgraced. To put "arguably" into real terms, he was disgraced in a sport so filled with dope that if you were going to reward the real "first place" rider of the Tour de France in 2005, a rider never busted for doping, it will have to be awarded to the person who placed 23rd. Yes, the top 23-riders have been caught riding dirty. Previous years from 2005 back down to 1999 are just as outrageous.

From Reddit where the above stats were posted: [Link]

Here is his resignation statement Armstrong gave printed in New York Times:

"I have had the great honor of serving as this foundation’s chairman for the last five years and its mission and success are my top priorities," Armstrong said in a statement. “Today therefore, to spare the foundation any negative effects as a result of controversy surrounding my cycling career, I will conclude my chairmanship." 

[Link]

Lance Armstrong resigned to take all the shame, the distraction, and the blame away from the non-profit he founded. This way Livestrong could move forward and let the organization "reboot" and be observed with a fresh start and keep doing all of the good that they do.

As for Chuck Wielgus of USA Swimming:

When Chuck Wielgus got caught covering-up an email complaint from a young victim of sexual abuse; (or what I call a cry for help from San Jose), he refused to act on it and told another individual in a email to "kepp it between us." He refused to resign his position as Executive Director of USA Swimming and he refused on the news program 20/20 to apologize to the victims.

Subsequently, he stayed on as Executive Director at USA Swimming to the chagrin of those too afraid to complain for fear of retribution. (Read that as Ken Stopkotte who did complain vigorously and was punished in my opinion.) Wielgus was able to stick around because the Board of Directors at USA Swimming gave their unconditional support, or as one person told me confidentially; "circled the wagons around him" allowing him to keep his $636,000-a-year job. This was a deed which I found despicable and so will history. It won't surprise me if some day soon some individual board members start getting sued by victims.

 If Wielgus would have done the noble thing by resigning, USA Swimming, would have the credibility that the Livestrong foundation will have. Right now they don't and they won't.

Am I lying?