fmk_RoI wrote:Could you explain why you find it interesting? To me, from a pure marketing perspective, not going after him to pull back money makes perfect sense (for many of his sponsors it probably also makes commercial sense, the size of their potential clawback being dwarfed by prospective legal fees, especially if the case were lost, and his victory in the FRS case - initiated by FRS customers, not FRS itself - suggests winning would not be simple).yaco wrote:I find it interesting that no other sponsor ( none that I know of ) have sued Armstrong - Could this be another case of the US Government living up to their reputation as bullyboys.
I mean, take Nike: what's the upside? There is none, all they do is remind people that they were steadfast in their support of him. And - let's be realists here - Nike going after him also serves to push the next generation of sporting stars into the arms of their rivals (Under Armour, Adidas, Puma etc), who wants to be backed by a sponsor who's going to litigate the hell out of you should you do anything - anything - to upset them (and this isn't just doping, look at the likes of Ryan Lochte or Tiger Woods)? That doesn't make sense. The best thing a sponsor can do with a toxic star is walk away and hope the world quickly forgets their association. Reminding them of it? That's stupid.
(Now you could, if you tried really, really hard, make a case that some of the penny-ante sponsors could gain by initiating a lawsuit and running away before too much time racked up on the clock, that some penny-ante sponsor could surf a wave of publicity around the threat of such a suit, but in the wake of the failed class action suits I'm not sure a penny-ante sponsor would actually get to ride that wave for very long, so I'm not sure there's all that much to gain by doing it at this stage of the game.)
That this has even been a question speaks to the people asking it, and not (their grasp of) the circumstances.