• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

And Nike, Trek, Oakley's response after all of this?

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 8, 2012
237
1
0
Visit site
IFRider said:
Oakley just tweeted the following:

As guilty as the evidence shows, which we completely acknowledge, it is our promise & contractual obligation to stand by our athletes until proven guilty by the highest governing body of sport, or a court of law. We might be last off but we are not going to jump on the bandwagon as it breaks our promise to all of our athletes. We will wait for the UCI's conclusion and act at that time.



Wow! What a d0uchebag company Oakley has become.
 
IFRider said:
Oakley just tweeted the following:

As guilty as the evidence shows, which we completely acknowledge, it is our promise & contractual obligation to stand by our athletes until proven guilty by the highest governing body of sport, or a court of law. We might be last off but we are not going to jump on the bandwagon as it breaks our promise to all of our athletes. We will wait for the UCI's conclusion and act at that time.

Then the problem remains with Oakley and their contracts.

Oakley needs to re-write their contracts to represent a sane outcome that protects the company.

Their contracts should not allow for the last possible option to keep the door open a crack for someone to get away with doping. That is facilitation.

Their current contracts break their anti-doping commitment to ALL athletes and exposes their commitment on anti-doping as paper thin.

Dave.
 
Oct 7, 2012
37
0
0
Visit site
I don't think there's any way they could be held to a contractual agreement here. What's LA going to do? Testify under oath in a lawsuit? Not a chance.
 
Aug 7, 2010
1,247
0
0
Visit site
D-Queued said:
Then the problem remains with Oakley and their contracts.

Oakley needs to re-write their contracts to represent a sane outcome that protects the company.

Their contracts should not allow for the last possible option to keep the door open a crack for someone to get away with doping. That is facilitation.

Their current contracts break their anti-doping commitment to ALL athletes and exposes their commitment on anti-doping as paper thin.

Dave.

It could be that Lance's lawyers cleverly worded the clauses to read that only a UCI sanction would be considered as proof of doping. Knowing that the UCI was on his team, he could feel pretty good that the UCI would always rule in his favor. That is the only plausible explanation in my view.
 
Oct 2, 2012
152
1
0
Visit site
IFRider said:
Oakley just tweeted the following:

As guilty as the evidence shows, which we completely acknowledge, it is our promise & contractual obligation to stand by our athletes until proven guilty by the highest governing body of sport, or a court of law. We might be last off but we are not going to jump on the bandwagon as it breaks our promise to all of our athletes. We will wait for the UCI's conclusion and act at that time.

Who the heck wrote that?

They don't know which way they are going
 
Fortyninefourteen said:
It could be that Lance's lawyers cleverly worded the clauses to read that only a UCI sanction would be considered as proof of doping. Knowing that the UCI was on his team, he could feel pretty good that the UCI would always rule in his favor. That is the only plausible explanation in my view.

Agree. Other sponsors's didn't mention anything about UCI, it seems that only Oakley were duped in to signing such a clause.
 
IFRider said:
Oakley just tweeted the following:

As guilty as the evidence shows, which we completely acknowledge, it is our promise & contractual obligation to stand by our athletes until proven guilty by the highest governing body of sport, or a court of law. We might be last off but we are not going to jump on the bandwagon as it breaks our promise to all of our athletes. We will wait for the UCI's conclusion and act at that time.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1056092&postcount=24 :D
 
Sep 21, 2012
296
0
0
Visit site
cineteq said:
There you go.
"Oakley has severed its long standing relationship with Lance Armstrong. Say they are saddened by the outcome."
linkage: http://www.oakley.com/sports/road-cycling/posts/3806?cm_mmc=twitter-_-news-story-_-lance-armstrong-_-_

HstGz.jpg
 
Oct 12, 2012
169
0
0
Visit site
All those companies are hypocites. They drop Armstrongs personal sponsoring, but all say they'll continue to support Livestrong - an organisation that was founded by a career criminal. And they know that a part of the money they give to the organization will still end up in Armstrongs pockets.

Why didn't they make their continued support of Livestrong dependent on Armstrongs departure from Livestrong. Now that would have been believable.
 
Oct 12, 2012
169
0
0
Visit site
DominicDecoco said:
Darren nails it in the Oakley tweet.

Darren Fortin ‏@darren410
@oakley thats such bull****! U believe the dopping agency 2. All his teammates r prob jealous of his success. I will no longer buy Oakley

LOL :D That guy's so divorced from reality, I wonder if he roams the streets at night - licking windows. ROFL, what a tool :rolleyes:
 
Oct 16, 2012
3
0
0
Visit site
Lukenwolf said:
All those companies are hypocites. They drop Armstrongs personal sponsoring, but all say they'll continue to support Livestrong - an organisation that was founded by a career criminal. And they know that a part of the money they give to the organization will still end up in Armstrongs pockets.

Why didn't they make their continued support of Livestrong dependent on Armstrongs departure from Livestrong. Now that would have been believable.

I have to agree with this. The fact that most of the sponsors 'dropped' Armstrong on the same day, and that all of them continue to support Livestrong makes the entire shuffle seem like a PR stunt. There are many worthy, well-run charities to which these companies could donate that don't come with Livestrong's baggage.
 
Aug 21, 2012
138
0
0
Visit site
BeerBelly said:
I have to agree with this. The fact that most of the sponsors 'dropped' Armstrong on the same day, and that all of them continue to support Livestrong makes the entire shuffle seem like a PR stunt. There are many worthy, well-run charities to which these companies could donate that don't come with Livestrong's baggage.

They're not moving away from Livestrong because it's a marketing vehicle, not a charity. These companies have too much gear labeled with Livestrong. Once the stock is sold, they'll quietly stop supporting Livestrong.
 
BeerBelly said:
I have to agree with this. The fact that most of the sponsors 'dropped' Armstrong on the same day, and that all of them continue to support Livestrong makes the entire shuffle seem like a PR stunt. There are many worthy, well-run charities to which these companies could donate that don't come with Livestrong's baggage.

Ahh! But none are the lifestyle brand that boosts profit margins with a vague whiff of "social good." It's a profitable business masterpiece from Thom Wiesel.

Like Michael Vick and his new dog, Liveswrong will be back.
 
DirtyWorks said:
Ahh! But none are the lifestyle brand that boosts profit margins with a vague whiff of "social good." It's a profitable business masterpiece from Thom Wiesel.

Like Michael Vick and his new dog, Liveswrong will be back.

The brand has been damaged and it's going to take promotional money to bring it back. I have a hard time seeing investors throwing good money in after bad.

I'd bet there's more damage to come. The media loves demolishing sacred cows, and Livestrong is a huge sacred cow. People would love to read just how much money Lance has made from Livestrong.
 
MarkvW said:
The brand has been damaged and it's going to take promotional money to bring it back. I have a hard time seeing investors throwing good money in after bad.

I'd bet there's more damage to come. The media loves demolishing sacred cows, and Livestrong is a huge sacred cow. People would love to read just how much money Lance has made from Livestrong.

Yup. That is the media logic. Once the sacred cow has fallen they will stomp it to the ground. Hypocritical? Yes. Vultures? Yes. Great? For now yes.

It is just a matter of time before they will looking up (and publish) Mr Armstrongs charity frauds and perhaps more nastier details of his whereabouts. So far in time the Titanic has just hit the iceberg.
 
DirtyWorks said:
Ahh! But none are the lifestyle brand that boosts profit margins with a vague whiff of "social good." It's a profitable business masterpiece from Thom Wiesel.

Like Michael Vick and his new dog, Liveswrong will be back.

But Michael Vick had something to come back to, as an athlete in his prime. Armstrong has 2 sports that he can't come back to, and he's 40. Where does he get a platform for exposure, let alone redemption?
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
skidmark said:
But Michael Vick had something to come back to, as an athlete in his prime. Armstrong has 2 sports that he can't come back to, and he's 40. Where does he get a platform for exposure, let alone redemption?

I suppose he could get a gig at the yellow rose shaking his booty....