• 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!

Armstrong and Landis and Doping, Oh My!

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
miloman said:
I followed the link and heard the tape. Even though I was familiar with the content from other sources, it was the first time I had heard it for myself. Fascinating stuff! Unfortunately, from what I know of the law, it is totally inadmissible. Do you really think that a current employee and wife of a high-ranking executive with Oakley is going to recant her testimony? She has already gone on record as saying something contrary to what she said on LeMond’s tape. To recant her testimony now will open herself up to perjury charges. Ouch!

I’m not sure who to feel sorry for. They all behaved poorly. I guess in the end as Captain Jack Sparrow said, “they done right by them and you can’t expect anything more than that!”

Since you read enough of the other thread to know Stephanies husband is "a high-ranking executive with Oakley" - how is it that you then ignore the bits about the law that were explained there?

The call was recorded from Minnesota where one party consent is allowed.
If Stephanie lies to the Feds, then she is in trouble- which is why she asked that a lawyer be present when the Fed's requested an interview.
 
May 20, 2010
801
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Since you read enough of the other thread to know Stephanies husband is "a high-ranking executive with Oakley" - how is it that you then ignore the bits about the law that were explained there?

The call was recorded from Minnesota where one party consent is allowed.
If Stephanie lies to the Feds, then she is in trouble- which is why she asked that a lawyer be present when the Fed's requested an interview.

There are a good number of you who demonstrate a keen ability to synthesize a great deal of information, thus showing higher cognitive skills and sound reason.
I would love to share a pint or two with you, but certainly not with miloman.
 
Jul 29, 2009
441
0
0
Visit site
Tubeless said:
There are lots of people who feel very good about this investigation. Finally, the truth will come out, an ugly past will be untangled, intimidation and corruption will stop. Omerta will suffer a big blow. Sorry to hear you're not one of those who are relieved by the course of the recent events.

This is the bit in bold I disagree with primarily and why I'm not particularly excited by this investigation.

I understand why people would want to see Armstrong and others go down but imo it's effect on the cleanliness of the current and future peloton will be negligible and the negative effect from the adverse publicity could be quite damaging.

Now if corruption in the UCI is proved and changes are made to the organisation of the sport as a result (that actually prevent future corruption rather than just who is doing it) . Then I will agree this investigation will have been very good for cycling- maybe even the most important one ever.

I just can't see that happening.

I do see a reduction in future media coverage of cycling and fewer American racers (on the Euro scene) and pro tour teams as being a more likely result.

Mind you as a Brit that doesn't bother me hugely- Sky might win something at last:D
 
May 17, 2010
43
0
0
Visit site
Who is Miloman?
A. Bart Knaggs
B. Bill Stapleton
C. Chris Carmichael
D. John "College" Korioth
E. Linda Armstrong-, , , ,
F. Lance
G.???(anyone else who has an interest in the life of the myth)
 
SirLes said:
This is the bit in bold I disagree with primarily and why I'm not particularly excited by this investigation.

I understand why people would want to see Armstrong and others go down but imo it's effect on the cleanliness of the current and future peloton will be negligible and the negative effect from the adverse publicity could be quite damaging.

Now if corruption in the UCI is proved and changes are made to the organisation of the sport as a result (that actually prevent future corruption rather than just who is doing it) . Then I will agree this investigation will have been very good for cycling- maybe even the most important one ever.

I just can't see that happening.

I do see a reduction in future media coverage of cycling and fewer American racers (on the Euro scene) and pro tour teams as being a more likely result.

Mind you as a Brit that doesn't bother me hugely- Sky might win something at last:D

I love how people think this will have a negative impact on cycling. Since the Landis allegations two big big European teams have sprung up. Geox and Movistar. You get the feeling that these sponsors are coming on board because there’s real interest in cycling as a sport not just in one person. The further Armstrong goes down Cycling will flourish. This case is good for cycling. Show cycling doesn’t stand for organised doping. There is no longer a vacuum around one person.
 
Jan 5, 2010
295
0
0
Visit site
magoo34 said:
Who is Miloman?
A. Bart Knaggs
B. Bill Stapleton
C. Chris Carmichael
D. John "College" Korioth
E. Linda Armstrong-, , , ,
F. Lance
G.???(anyone else who has an interest in the life of the myth)


Actually, in a sense, I am all of them and none of them. I am just a fan who has seen his fair share of hypocrisy to know that nothing ever really changes. I’m not sure why so many of you are of the opinion that my allegiances fall on the Armstrong side of this argument. I don’t agree with much of anything he has done save the creation of the eponymous Lance Armstrong Foundation. And even his motives there deserve greater scrutiny. Admittedly, I don’t possess the minutia of facts and figures pertaining to particular aspect of this enquiry that some other poster may, and I will never pretend that I do. However, I have had experience with people and things that you can’t imagine. And this experience has perhaps hardened me to the point that I am no longer optimistic that justice will really be served; especially when the U S Federal Government gets involved. It’s not that I haven’t considered most of the other viewpoints expressed here, to the contrary, I think about them constantly. That’s why I also feel the need to explore the counterpoint or rebuttal and float it out there for others to consider.

My experience tells me that justice isn’t just blind; it’s deaf, dumb and can easily be bought. So my take is this: if you think that this investigation will really solve the ills that plague professional cycling, you are being overly optimistic. If you think that justice will be served, you haven’t been following the news. If you think that the bad guys will be punished to our satisfaction and the “good guys” will receive vindication and be fairly compensated, well, I have experience there; so take it from me, it won’t likely happen! Finally, if you think they will wrap up this investigation, to your satisfaction, like a proper Christmas present, with a pretty bow, I have news for you, just as devastating as the news may have been that our sport heroes were cheats and aren’t real, neither is Santa Claus. Don’t sit around expecting someone to hand you a present, it isn’t coming. You need to get it for yourself.

As Ghandi said, “You must be the change you want to see in the world.” It’s us as consumers, public opinion makers and leaders in our communities and within our sphere of influence that change will be seen and felt. How many of us are willing to speak with our wallets; by that what I mean, will you actually boycott products and look at alternatives? Will you give your prized Trek Madone away or sell it at an unbelievable loss? Will you stop purchasing products from Nike, Oakley, Powerbar, Radioshack, et al and every other company that supports Lance and his ilk? Will you seek out products from manufactures that don’t have the stench of corruption permeating from them? If you answered ‘yes’ to all these questions, congratulations you are a rare individual. If you didn’t answer ‘yes’ to all the questions, then your like most of us, you have a price and that price outweighs your principle.

I like the think people are inherently good, not bad, but they often make poor decisions. I find the exchange of information in this forum exhilarating and very informative. I have learned a lot from all of you and hope to continue learning. One final thought though, I will never lower myself to using profanities or call other members names in my posts. I don’t see how that benefits the free exchange of ideas. I hope others will show the same respect I pledge, to me.
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
SirLes said:
This is the bit in bold I disagree with primarily and why I'm not particularly excited by this investigation.

I understand why people would want to see Armstrong and others go down but imo it's effect on the cleanliness of the current and future peloton will be negligible and the negative effect from the adverse publicity could be quite damaging.

Now if corruption in the UCI is proved and changes are made to the organisation of the sport as a result (that actually prevent future corruption rather than just who is doing it) . Then I will agree this investigation will have been very good for cycling- maybe even the most important one ever.

I just can't see that happening.

I do see a reduction in future media coverage of cycling and fewer American racers (on the Euro scene) and pro tour teams as being a more likely result.

Mind you as a Brit that doesn't bother me hugely- Sky might win something at last:D

You're buying the age-old Armstrong argument that what's good for Lance is good for American cycling. Look how one person was able to corrupt the entire US Cycling scene. One person decided who gets hired to the domestic Protour team, who sits on the US Cycling management, who gets the sponsors' attention. We also know this corruption extended to the UCI and who knows where else.

Since Landis aired his allegations - and before we even knew there was any sort of a federal investigation, UCI was put on the defensive. WADA took interest in UCI's sole control of the doping testing at TdF and sent observers to make sure there are no more advance warnings for tests. As a result, we saw arguably the cleanest TdF in years.

You probably have not spoken to those who have chosen to get out of cycling, or those who've decided not to watch the events any more because they were disgusted by the cheating, lying, corruption, doping. This group will now have a motivation to get back. This is a good lesson for anyone attempting a repeat of Lance's trick to see that you will eventually get caught.

This Armstrong investigation will not provide a 100% clean peloton and may not get rid of a single corrupt official at UCI - but the increased scrutity and transparency will be the biggest single step forward in years of anti-doping work. Hence the interest here and elsewhere. This is a big deal and it's good overall for cycling, including here in the US.
 
Jul 29, 2009
441
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
I love how people think this will have a negative impact on cycling. Since the Landis allegations two big big European teams have sprung up. Geox and Movistar. You get the feeling that these sponsors are coming on board because there’s real interest in cycling as a sport not just in one person. The further Armstrong goes down Cycling will flourish. This case is good for cycling. Show cycling doesn’t stand for organised doping. There is no longer a vacuum around one person.

I would agree if it was led by cycling organisations and involved current teams.

The fact that it is a federal investigation about fraud and involves incidents that happened years ago means it is difficult for cycling to spin it that way.

The comments about media coverage are US related and I was thinking about the current state of German cycling as a model.

I'm not sure this investigation is going to dissuade teams or individuals that are currently doping to stop in the way a major bust of current teams, riders would.
Now if had happened 5 or 6 years ago.....

Now it will be interesting to see whether Garmin and Colombia can use this investigation to their advantage but it will be tricky as they have or have had associations with Ex Postal riders while saying they stand for clean cycling.

Personally on a related issue, rather than continually getting involved in slanging matches with LA, I think Greg LeMond should help create a new US based Pro cycling team and use that as his vehicle to make his point. Now that would be a really strong statement and be something the media could really get into in a positive way.
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
miloman said:
Actually, in a sense, I am all of them and none of them. I am just a fan who has seen his fair share of hypocrisy to know that nothing ever really changes. I’m not sure why so many of you are of the opinion that my allegiances fall on the Armstrong side of this argument. I don’t agree with much of anything he has done save the creation of the eponymous Lance Armstrong Foundation. And even his motives there deserve greater scrutiny. Admittedly, I don’t possess the minutia of facts and figures pertaining to particular aspect of this enquiry that some other poster may, and I will never pretend that I do. However, I have had experience with people and things that you can’t imagine. And this experience has perhaps hardened me to the point that I am no longer optimistic that justice will really be served; especially when the U S Federal Government gets involved. It’s not that I haven’t considered most of the other viewpoints expressed here, to the contrary, I think about them constantly. That’s why I also feel the need to explore the counterpoint or rebuttal and float it out there for others to consider.
.
.
.
I like the think people are inherently good, not bad, but they often make poor decisions. I find the exchange of information in this forum exhilarating and very informative. I have learned a lot from all of you and hope to continue learning. One final thought though, I will never lower myself to using profanities or call other members names in my posts. I don’t see how that benefits the free exchange of ideas. I hope others will show the same respect I pledge, to me.

The sentence in bold is telling. Since you started this thread, you've shown every sign of ignoring the facts and attempting a new angle to leave the last impression. The reason you've gotten patient responses from us is that we believed you were genuinly uninformed and wanted to be educated - or perhaps we did not want your post to be the last impression "for others to consider".

You're now admitting you're simply attempting to influence others. Given your tactics, the only logical conclusion here is that you're paid to do so. You're well aware of many of the facts, as some posters have pointed out to you. Yet you're egging us on with half-truths, judicial philosophy, and santa-claus comparisons. You claim to be objective and not in Lance's pocket, yet you clearly oppose the present investigation.

What crossed my line of treshold is this sentence:

miloman said:
Here’s a sick, sad thought, with all the pressure and the stakes being so high . . . well, I just hope somebody doesn’t do something drastic and all too permanent. I still miss Marco Pantani.

This is a slightly more elegant way of saying what was insinuated graphically on the RBR doping forum - wishing the original source of the investigation to drop dead. You say you "don't lower yourself to using profanities or call other members names" in your posts, but this one crossed quite another line altogether and showed your true colors.
 
Jan 5, 2010
295
0
0
Visit site
Personally on a related issue, rather than continually getting involved in slanging matches with LA, I think Greg LeMond should help create a new US based Pro cycling team and use that as his vehicle to make his point. Now that would be a really strong statement and be something the media could really get into in a positive way.[/QUOTE]

He did, don't you remember the ill fated mercury-vitale team? It was a highly ranked team competing in Europe and for whatever reason wasn't invited to participate in the Tour, and then folded. Unless I am mistaken, Floyd Landis was on the team and after it went bust, was picked up by Postal and Lance.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
miloman said:
Actually, in a sense, I am all of them and none of them. I am just a fan who has seen his fair share of hypocrisy to know that nothing ever really changes. I’m not sure why so many of you are of the opinion that my allegiances fall on the Armstrong side of this argument. I don’t agree with much of anything he has done save the creation of the eponymous Lance Armstrong Foundation. And even his motives there deserve greater scrutiny. Admittedly, I don’t possess the minutia of facts and figures pertaining to particular aspect of this enquiry that some other poster may, and I will never pretend that I do. However, I have had experience with people and things that you can’t imagine. And this experience has perhaps hardened me to the point that I am no longer optimistic that justice will really be served; especially when the U S Federal Government gets involved. It’s not that I haven’t considered most of the other viewpoints expressed here, to the contrary, I think about them constantly. That’s why I also feel the need to explore the counterpoint or rebuttal and float it out there for others to consider.

My experience tells me that justice isn’t just blind; it’s deaf, dumb and can easily be bought. So my take is this: if you think that this investigation will really solve the ills that plague professional cycling, you are being overly optimistic. If you think that justice will be served, you haven’t been following the news. If you think that the bad guys will be punished to our satisfaction and the “good guys” will receive vindication and be fairly compensated, well, I have experience there; so take it from me, it won’t likely happen! Finally, if you think they will wrap up this investigation, to your satisfaction, like a proper Christmas present, with a pretty bow, I have news for you, just as devastating as the news may have been that our sport heroes were cheats and aren’t real, neither is Santa Claus. Don’t sit around expecting someone to hand you a present, it isn’t coming. You need to get it for yourself.

As Ghandi said, “You must be the change you want to see in the world.” It’s us as consumers, public opinion makers and leaders in our communities and within our sphere of influence that change will be seen and felt. How many of us are willing to speak with our wallets; by that what I mean, will you actually boycott products and look at alternatives? Will you give your prized Trek Madone away or sell it at an unbelievable loss? Will you stop purchasing products from Nike, Oakley, Powerbar, Radioshack, et al and every other company that supports Lance and his ilk? Will you seek out products from manufactures that don’t have the stench of corruption permeating from them? If you answered ‘yes’ to all these questions, congratulations you are a rare individual. If you didn’t answer ‘yes’ to all the questions, then your like most of us, you have a price and that price outweighs your principle.

I like the think people are inherently good, not bad, but they often make poor decisions. I find the exchange of information in this forum exhilarating and very informative. I have learned a lot from all of you and hope to continue learning. One final thought though, I will never lower myself to using profanities or call other members names in my posts. I don’t see how that benefits the free exchange of ideas. I hope others will show the same respect I pledge, to me.
So - on one hand you quote Ghandi with “You must be the change you want to see in the world.”
and then say
"I am just a fan who has seen his fair share of hypocrisy to know that nothing ever really changes".


Could you list the brands of helmets or eyewear that dont have the "stench of corruption permeating from them"?
 
SirLes said:
I would agree if it was led by cycling organisations and involved current teams.

The fact that it is a federal investigation about fraud and involves incidents that happened years ago means it is difficult for cycling to spin it that way.

The comments about media coverage are US related and I was thinking about the current state of German cycling as a model.

I'm not sure this investigation is going to dissuade teams or individuals that are currently doping to stop in the way a major bust of current teams, riders would.
Now if had happened 5 or 6 years ago.....

Now it will be interesting to see whether Garmin and Colombia can use this investigation to their advantage but it will be tricky as they have or have had associations with Ex Postal riders while saying they stand for clean cycling.

Personally on a related issue, rather than continually getting involved in slanging matches with LA, I think Greg LeMond should help create a new US based Pro cycling team and use that as his vehicle to make his point. Now that would be a really strong statement and be something the media could really get into in a positive way.


We’ll look back on Comeback 2.0 in a few years and just shake our collective heads. At the end of 2008 you could see cycling was just beginning to pull itself out of the mess it got itself into from the Armstrong years and then Puerto. Racing was becoming enjoyable again. Unpredictable and exciting. Even at the beginning of 2009 things looked good on the race front. But once Comeback 2.0 got into full swing with the announcing if the Catlin doping program, the book of exclusive photos, the new book by Wilkcockson ironically titled “the making of the worlds greatest champion”, the apparent “awareness” campaign, the race fees, the dropping of the Catlin program etc. will be put down as an ill conceived but well organised money grab. Cycling was hijacked for the last 2 years and now its coming back. Once again focus went off other races throughout the year and everything was just focused on the Tour and one man.

As per your points on Garmin and ex-posties. I don’t mind this. Vaughters has set up a refugee for postal guys who used to dope but wanted to get into a team whereby doping was not the primary focus. Guilty by association maybe but at least these guys can still ride and not be forced to do it the Bruyneel way. Just as long as these guys don’t do a Hincapie and start sprouting off things like “no one more than me wants clean cycling”. Nothing wrong with giving up the gear but don’t paint yourself as an anti-doping campaigner.
 
Jan 5, 2010
295
0
0
Visit site
Tubeless said:
The sentence in bold is telling. Since you started this thread, you've shown every sign of ignoring the facts and attempting a new angle to leave the last impression. The reason you've gotten patient responses from us is that we believed you were genuinly uninformed and wanted to be educated - or perhaps we did not want your post to be the last impression "for others to consider".

You're now admitting you're simply attempting to influence others. Given your tactics, the only logical conclusion here is that you're paid to do so. You're well aware of many of the facts, as some posters have pointed out to you. Yet you're egging us on with half-truths, judicial philosophy, and santa-claus comparisons. You claim to be objective and not in Lance's pocket, yet you clearly oppose the present investigation.

What crossed my line of treshold is this sentence:



This is a slightly more elegant way of saying what was insinuated graphically on the RBR doping forum - wishing the original source of the investigation to drop dead. You say you "don't lower yourself to using profanities or call other members names" in your posts, but this one crossed quite another line altogether and showed your true colors.

Wow, you missed the point entirely! What I said in hopefully a tactful way is that I hope no one, no one, becomes so despondent that they see no way out from this mess and does something they will regret! There have been too many casualties in cycling over this doping issue. I still have my Pantani signed jersey hanging in my house. It was tragic what happened to him. Don’t try to read between the lines I meant nothing like what you asserted!
 
Jan 5, 2010
295
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
So - on one hand you quote Ghandi with “You must be the change you want to see in the world.”
and then say
"I am just a fan who has seen his fair share of hypocrisy to know that nothing ever really changes".


Could you list the brands of helmets or eyewear that dont have the "stench of corruption permeating from them"?

Nope, I wish I could! That's the point. Where would you draw the line or in this case, begin the list?
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Visit site
miloman said:
Actually, in a sense, I am all of them and none of them.

Ah, we have a Caligula

I have existed from the morning of the world and I shall exist until the last star falls from the night. Although I have taken the form of Gaius Caligula, I am all men as I am no man and therefore I am a God.

(don't mind me, I'm just bored :p)
 
Jul 29, 2009
441
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
We’ll look back on Comeback 2.0 in a few years and just shake our collective heads. At the end of 2008 you could see cycling was just beginning to pull itself out of the mess it got itself into from the Armstrong years and then Puerto. Racing was becoming enjoyable again. Unpredictable and exciting. Even at the beginning of 2009 things looked good on the race front. But once Comeback 2.0 got into full swing with the announcing if the Catlin doping program, the book of exclusive photos, the new book by Wilkcockson ironically titled “the making of the worlds greatest champion”, the apparent “awareness” campaign, the race fees, the dropping of the Catlin program etc. will be put down as an ill conceived but well organised money grab. Cycling was hijacked for the last 2 years and now its coming back. Once again focus went off other races throughout the year and everything was just focused on the Tour and one man.

As per your points on Garmin and ex-posties. I don’t mind this. Vaughters has set up a refugee for postal guys who used to dope but wanted to get into a team whereby doping was not the primary focus. Guilty by association maybe but at least these guys can still ride and not be forced to do it the Bruyneel way. Just as long as these guys don’t do a Hincapie and start sprouting off things like “no one more than me wants clean cycling”. Nothing wrong with giving up the gear but don’t paint yourself as an anti-doping campaigner.

The bit in bold I would agree with. The loss of LA from the peloton is no bad thing.

I am just concerned about the potential damage of the investigation and probable trial to the reputation of cycling without much of an upside with regards eliminating doping such as the CERA busts and other investigations.

This is not to say the investigation should be shelved, just that it doesn't excite me in the way that many other investigations surrounding cycling and drugs have done.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
I love how people think this will have a negative impact on cycling. Since the Landis allegations two big big European teams have sprung up. Geox and Movistar. You get the feeling that these sponsors are coming on board because there’s real interest in cycling as a sport not just in one person. The further Armstrong goes down Cycling will flourish. This case is good for cycling. Show cycling doesn’t stand for organised doping. There is no longer a vacuum around one person.

I love them too, thehog.

And am I hearing you right?
You're saying Movistar decided to sponsor Pro Cycling in part because of Floyd's extortion / whistleblower scam?

Movistar pumping money into a team of current dopers and former dopers that traces its roots to the EPO of the 90's and late 80's?

They did this in part because of Floyd's e-mails?

Seems like a stretch...how do you figure?

Maybe because they felt the UCI would be distracted?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
miloman said:
Nope, I wish I could! That's the point. Where would you draw the line or in this case, begin the list?

Your getting closer -
Why should anyone ignore the sponsors or suppliers?
Particularly as they have nothing to do with the doping, buying or bribing?


How about going directly after those that did use, buy, supply and bribe and have them properly investigated by an independent agency - one thats not connected with the sport.
Perhaps a state or federal agency - maybe one that specializes in drugs, like perhaps the FDA?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
TexPat said:
There are a good number of you who demonstrate a keen ability to synthesize a great deal of information, thus showing higher cognitive skills and sound reason.
I would love to share a pint or two with you, but certainly not with miloman.

Sounds great!!
But I hope you mean 1 or 2 pints in an Andy Schleck sort of way ;)
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
Polish said:
I love them too, thehog.

And am I hearing you right?
You're saying Movistar decided to sponsor Pro Cycling in part because of Floyd's extortion / whistleblower scam?

Movistar pumping money into a team of current dopers and former dopers that traces its roots to the EPO of the 90's and late 80's?

They did this in part because of Floyd's e-mails?

Seems like a stretch...how do you figure?

Maybe because they felt the UCI would be distracted?

Try substituting the word "despite" in the place of "because" in your own sentences and it should make better sense for you.
 
Jan 5, 2010
295
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Your getting closer -
Why should anyone ignore the sponsors or suppliers?
Particularly as they have nothing to do with the doping, buying or bribing?


How about going directly after those that did use, buy, supply and bribe and have them properly investigated by an independent agency - one thats not connected with the sport.
Perhaps a state or federal agency - maybe one that specializes in drugs, like perhaps the FDA?

Unfortunately Doc, this is the very point where we will always part company. As mature rational people, we will probably just have to agree, to disagree. I believe the onus is on the public, the consumer, to punish these people with a change in their buying habits.

Remember some of the consumer boycotts of the 80’s and 90’s? Consumers almost put one major Tuna Fish company out of business because they wouldn’t adopt a dolphin safe netting practice. At the time, government enforcement was so lax and easily circumvented that nothing was happening. So, it took consumer action i.e., boycotts of their products to do what the government either couldn’t or wouldn’t. Every time we get Uncle Sam involved we wake up to a bureaucratic nightmare. I am tired of the government killing flies with sledgehammers.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
miloman said:
Unfortunately Doc, this is the very point where we will always part company. As mature rational people, we will probably just have to agree, to disagree. I believe the onus is on the public, the consumer, to punish these people with a change in their buying habits.

Remember some of the consumer boycotts of the 80’s and 90’s? Consumers almost put one major Tuna Fish company out of business because they wouldn’t adopt a dolphin safe netting practice. At the time, government enforcement was so lax and easily circumvented that nothing was happening. So, it took consumer action i.e., boycotts of their products to do what the government either couldn’t or wouldn’t. Every time we get Uncle Sam involved we wake up to a bureaucratic nightmare. I am tired of the government killing flies with sledgehammers.

Ok - what helmet do you use?

You want to punish those that have broken laws on doping and buying by boycotting Giro & Powerbar?
 
May 13, 2009
692
1
0
Visit site
miloman said:
Unfortunately Doc, this is the very point ....... So, it took consumer action i.e., boycotts of their products to do what the government either couldn’t or wouldn’t. Every time we get Uncle Sam involved we wake up to a bureaucratic nightmare. I am tired of the government killing flies with sledgehammers.

Dude, you have 19 (and counting) posts that do not make any sense at all. How about trying to prove your point without contradicting yourself?
 
Jan 5, 2010
295
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Ok - what helmet do you use?

You want to punish those that have broken laws on doping and buying by boycotting Giro & Powerbar?

Sure, why not. High profile sponsorships are a real gamble. Refer to the backlash against Tiger Woods after his fall from grace. I don’t think its any secret that before entering into multi year, million dollar agreements, most large companies conduct thorough background checks, just to make sure that something doesn’t come back to haunt them. Obviously it isn’t 100% accurate. But look at how quickly everyone jumped ship. They were afraid of the public backlash impacting their bottom line. There’s already been a precedent set in the peloton to support this. Remember T-mobile/ Highroad? What’s wrong with consumers uniting and sending a message to sponsors that if they support a team or rider with a doping history, we won’t buy their product? And if someone returns a positive during the year and they (the sponsor) doesn’t sever ties to the team, we will boycott their product.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS