Armstrong and Landis and Doping, Oh My!

[powerste]

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.

WRT/ FLandis' whistleblower lawsuit:
No amount of consumers boycotting Trek, Oakley, Giro, and every other entity related to Postal is going to recoup $$ for fraud due to doping because only the government (USPS) is party to the contract for the sponsorship. The general public has nothing whatsoever to do with this one.

As for the FDA investigation:
Black market distribution of unregulated and potentially untested PEDs is illegal. That's why the FDA's enforcement arm is investigating it. The link between Oakley/Trek/Nike and black market PED dealers is nonexistent in the mind of most sporting goods consumers. Your tuna analogy doesn't work here because because Nike isn't buying PEDs like Charlie the Tuna was netting dolphins. You're welcome to be less than optimistic about the efficacy of federal law enforcement, and more than welcome to suggest improvements to it. But the notion that public boycotts of equipment and apparel sponsors is going to eliminate illegal PED distribution networks is completely ridiculous.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

The sponsors backed off from Tiger -not the consumers - same way with T-Mobile.

USPS had as part of their contract since 2001 that if there was a positive they could withdraw sponsorship.

Name a single ProTour team that would survive your highlighted criteria?

 

[miloman]

WRT/ FLandis' whistleblower lawsuit:
No amount of consumers boycotting Trek, Oakley, Giro, and every other entity related to Postal is going to recoup $$ for fraud due to doping because only the government (USPS) is party to the contract for the sponsorship. The general public has nothing whatsoever to do with this one.

As for the FDA investigation:
Black market distribution of unregulated and potentially untested PEDs is illegal. That's why the FDA's enforcement arm is investigating it. The link between Oakley/Trek/Nike and black market PED dealers is nonexistent in the mind of most sporting goods consumers. Your tuna analogy doesn't work here because because Nike isn't buying PEDs like Charlie the Tuna was netting dolphins. You're welcome to be less than optimistic about the efficacy of federal law enforcement, and more than welcome to suggest improvements to it. But the notion that public boycotts of equipment and apparel sponsors is going to eliminate illegal PED distribution networks is completely ridiculous.

I don't agree. Why did the Discovery team shutter in 2007 after Contador's first TDF win? They had the reigning champ on the team. The reason given was that because of what was going on in professional cycling, no sponsor was willing to put up the money. It wasn't a good PR move for their company. For the most part, companies sponsor teams to advertise their products. There were cheaper, better advertising options open to them. Sponsors don’t want to deal with scandals

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't agree. Why did the Discovery team shutter in 2007 after Contador's first TDF win? They had the reigning champ on the team. The reason given was that because of what was going on in professional cycling, no sponsor was willing to put up the money. It wasn't a good PR move for their company. For the most part, companies sponsor teams to advertise their products. There were cheaper, better advertising options open to them. Sponsors don’t want to deal with scandals

Wrong: .......

According to USA Today, Bill Stapleton, long-time agent for former team rider Lance Armstrong and executive of Tailwind Sports, Discovery's decision to drop sponsorship after three years is related to Monday's firing of Discovery Network's president Billy Campbell, by new Discovery Communications president and CEO David Zaslav.

 

[miloman]

The sponsors backed off from Tiger -not the consumers - same way with T-Mobile.

USPS had as part of their contract since 2001 that if there was a positive they could withdraw sponsorship.

Name a single ProTour team that would survive your highlighted criteria?

Don’t you think Gatorade and the other sponsors jumped ship because they knew that it would impact their bottom line supporting a serial adulterer etc. As far as the criterion to use, and if a current protour team could survive it -- I don’t know. I hope there would be some!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Don’t you think Gatorade and the other sponsors jumped ship because they knew that it would impact their bottom line supporting a serial adulterer etc. As far as the criterion to use, and if a current protour team could survive it -- I don’t know. I hope there would be some!

Then why did Nike and other sponsors stay with him?
Have people taken to the streets and started burning Nike gear?

You still haven't told me what helmet you wear?

 

[miloman]

Wrong: .......

Actually, Lance himself said it was because a new sponsor could not be found. Follow the link: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/2007-08-10-discovery-shut-down_N.htm

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Wow! Milo's really givin' er!

Seems to want to keep doping in cycling by bureaucratic ommision, leave it all to the free market! Public, stop buying products that sponsor teams or riders that come up positive. Idealistically effective, but in practice utterly pointless.

Although this might seem to be a 'Lance thing', it is an institutionalized cycling thing, and that has to remain the issue. LA didn't exist in a vaccuum, there were many little cogs in the wheels that help create his allure and manifest destiny (which was glowing until recently, based upon general public perception). I really think/hope that the whole American Novitsky investigation will roll over many stinky rocks with an ever-increasing cast of players crawling out from under them. The only way to clean up the sport is through this sort of uncomfortable, forced, and legally mandated confession. You not buying a certain product from a multi-national multi-branded impersonal corporate entity won't do a thing for helping cycling - although it may help you sleep better at night.

As to whether it will 'destroy' cycling... well, that's a little egomaniacal. To think that utterly gutting the reputation of one rider will raze an entire sport, well that places too much value on ONE rider that the majority of the cycling world figured was in posession of questionable integrity to start with.

Anyone who cares for the future of clean cycling should be chomping at the bit to see who comes out from under the rug. Hopefully it'll create enough of a critical mass to get the UCI cleaned out as well. To say nothing of USAC (until reading the forums I had no idea of the LA camp's involvement at that level in a federation).

It may come down to public impetus. Raise a stink, stand up for what you believe, and shoot your mouth off!

Mind you, I've been taken for an idealistic *** before...

 

[miloman]

Then why did Nike and other sponsors stay with him?
Have people taken to the streets and started burning Nike gear?

You still haven't told me what helmet you wear?

I thought that was a rhetorical question. A Specialized.

 

[miloman]

Wow! Milo's really givin' er!

Seems to want to keep doping in cycling by bureaucratic ommision, leave it all to the free market! Public, stop buying products that sponsor teams or riders that come up positive. Idealistically effective, but in practice utterly pointless.

Although this might seem to be a 'Lance thing', it is an institutionalized cycling thing, and that has to remain the issue. LA didn't exist in a vaccuum, there were many little cogs in the wheels that help create his allure and manifest destiny (which was glowing until recently, based upon general public perception). I really think/hope that the whole American Novitsky investigation will roll over many stinky rocks with an ever-increasing cast of players crawling out from under them. The only way to clean up the sport is through this sort of uncomfortable, forced, and legally mandated confession. You not buying a certain product from a multi-national multi-branded impersonal corporate entity won't do a thing for helping cycling - although it may help you sleep better at night.

As to whether it will 'destroy' cycling... well, that's a little egomaniacal. To think that utterly gutting the reputation of one rider will raze an entire sport, well that places too much value on ONE rider that the majority of the cycling world figured was in posession of questionable integrity to start with.

Anyone who cares for the future of clean cycling should be chomping at the bit to see who comes out from under the rug. Hopefully it'll create enough of a critical mass to get the UCI cleaned out as well. To say nothing of USAC (until reading the forums I had no idea of the LA camp's involvement at that level in a federation).

It may come down to public impetus. Raise a stink, stand up for what you believe, and shoot your mouth off!

Mind you, I've been taken for an idealistic *** before...

Great Post!!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Actually, Lance himself said it was because a new sponsor could not be found. Follow the link: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/2007-08-10-discovery-shut-down_N.htm

No -you had said it was the reason Discovery stopped sponsorship.

And from the article you linked:

"This is not about the lack of a sponsor," Armstrong said. "Right now is a good time to step aside."

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I thought that was a rhetorical question. A Specialized.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Hey, any thoughts on whether the Nike etc. subpoenae are more to look at contractual niceties (re doping and positives, responsibility of marketable image, etc) rather than solely financial records?

These companies aren't dumb, and assuming they have clauses in contracts regarding doping, would that add weight to the Novitzky investigation? More pursuit to recoup ill-gotten gain?

I know pretty much nothing about the American legal system so help me out, Yanks!

 

[miloman]

No -you had said it was the reason Discovery stopped sponsorship.

And from the article you linked:

I thought my statement was clear – my bad! When I said Discovery shuttered, I was referring to the team that at the time was Discovery operated by Tailwind. And that they, Tailwind were unable to secure a sponsor. Read the article again and here is the quote: “Despite its sterling record, Tailwind has been unable to sign a title sponsor for the 2008 season. Discovery Channel's three-year contract expires this year and new corporate management decided against extending the deal. “

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Hey, any thoughts on whether the Nike etc. ...I know pretty much nothing about the American legal system so help me out, Yanks!

Legal? I doubt anything will be found. Companies like Nike have both legal and accounting firms on staff, and on call. And they aren't in the business of suing former sponsored athletes for doing stupid things. They knew what they are getting into.

As to who they sponsor. Nike is probably the very bottom. They'll hold on to anyone until the person practically goes to prison. It took them until the last second it seemed to cut Michael Vick, and once he got out of jail they still supplied him with gear, even if they didn't use him in media kits anymore.

 

[L29205]

I thought my statement was clear – my bad! When I said Discovery shuttered, I was referring to the team that at the time was Discovery operated by Tailwind. And that they, Tailwind were unable to secure a sponsor. Read the article again and here is the quote: “Despite its sterling record, Tailwind has been unable to sign a title sponsor for the 2008 season. Discovery Channel's three-year contract expires this year and new corporate management decided against extending the deal. “

Did you re-read the article?

"This was a difficult decision, not made any easier by our recent Tour de France success," general manager Bill Stapleton said in a statement. "We were in talks with a number of companies about the opportunity and were confident a new sponsor was imminent. We have chosen, however, to end those discussions."

"This is not about the lack of a sponsor," Armstrong said. "Right now is a good time to step aside."

 

[miloman]

Did you re-read the article?

I'm sure you can see through that, it's just corporate spin. Maybe this is more to your liking: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/6940614.stm

"I had contacts with candidate sponsors but the situation in the sport is so bad that nobody wants to be involved with us," said manager Johan Bruyneel.

 

[Benotti69]

I'm sure you can see through that, it's just corporate spin. Maybe this is more to your liking: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/6940614.stm

"I had contacts with candidate sponsors but the situation in the sport is so bad that nobody wants to be involved with us," said manager Johan Bruyneel.

I think what Bruyneel is saying, as we can all see through it, is that nobody wants to be involved with his levels of doping, otherwise why not sponsor a 7 time TdF winning DS and his team, got be bang for your bucks on that donkey or is it dead?

 

[powerste]

I think what Bruyneel is saying, as we can all see through it, is that nobody wants to be involved with his levels of doping, otherwise why not sponsor a 7 time TdF winning DS and his team, got be bang for your bucks on that donkey or is it dead?

Apparently Radio Shack don't think it's dead (yet!) but ironically enough there are many of us who think Radio Shack itself has been a dead donkey for years!

 

[L29205]

I'm sure you can see through that, it's just corporate spin. Maybe this is more to your liking: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/6940614.stm

"I had contacts with candidate sponsors but the situation in the sport is so bad that nobody wants to be involved with us," said manager Johan Bruyneel.

There was nothing in the original article that referenced lack of sponsors as a reason for tailwind folding.

The new article you reference has Bruyneel contradicting LA and Stapleton. So which spin do you wish to believe? Who had the most to gain from the spin?

 

[powerste]

I don't agree. Why did the Discovery team shutter in 2007 after Contador's first TDF win? They had the reigning champ on the team. The reason given was that because of what was going on in professional cycling, no sponsor was willing to put up the money. It wasn't a good PR move for their company. For the most part, companies sponsor teams to advertise their products. There were cheaper, better advertising options open to them. Sponsors don’t want to deal with scandals

Not sure specifically which part you don't agree with, although you are certainly free to disagree with all of it...

My point about the consumer boycott not working/applying is twofold:
1. In the tuna example, it wasn't US law that was broken. The US gov't had no jurisdiction over the practices of many of the companies. Consumer pressure was the only avenue for change on that front. In the current PEDs in cycling situation, the FDA is investigating possible criminal actions. That's the job of their enforcement arm.

2. The link between Nike and whoever is distributing PEDs is far less direct, at least to many people, than the link between canned tuna and dead dolphins (or between Shell and apartheid or . . .). Boycotts take off when there is something direct and visible (cute, mammalian, and highly intelligent help) for the public to grab onto. I think much public opinion is "Nike sponsors Lance. Lance might be a drug cheat. All professional cyclists are. Who cares?" Contrast that with "In order to catch the tuna in this can, many dolphins were killed as collateral damage!" The company that canned the tuna, killed the dolphins. But Nike didn't buy the PEDs.

I just don't think it's realistic to expect a boycott of LA's sponsors to take off, let alone impact doping in cycling. While I realize the federal government has plenty of shortcomings (no matter which self-serving party is in charge of it at the time), I do recognize that in the case of the Novitsky investigation, a criminal investigator is investigating probable criminal behavior. I hope he finds evidence to support it.

 

[miloman]

There was nothing in the original article that referenced lack of sponsors as a reason for tailwind folding.

The new article you reference has Bruyneel contradicting LA and Stapleton. So which spin do you wish to believe? Who had the most to gain from the spin?

Well, I guess I would trust a news gathering service like the BBC and not rely on a cited press release from Tailwind. I believe you’re mistaken when you say there was no reference. I will cite it again: “Despite its sterling record, Tailwind has been unable to sign a title sponsor for the 2008 season. Discovery Channel's three-year contract expires this year and new corporate management decided against extending the deal. “ The companion article I cited corroborates this and goes into greater detail.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I thought my statement was clear – my bad! When I said Discovery shuttered, I was referring to the team that at the time was Discovery operated by Tailwind. And that they, Tailwind were unable to secure a sponsor. Read the article again and here is the quote: “Despite its sterling record, Tailwind has been unable to sign a title sponsor for the 2008 season. Discovery Channel's three-year contract expires this year and new corporate management decided against extending the deal. “

It was - I got it first time.

Here it is again for you:

I don't agree. Why did the Discovery team shutter in 2007 after Contador's first TDF win? They had the reigning champ on the team. The reason given was that because of what was going on in professional cycling, no sponsor was willing to put up the money. It wasn't a good PR move for their company. For the most part, companies sponsor teams to advertise their products. There were cheaper, better advertising options open to them. Sponsors don’t want to deal with scandals

Discovery announced in February 2007 they were ceasing sponsorship because of a change of management.
Tailwind announced they had sponsors lined up but were "unwilling' for various issues, but mainly because of the dispute between ASO & UCI at the time.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well, I guess I would trust a news gathering service like the BBC and not rely on a cited press release from Tailwind. I believe you’re mistaken when you say there was no reference. I will cite it again: “Despite its sterling record, Tailwind has been unable to sign a title sponsor for the 2008 season. Discovery Channel's three-year contract expires this year and new corporate management decided against extending the deal. “ The companion article I cited corroborates this and goes into greater detail.

It wasn't a press release - it was a press conference, so there are quotes not editorial opinions.

Some quotes from the press conference:
"We couldn't in good conscious make a recommendation to a company to spend the sort of money that would be required to sponsor the team, in the current environment." Bill Stalpleton

"If you get a company to invest and then all of a sudden the ASO decides that it should go back to national teams, their investment goes to zero. Issues like that up in the air it is too risky to ask people for that kind of money." Lance Armstrong.

Tailwind pulled out - not the sponsors.

 

[The Hitch]

I think what Bruyneel is saying, as we can all see through it, is that nobody wants to be involved with his levels of doping, otherwise why not sponsor a 7 time TdF winning DS and his team, got be bang for your bucks on that donkey or is it dead?

Small mistake, though i know you know it.
7 with armstrong
2 with contador
= 9 no?

just saying.