Bicycle industry have alot to answer for

[Basecase]

I consider the racing bicycle industry to be highly culpable when it comes to looking for someone to blame for the doping woes of pro cycling.

Team sponsors come and go and it can be argued they don't have continued interest or knowledge in the intrequacies of the sport.

The same cannot be said for the large frame, component and wheel manufacturers

They sponsors guys who are supposed to be able to do phenomenal efforts on their bikes naturally.

Little is said in condemning doping by them.

How about a non doping sticker on products rather than a uci sanctioned sticker?

Why can't bikepure etc partner up with them?????

They rather portray an image on alpe d'huez every summer than clean up the sport.

Follow the money, establish some ethics, clean up the sport

 

[rxgqgxnyfz]

YES

Let's punish those who provide the money in sport, and who never has any involvement in the team aside from well... giving the money.

THAT WILL WORK FOR SURE

BRILLIANT IDEA

 

[Basecase]

Isn't it. I thought so myself.

They give money in exchange of serious exposure. By media!!! Oh there's another huge industry with vested interests.

Don't suppose you have any vested interests?

It's all fabulous how those $15,000 bikes allow one to zip around France for the month of July with apparent grace and ease.

How about some proper debate instead of appearing to stifle it.

If you disagree with me I'd love to hear your contentions......

Thanks

 

[rhubroma]

Much of the problem begins and ends, like just about all of the world's social and political woes, with one thing: $

It is often said that money makes the world go round, and while this may indeed be the case, it also explains why its chosen path is so decidedly off axis and wobbly.

 

[online-rider]

I consider the racing bicycle industry to be highly culpable when it comes to looking for someone to blame for the doping woes of pro cycling.

Team sponsors come and go and it can be argued they don't have continued interest or knowledge in the intrequacies of the sport.

The same cannot be said for the large frame, component and wheel manufacturers

They sponsors guys who are supposed to be able to do phenomenal efforts on their bikes naturally.

Little is said in condemning doping by them.

How about a non doping sticker on products rather than a uci sanctioned sticker?

Why can't bikepure etc partner up with them?????

They rather portray an image on alpe d'huez every summer than clean up the sport.

Follow the money, establish some ethics, clean up the sport

If I was looking for someone to blame I think I could do better than Canondale or Shimano. I mean what about all these publicity floats !

What have they ever done in the fight against doping !??

 

[Benotti69]

how do you penalise them for it? Obviously stop buying an s-works or a madone, but Bianchi, Colnago, Gitanes etc are all culpable for decades.

Should sponsors face financial penalties? then they won't enter the sport, which is what one thread is about, taking it back to pure amateurism.

 

[flicker]

I consider the racing bicycle industry to be highly culpable when it comes to looking for someone to blame for the doping woes of pro cycling.

Team sponsors come and go and it can be argued they don't have continued interest or knowledge in the intrequacies of the sport.

The same cannot be said for the large frame, component and wheel manufacturers

They sponsors guys who are supposed to be able to do phenomenal efforts on their bikes naturally.

Little is said in condemning doping by them.

How about a non doping sticker on products rather than a uci sanctioned sticker?

Why can't bikepure etc partner up with them?????

They rather portray an image on alpe d'huez every summer than clean up the sport.

Follow the money, establish some ethics, clean up the sport

The only answer is to have all the riders ride obscure, small poor custom frame builders, who have zero dollars to contribute to the sport.

Either that or all the riders ride black 3 speed Chinese made 3 speeds, you know the ones with the double top tube. All made by the same 12 year old children in the same sweaty factories.

That will clean up cycling fo sho. Bad, bad bicycle manufacturers.

 

[Master50]

If you are suggesting money has something to do with doping I suppose that is a connection. Take away the money and we can go back to tiny little criteriums at the shopping mall.
I think your premiss is absurd and you should try and save soccer from it's money addiction.

 

[fatandfast]

basecase 1st you have to understand that the bike you think costs 15,000 costs a fraction of that. You are retail and they are wholesale.. When they toss t-shirts out to the crowd it costs them a single euro not the 20-30 euro retail price. The money spent on exposure is only part of the marketing..race bikes are a tiny part of most manuf..product lines but thanks to people like yourself are very profitable/ Like the photos posted people that sell car tires, or offer betting services for racehorses don't have a direct link to anything bicycle. Bic continued sponsorship years after they had no link to cycling. The towns in France, Italy and California are just as guilty for underwriting an event that is tainted in your view. They look at the cash and look past the crisis in sports in general..if you look at the broken bones, bottles and burned out cars after a Man United loss a logical person would just say no more football..but as a whole that is stupid..this baby out w the bathwater stuff doesn't work. If your outrage is based on 10's of millions will it go down proportionally if you find out it was only a million?

 

[AnythingButKestrel]

YES

Let's punish those who provide the money in sport, and who never has any involvement in the team aside from well... giving the money.

THAT WILL WORK FOR SURE

BRILLIANT IDEA

If you genuinely think that the major sponsors are unaware of where their money is going, you haven't been paying attention. The fact that they actually support doping is evidenced by the fact that they keep sending money by the wheelbarrow load after they know damned good and well that a chunk of it is going to doping by their sponsored riders.

Oakley's ambivalence to doping is renowned, but then there's Trek and Bell(Giro) for whom it doesn't take much research to connect the dots and realize they they knew exactly what they were buying.

 

[flicker]

If you genuinely think that the major sponsors are unaware of where their money is going, you haven't been paying attention. The fact that they actually support doping is evidenced by the fact that they keep sending money by the wheelbarrow load after they know damned good and well that a chunk of it is going to doping by their sponsored riders.

Oakley's ambivalence to doping is renowned, but then there's Trek and Bell(Giro) for whom it doesn't take much research to connect the dots and realize they they knew exactly what they were buying.

True, but you knowing what you know I have one question.

Why are you still watching the sport? Why are you whining. Pull the plug personally.

 

[BotanyBay]

The second fastest way to lose money is to invest in the bicycle industry (the fastest being the airline industry). Be thankful that they sponsor at all.

 

[ergmonkey]

Bike manufacturers don't really have so much leverage here. Unlike general corporate investors in cycling, the frame makers are more of a captive audience. They need the top riders to showcase their bikes, regardless of whether the top-level is clean.

 

[AnythingButKestrel]

I'm perfectly ok with ending pro bike racing. No TDF? No big deal. If it starts with the guiltiest corporate weasels going to jail and the rest of the weasels running like hell, even better.

 

[andy1234]

I'm perfectly ok with ending pro bike racing. No TDF? No big deal. If it starts with the guiltiest corporate weasels going to jail and the rest of the weasels running like hell, even better.

Here is another option.

Allow pro racing to continue, but don't watch it on TV, or read about it in the press or post about it on forums.

While you are there, don't watch any other sports, because there are just as many weasels in those too.

 

[70kmph]

2 words: Frank Serpico...

 

[DirtyWorks]

The second fastest way to lose money is to invest in the bicycle industry (the fastest being the airline industry). Be thankful that they sponsor at all.

Having worked in the industry, the sponsors spend most of their energy trying to move product developed and built by someone else. They may know of doping from The Clinic, but that's it for most of them. They spend most of their days worrying about sales. In the U.S. they might have to worry about being sued for patent violations for no legitimate reason too. I don't know what it's like in Europe.

If this post divorces some of the romance of being in the bicycle industry, then I've done something right. I think BotanyBay and I agree that pursuing the bike brands is not the right course of action. Change the UCI? Yes. IOC? Yes. Bike brands? No.

I'd add wine making to BotanyBay's list. I'd argue there are richer fools romanced by wine, but cycling has been funded by plenty of rich fools.

 

[fatandfast]

If you genuinely think that the major sponsors are unaware of where their money is going, you haven't been paying attention. The fact that they actually support doping is evidenced by the fact that they keep sending money by the wheelbarrow load after they know damned good and well that a chunk of it is going to doping by their sponsored riders.

Oakley's ambivalence to doping is renowned, but then there's Trek and Bell(Giro) for whom it doesn't take much research to connect the dots and realize they they knew exactly what they were buying.

dude!! are you reading any of this. Have you looked through any water ski magazines lately? Do you really think Oakley's wad is being spent all on pro cycling? have you watched super cross? Have you observed what shades F1,Dakar, Nascar drivers are wearing? Do you think that every time an old lady gets toasted by a Renault roll over on a country road in Romania that Oakley should fold their tent and go home..we are done w rally racing. What glasses are swimmers wearing Phelps ain't wearing RayBans. The exposure that the sponsors get from pro sports is not an ad lazer that only targets the guy w Di2 or 11 speed SR..there is a huge bicycle market place of people that race to the end of the driveway and back..you are under the impression that pro bike racing influences all things bicycle. Miley Cyrus probably sold more bikes for Electra than Cav sold for Scott. More people probably own Oakley because of Derek Jeter than because of any pedaling idiot doped or not..

 

[AnythingButKestrel]

dude!! are you reading any of this. Have you looked through any water ski magazines lately? Do you really think Oakley's wad is being spent all on pro cycling? have you watched super cross? Have you observed what shades F1,Dakar, Nascar drivers are wearing? Do you think that every time an old lady gets toasted by a Renault roll over on a country road in Romania that Oakley should fold their tent and go home..we are done w rally racing. What glasses are swimmers wearing Phelps ain't wearing RayBans. The exposure that the sponsors get from pro sports is not an ad lazer that only targets the guy w Di2 or 11 speed SR..there is a huge bicycle market place of people that race to the end of the driveway and back..you are under the impression that pro bike racing influences all things bicycle. Miley Cyrus probably sold more bikes for Electra than Cav sold for Scott. More people probably own Oakley because of Derek Jeter than because of any pedaling idiot doped or not..

Once again, we're not discussing other sports. Only pro cycling. No analogy you have provided remotely relates to how the executives of major cycling sponsors are aware and at the least passively complicit in pro cycling doping programs.

Oakley was aware long ago as to what they were pumping money into. Didn't slow them down one bit. Somebody needs to be held to account. What percentage of their sales relate to cycling is totally irrelevant.

 

[AnythingButKestrel]

Here is another option.

Allow pro racing to continue, but don't watch it on TV, or read about it in the press or post about it on forums.

While you are there, don't watch any other sports, because there are just as many weasels in those too.

I've got an even better idea: The cycling business can stop laundering a percentage of what I spend on bicycling and other items by not sending money into known illegal drug trafficking and distribution programs.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Once again, we're not discussing other sports. Only pro cycling. No analogy you have provided remotely relates to how the executives of major cycling sponsors are aware and at the least passively complicit in pro cycling doping programs.

Oakley was aware long ago as to what they were pumping money into. Didn't slow them down one bit. Somebody needs to be held to account. What percentage of their sales relate to cycling is totally irrelevant.

I think there is something to this.

Let's consider the Landis story about "Treks-for-Drugs". Trek *HAD* to come to know what was being done with their bikes. Maybe at first they (guys at the top) did not know (or maybe they "allowed" it?), then wondered why the USPS team needed all the extra gear. Ultimately, when you see your team bikes on ebay, you do understand what is happening. To the point where they actually said they wrote new contract language forbidding the sale of team issued gear until the season ended.

If a bike company is involved in a direct or indirect way, like Trek as an example, then yes, they must be held accountable. Obtaining these PED's is no small task. Money has a trail. Finding a way to generate undocumented cash in order to get the PED's from the back of a Pharma or black market sources is a must.

Funny. The Trek employee (CFO, controller, or somesuch) initially had plenty to say. He was promptly stifled and replaced with a Public Strategies shrill, from what I recall. Funny how the US Feds went straight to Trek to ask for documentation as they started breaking the doping scandal down to its workings.

To the extent that Trek made a small fortune off of Lance's wins, transforming themselves from a pedestrian US brand into a leading, cutting edge technical race brand was done on the backs of doped bike racers. Thanks!

If they "knew" all along, then they should be punished for facilitating the fraud. Aiding and abetting.

If they didn't "know", then they should be very helpful in providing the proof of how they were unaware and took the proper steps to prevent the scheme from perpetuating.

Given the "Lance" effect, the handling of the Lemond brand, the small slice of Trek that Lance purportedly owns, my guess is they knew, approved and actively assisted. In fact they didn't mind it one bit, as their global business exploded like mushrooms on a pile of dung often will do.

 

[DirtyWorks]

To the extent that Trek made a small fortune off of Lance's wins, transforming themselves from a pedestrian US brand into a leading, cutting edge technical race brand was done on the backs of doped bike racers. Thanks!

The likelihood a 'small fortune' off of Pharmstrong wins is arguable. Trek had an aggressive marketing strategy into shops and their product moved. I would argue their growth had little to do with Pharmstrong's wins, but I had a completely different perspective.

The 'cutting edge' part is all marketing. If Trek could hit their sales numbers with 'boring, safe, quality bikes' they would have used that angle.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

The likelihood a 'small fortune' off of Pharmstrong wins is arguable. Trek had an aggressive marketing strategy into shops and their product moved. I would argue their growth had little to do with Pharmstrong's wins, but I had a completely different perspective.

The 'cutting edge' part is all marketing. If Trek could hit their sales numbers with 'boring, safe, quality bikes' they would have used that angle.

I have been coming to the USA regularly since about 1996. I have frequented a wide variety of shops for repairs and parts quite a bit during this time. The name "Trek" before 2000 was prevalent but somewhat generic.

After Lance started winning Le Tour the name went up in recognition. I would welcome anyone on these forums who has bicycle industry insights to expand on how Trek has grown over the last 10+ years. I may be way off but in my simple consumer view, they have leaped forward to be an industry leader, far past where they were before Lance started winning races in France.

 

[Darryl Webster]

While I`ve absalutly no doupt that executives of major sponsers know the score ( and therefore effectivly endorse "whatever it takes") I doupt theres many with any direct involvement in procurement and practise of PEDS.
There is one bike make that jumps out at me though..Eddy Merckx.
What Eddy dont know about probably aint worth knowing I reckon...no one that I can think of amongst the bike makers comes close to being so involved. He seems to be practicly omnipresent at almost everything major and is defo "access all areas".
Greatest bike rider of all time but oh , could he tell some stories eh?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

While I`ve absalutly no doupt that executives of major sponsers know the score ( and therefore effectivly endorse "whatever it takes") I doupt theres many with any direct involvement in procurement and practise of PEDS.
There is one bike make that jumps out at me though..Eddy Merckx.
What Eddy dont know about probably aint worth knowing I reckon...no one that I can think of amongst the bike makers comes close to being so involved. He seems to be practicly omnipresent at almost everything major and is defo "access all areas".
Greatest bike rider of all time but oh , could he tell some stories eh?

Agreed!

I think chasing Trek down for any perceived mis-deeds (as to being complicit in a grander doping scandal) is a bit of a stretch. I have had more than a couple of contracts as a DS that stipulated X number of bikes, X number of wheel sets, and X number of team kit; not to fund a doping program, but rather to pay my mortgage and to make up for the low-ball salary being offered.

Trek's contract for sponsorship would only stipulate X number of bikes/frames, where they end up is not their issue (apart from a no-Ebay clause). It's the guys who run the team, receive the product, and then flip it who are the guys with the tough questions to answer.

A Witch Hunt against sponsors is only going to hurt further sponsorship. The companies are not the issue. The people who run teams ARE the issue, and they are the ones who should be answering these questions.

Trying to find a 'clean' company is only going to end up in manifold headaches. They're looking for exposure, nothing more.

And, hey they're actually giving money to the sport we love. That's not so bad. Look at the managers and DSs, then pick the fight...