As the name might indicate, I'm inclined to say yes. Given the history of teams in the Tour, I think this is an interesting question.
Pro:
1) Bike companies (like Cervelo, Specialized, Trek) have a long-term interest in the health of professional cycling - in order to advertise their products - in comparison to television stations or banks, which have none.
2) Bike companies will be as concerned with researching/developing the performance of their bikes, and will be less concerned with great results - thus (ideally) less pressure for riders to dope.
3) Bike company sponsors will be more informed about professional cycling, and will understand that results are due to luck and timing almost as much as tactics, speed or strength - thus, again, less pressure to dope.
Con:
1) Bike companies cannot afford to support top teams on the level that banks and lotteries do.
2) Bike companies may be extremely concerned with showing off their products in races, and thus apply more pressure for good results (and thus encourage doping)
3) A sport only sponsored/supported by the makers of its major product could become insular and fail to attract a broader audience.
Thoughts?
Pro:
1) Bike companies (like Cervelo, Specialized, Trek) have a long-term interest in the health of professional cycling - in order to advertise their products - in comparison to television stations or banks, which have none.
2) Bike companies will be as concerned with researching/developing the performance of their bikes, and will be less concerned with great results - thus (ideally) less pressure for riders to dope.
3) Bike company sponsors will be more informed about professional cycling, and will understand that results are due to luck and timing almost as much as tactics, speed or strength - thus, again, less pressure to dope.
Con:
1) Bike companies cannot afford to support top teams on the level that banks and lotteries do.
2) Bike companies may be extremely concerned with showing off their products in races, and thus apply more pressure for good results (and thus encourage doping)
3) A sport only sponsored/supported by the makers of its major product could become insular and fail to attract a broader audience.
Thoughts?