Nike drops Armstrong

[veganrob]

Boycott Trek and all the LBS' that sell them. That'll send the message.

No, do not boycott the LBS that sell Trek. If they have another good brand you like buy that. The stores are not complicit in what LAnce did. I know lots of Trek dealers and people that work there and they all hate Lance.
I own bike store and I do not nor would I ever carry Trek. But, there are many good people in the bike business you would hurt by doing what you say.

 

[cathulu]

I can't bring myself to buy a Trek bike because of Lance, no way. Had that feeling now for many years. Would never consider it. I think it will be tough on Trek but most of the cycle shops carry more than one brand, so it won't be so bad. Although I liked some Bontrager stuff so me bad.

 

[trailrunner]

No, do not boycott the LBS that sell Trek. If they have another good brand you like buy that. The stores are not complicit in what LAnce did. I know lots of Trek dealers and people that work there and they all hate Lance.
I own bike store and I do not nor would I ever carry Trek. But, there are many good people in the bike business you would hurt by doing what you say.

This is sort of the dilemma I'm in with Nike and my local running stores. There are about four local chains in my area, owned by local area runners. At least two of them carry a lot of Nike products, including the store closest to me, owned by a husband and wife who are good supporters of the running community. I have a lot of Nike running clothes because I give my business to this store and do everything I can to avoid mail order. Guess I'll have to look harder at the Saucony stuff they carry.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Now the following companies need to drop Lance-the dopper-fraud.

TREK- I have emailed them telling them to drop the FRAUD
OAKLEY-I have emailed them as well
RADIO SHACK- Whatever

Lance is Toxic now. I hope to see all sorts of companies back away from him

Trek = gone
Anheuser Busch = gone

How about Michelob?

 

[veganrob]

This is sort of the dilemma I'm in with Nike and my local running stores. There are about four local chains in my area, owned by local area runners. At least two of them carry a lot of Nike products, including the store closest to me, owned by a husband and wife who are good supporters of the running community. I have a lot of Nike running clothes because I give my business to this store and do everything I can to avoid mail order. Guess I'll have to look harder at the Saucony stuff they carry.

Understand your dilemma. Have a look at Saucony or Brooks if they carry them. I like their shoes, especially the Cascadia. Good for you to support your locally owned business. You'll do the right thing.

 

[Sarcastic Wet Trout]

Trek = gone
Anheuser Busch = gone

How about Michelob?

Michelob is Anheuser-Busch.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Michelob is Anheuser-Busch.

sure - yeah - I knew dat

 

[ggusta]

Can you picture control freak Armstrong sitting amongst the plebian board members and not at the head of the table controlling the board business?

he'll be a puppetmaster but they are finished eventually. damaged goods, big money will find better places to associate themselves with.

 

[ggusta]

sure - yeah - I knew dat

anheuser busch is inbev

 

[D-Queued]

Here is my latest email to Nike Investor Relations (Investor.Relations@nike.com):

Dear Nike,

Your announcement on severing ties with Lance Armstrong is commendable. Thank you for making this decision.

Obviously this has been a long-term relationship for Nike, and it is not always easy to make what may seem like a quick decision with such a long association.

As your Press Release observes, there is insurmountable evidence that Lance participated in doping, and, his own rhetoric aside, Lance has not disputed the USADA finding.

If I can be so bold, can I recommend that Nike review its sponsorship contracts to bolster its anti-doping clauses?

If your contracts do not already include it, perhaps Nike could consider that an adverse analytical finding (e.g. a positive A test), or equivalent, be the grounds for a contract suspension pending a definitive determination. Moreover, that a confirmed doping offense be grounds for both contract termination and a requirement for repayment of all funds provided under the endorsement contract. Arguably, the potential damage to Nike’s reputation from an endorsed athlete actively involved in the distribution of doping products, for example, could well exceed the amounts that Nike may have provided under an endorsement contract.

A further consideration would be to consider similar provisions as a condition for any sponsorship dollars provided to any national or international sport governing body where that organization is found to be aiding, abetting, condoning, or otherwise tolerating doping within its ranks, including through its own ineptitude or inaction.

There is already an enormous reaction against doping in sport, and this will almost certainly increase, in the aftermath of the Lance Armstrong conspiracy. It would be in Nike’s best interest as a flagship high performance sporting goods marquee to be seen as a positive leader against doping. Embracing these suggestions, and more, would almost certainly result in positive market and shareholder response.

Yours truly,

---


Dave.

 

[knewcleardaze]

Well said Dave.

 

[Boeing]

Here is my latest email to Nike Investor Relations (Investor.Relations@nike.com):

Dear Nike,

Your announcement on severing ties with Lance Armstrong is commendable. Thank you for making this decision.

Obviously this has been a long-term relationship for Nike, and it is not always easy to make what may seem like a quick decision with such a long association.

As your Press Release observes, there is insurmountable evidence that Lance participated in doping, and, his own rhetoric aside, Lance has not disputed the USADA finding.

If I can be so bold, can I recommend that Nike review its sponsorship contracts to bolster its anti-doping clauses?

If your contracts do not already include it, perhaps Nike could consider that an adverse analytical finding (e.g. a positive A test), or equivalent, be the grounds for a contract suspension pending a definitive determination. Moreover, that a confirmed doping offense be grounds for both contract termination and a requirement for repayment of all funds provided under the endorsement contract. Arguably, the potential damage to Nike’s reputation from an endorsed athlete actively involved in the distribution of doping products, for example, could well exceed the amounts that Nike may have provided under an endorsement contract.

A further consideration would be to consider similar provisions as a condition for any sponsorship dollars provided to any national or international sport governing body where that organization is found to be aiding, abetting, condoning, or otherwise tolerating doping within its ranks, including through its own ineptitude or inaction.

There is already an enormous reaction against doping in sport, and this will almost certainly increase, in the aftermath of the Lance Armstrong conspiracy. It would be in Nike’s best interest as a flagship high performance sporting goods marquee to be seen as a positive leader against doping. Embracing these suggestions, and more, would almost certainly result in positive market and shareholder response.

Yours truly,

---


Dave.

in other words hate the player not the game. All Nike has to do now to prove they are sincere and not just reacting to save face is stay involved in the sport.

 

[runninboy]

Understand your dilemma. Have a look at Saucony or Brooks if they carry them. I like their shoes, especially the Cascadia. Good for you to support your locally owned business. You'll do the right thing.

Agree.
Look into Brooks, i have had very good luck with them. I think they are better quality than Nike.

 

[rhubroma]

The rats are jumping ship...

It's appalling how these corporations will do anything to have their brands associated with what they opportunistically believe will increase sales; so on the one hand they immediately disassociate themselves, quite naturally, from LA, the moment he is no longer marketable, but continue to be "proud of their ongoing relationship with Livestrong." Starting a so called charity is a most lucrative business enterprise.

This is why things like medical research should not be left in the hands of private associations and based on the cult of personality, which only leads to the commercialization of disease and the increased revenues of the persona and his corporate sponsors; but publicly funded through taxation, for which the money goes into one thing and one thing only: research and paying the salaries of the researchers. But, hey, I know, that's socialist and anti-American.

 

[Big Daddy]

All of Armstrong's corporate sponsors were being very cautious prior to Wonderball Wednesday.

Nike's announcement was the huge blow. Nike has shown in the past to stick with their embattled athletes when they do wrong, so when they decided to dropkick Armstrong, you know his brand was well beyond tarnished. When other companies saw that you know the writing was on the wall.

Only Oakley remains as one of his last big sponsors. Wonder why they haven't cut Armstrong off yet?