Benotti69 said:
Nope, but Trek tried to destroy LeMond for Armstrong and for that they worth boycotting.
All manufacturers have doping on their hands but Trek are on a level of their own in ******baggery
I doubt that LeMont was all that clear in an era that all were doped.. The fact that he turned against Armstrong, ( which L.A I believed from the very beginning that was racing doped in any case), doesn't make him a "saint" in my eyes and the fact that he didn't caught doped doesn't mean that he wasn't doped at all. We don't know it for sure but is not impossible judging by how corrupted is Cycling ( as a sport) from any point of view.
I don't say that Trek was right on what it did, I'm not even a fanatic supporter of any of these companies, but on the other hand we can't "cancel" companies who sponsor a sport, when its own participants, ( athletes, trainers, teams, doctors, organizations and whoever is involved) are so corrupted.
And even if we say that we boycott Trek, is it something that is going to change? Can Trek, change something by not sponsoring athletes? What I mean is that there are so many athletes with the "win at any cost" attitude, and this attitude is so well and deep established, that even if we boycott all companies and buy nobody's products won't make athletes stop doping. As long as doped athletes have people's support, companies will follow and will support the athlete's because they are the "vehicle" to get to the people.
I think that what would make a difference is to turn our backs in professional cycling and focus in recreational cycling. As long as racing is a job that somebody can do for his living, things like that will keep on happen.
It will not perhaps be Trek.. It will be some other company. For me is the same..
