No More Treks!!!!

Dec 17, 2011
5
0
0
Trek made huge sales and profits from their sponsorship of Lance Armstrong. Anyone with a brain in their head knew after 1999 LA was doping. Trek along with Oakley and LA's other sponsors ignored any concern over doping. It is not right that companies are allowed to profit becasue of their support of doping. Not to mention that Trek caused Greg Lemond fiancial and emotional suffering over his willingness to speak the the truth. Trek did everything in their power to defame and silence Greg. Now is the time to show Trek how wrong they are... BOYCOTT TREK BIKES!!!!!
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,296
0
0
Once we are done with Trek can we go after Giant? Hey Some specialized riders cheated. Oh Darmnmy Colnago's have to go!! OH no every bike is implicated. Boycott bicycles. get some soccer boots. OH no soccer players are like doping cyclists in the late 80s. We know they are doping but nobody cares.
Enjoy your boycot My buddy just bought two and I even want one. I might boycott Trek because I like other bikes better but my wife love's hers. I suppose we could all ride handbuilt bikes until some cheater rides it.

So can we all meet you in front of the local Trek store and watch the employees default on their bills.
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
Bryins said:
Trek made huge sales and profits from their sponsorship of Lance Armstrong. Anyone with a brain in their head knew after 1999 LA was doping. Trek along with Oakley and LA's other sponsors ignored any concern over doping. It is not right that companies are allowed to profit becasue of their support of doping. Not to mention that Trek caused Greg Lemond fiancial and emotional suffering over his willingness to speak the the truth. Trek did everything in their power to defame and silence Greg. Now is the time to show Trek how wrong they are... BOYCOTT TREK BIKES!!!!!
Oh, please! This is imperious nonsense. Let's talk oil leases in Alaska next :p

Billions there old boy.
 
Apr 8, 2012
840
0
0
Regardless of the controversy surrounding that brand in the last 15 years, Trek bikes are just simply fugly! They're like the Toyota of the bicycle world, boring style, and everybody has one.
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
BroDeal said:
The OP has a point. Trek did not simply sponsor a doper. It actively covered up the fraud by trying to silence Greg LeMond. The company is run by scum and your dollars are better spent elsewhere.
Have you any proof they actually knew about the doping scheme? As for fraud, that has be yet to be determined by within the legal system and courts. Keep a strait line around your corners please.

In my opinion, LeMond was a victim the market place which was affected by the doping, but not the major concern at the time. His bikes were no longer as popular. He had the right to defend himself as he saw fit, however.

The better point, as said, is you could ban many bike manufacturers in association with doping riders.
 
Feb 24, 2013
6
0
0
Trek employs many different kinds of specialists and simple workers (most of them in asia). PR and marketing people screwed up. Owners and administration are also responsible for this screw-up. However, it doesn't mean that engineers, product developers and simple workers are guilty and should be punished. It also doesn't mean that TREKs are bad bikes.

Idolizing a person just because he or she wins bike races is stupid. Actually idolizing any person for any reason is stupid. For some LA was almost like a second Jesus. So I don't feel bad that TREK, NIKE, GIRO and others took advantage of those suckers and it will not make me avoid their products.

And btw I just got a great deal on a nice TREK frame for my winter/bad weather bike. Now after the LA bubble bursted you can find some great offers on e-bay.
 
Aug 16, 2011
10,821
0
0
Useless and pointless to boycott any bike. My first race bike (now a commuter) was a Trek, and I didn't buy it cause Armstrong rode the same brand, I bougt it because it was a good bike for my needs. Besides, I'm sure any bike manufacturer, if they found themselves in Treks position, would do exactly the same thing.
 
perpetuum mobile said:
...

Idolizing a person just because he or she wins bike races is stupid. Actually idolizing any person for any reason is stupid. For some LA was almost like a second Jesus. So I don't feel bad that TREK, NIKE, GIRO and others took advantage of those suckers and it will not make me avoid their products.

And btw I just got a great deal on a nice TREK frame for my winter/bad weather bike. Now after the LA bubble bursted you can find some great offers on e-bay.
I agree wholeheartedly with that comment. But, the whole reason for sponsorship is to associate an athlete with a brand and sell more bikes. I don't see why it shouldn't work the other way too. If people are dumb enough to buy a bike because of a certain rider, let them be just as dumb and not buy it because of a certain rider.

Were any of the eBay sales you've witnessed USPS autographed editions?

I'm glad I got rid of mine before the bubble burst, the only market I ever timed properly. :D
 
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
BroDeal said:
The OP has a point. Trek did not simply sponsor a doper. It actively covered up the fraud by trying to silence Greg LeMond. The company is run by scum and your dollars are better spent elsewhere.
have to agree with this, well said ..
 
Jul 17, 2009
4,317
1
0
Trek Bikes Suk

Although their suspension bikes are kick a$$.

Does this make Keith Bontrager a tool btw? I mean they tried to slap his name on LeMond frames for a while
 
Oct 20, 2012
285
0
0
According the opinion of the majority of this forum member's most of pro riders in all Grand Tours ( not saying all riders and generalize) are racing doped ( other more.. other less). Should we boycott all of their sponsors for that and buy what?? Nothing perhaps??!!
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
alitogata said:
According the opinion of the majority of this forum member's most of pro riders in all Grand Tours ( not saying all riders and generalize) are racing doped ( other more.. other less). Should we boycott all of their sponsors for that and buy what?? Nothing perhaps??!!
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
 
Oct 20, 2012
285
0
0
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.. :)
 
Mar 13, 2009
683
0
0
usedtobefast said:
Trek wins Flanders, they must really be bad bikes,godawful huh?
Decent enough bikes. Just run by Godawful (sic) people especially that scum bag of a CEO.
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
If my memory serves correctly, I think it was LeMond who first went after TREK legally, as his bike sales plunged and they reacted. So, like Peter Sagan, who learned this day, I not going to stick it to TREK because the matter is settled.

TREK is, to my mind, no different than most company's mindset, much the bottom line as they and have done the math and are looking in the face of a big loss. So they choose pay out-the-settlement path to LeMond. He had a right to complain. I can imagine in 2000, the shut-down call from the independents on the LeMond bikes as I can remember the markdowns on a large amount of his bikes in one large store here. But now we know the rest of the story.

I am sure they have lost some market share already, but I say, let 'em ride on.;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY