No More Treks!!!!

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Don't forget Pharmstrong likely still has criminal trial(s) to look forward to. It is not outside the realm of possibility that, in the fullness of time, we will come to learn that Trek knew or should have known they were supporting a criminal organisation in the guise of a bicycling team.

That revelation would cast them in an entirely different light.
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
StyrbjornSterki said:
Don't forget Pharmstrong likely still has criminal trial(s) to look forward to. It is not outside the realm of possibility that, in the fullness of time, we will come to learn that Trek knew or should have known they were supporting a criminal organisation in the guise of a bicycling team.

That revelation would cast them in an entirely different light.
Now there's the real revelation. Dorel Industries? We'll have to start to work on it.


Yes! Let's down another US company and harm the workers and their families and the children. What an imperial idea. All the better, let's make sound just and right! Cannondale is now Canadian owned and no longer manufactures with US Carbon Fiber and I am sure that many of their bikes are not made in Taiwan. I'm sue their former workers love it. There should be a business section with this outfit. Along with a full disclosure to their advert revenues. Let's feature the runner ups bike. Sexy Baby.

Am I reading British reading tea leaves?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannondale_Bicycle_Corporation

Nice touch. All that's left is a Corporate HQ. I should not respond to this nonsense. I vote to protect American jobs. Too many American Brands are just labels:p

Fishy this one. Fishy.
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
Cancellara's ride at Flanders was a Domane: Here's an independent review of Madone 3 and 5 which and also talks about the aspects of the new intro Domane which in the lower series now also comes with the TREKs unique OCLV carbon fiber found on the 7 in 2013. Although it sounds like he opted to ride the 2012 version with the addition of 11 speed and new wheels. My ride is a 2004 Giant TRC TT, Al, frame converted for road, but I will most likely chose a lesser Domane given the budget. This body could use something like it.

Note the Cannondale colors on bike featured.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbG3y9hlwVM

TREK is an independent bicycle manufacturer. Cannondale was until sold into the Dorel Industries group out of bankruptcy in 2003 which explains the hard feelings via the era. In hindsight, TREK hitch their wagon to the wrong horse and probably has already paid for it in the market place and will into the future. I think it's a stretch to assume to link them directly to recent revelations unless something further arises. Promo bikes have long gone out the gates of many a bike factory.

Since the greater CN site chose a banner story on Sagan's bike instead of Cancellara's, you can, if you wish, see TREK's basic concepts in the 2012 Domane on the link below. This has been out there for a while so most have probably already seen it. CN did put up a skybox video of the Fab's Domane after E3, but again chose to highlight a banner story on Sagan's machine. Since the editor-in-chief started this thread, the E3 video, complete with bad audio, is a bit of a snub in my book. So I protest.

The TREK Domane 2012 promo link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBMLR0KAoLI
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
BillytheKid said:
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.;)
Nope, it was all about Armstrong.

Trek Bicycle Corp. is dropping LeMond Bicycles from its line and going to court to sever a 13-year licensing agreement with three-time Tour de France champion Greg LeMond, Trek president John Burke told employees Tuesday morning.

Burke cited LeMond’s public comments regarding doping allegations against Lance Armstrong and others, LeMond’s decision to offer a mass merchant accessory product line in 2000, and his “inconsistent” commitment to the brand.

“Greg’s public comments hurt the LeMond brand and the Trek brand,” Burke said. “Despite our repeated efforts to persuade Greg to focus on selling his bikes, he continued his personal attacks,” he said.

LeMond attorney Denise Rahne said she was surprised at the company’s public response to what had been a private dispute.
That's why LeMond sued in response, because Trek tried to break their licensing agreement after LeMond's remarks about Armstrong. And wouldn't surprise me in the least if Trek was doing so at Armstrong's behest.
 
Bryins said:
Trek made huge sales and profits from their sponsorship of Lance Armstrong.
Not really. Armstrong was just an image on theh poster for half or more of the average Trek shop's customers. Their growth/sales/profits came from a couple of areas:

Expanded product line that sold. Trek went from roughly "mountain bike" and "road bike" lines to mountain, road, flat bar road, 29er, full suspension, XC, comfort bike, comfortable road bike, and still more.

Abandoned the Independent Bike Dealer model and went vertical. That is a fundamental driver to their success.

Shifted production to low-cost production centers and went to the S/M/L Giantification of the bike industry. Trek is still probably a big customer for Giant.

Specific to the U.S.
The bike industry's investment in lobbying for more bike access in transportation policy started paying dividends maybe 10 years after getting started with increased demand for product.

In the U.S. increasing numbers of people unable to afford owning a car.

To be fair, it is very difficult to grow a business that resells stuff. Which, is mostly what they do. I give them credit for that. And they do support grassroots participation mostly with Bro-deal stuff like most bike-related companies.

If more stuff about their role enabling the doping comes to light, then we'll see what happens. Some of the participants on this forum are inside the bike business and can probably better comment on their current business reputation. I distantly recall it as being a very difficult company to deal with. But, that was a looooong time ago now.
 
Jan 23, 2013
239
0
0
To the OP:

It's your choice to either buy - or not buy - any product you want, of course.

To think that your decision will lead to the downfall of a company as enormous as Trek is kind of inane.

To think that encouraging others to do so will have more of an impact is simply ludicrous.

If you want to make a greater impact, I suggest writing a letter to the owners of local bike shops that carry Trek and state your point of view. Boycotting a local business is a place where you can, indeed, have an impact as well as a voice.

I encourage you, however, to be nice to the staff and owner of the shops you contact. After all, they were just selling a brand that had a good market and a lot of publicity due to LA's popularity (at least here in the USA).

My guess is that the PR guys at Trek are working pretty hard on an "image recovery" program to clear their reputation.

p.s. to the poster who said Treks are fugly - I cannot agree more!
 
TheBean said:
If you want to make a greater impact, I suggest writing a letter to the owners of local bike shops that carry Trek and state your point of view. Boycotting a local business is a place where you can, indeed, have an impact as well as a voice.
#1 Dealing with the local Trek dealer is a moot point. Your shop is either mostly Trek stuff, or not at all. They can't not sell Trek stuff. And, to make matters worse, my understaning is the shop's profit margin is killed when the Trek volume drops off. Trek knows they've got the shop between a rock and a hard place. In some regions, they've opened the shops themselves so an owner-intermediary isn't even an issue.

#2 The number of Trek customers that care Wonderboy was flogging bikes is pretty small. Yes, Wonderboy did some bad, bad things even in the retail bike business. But, when it comes to customers buying Treks, they might lose a couple of sales. Most consumers just don't care.
 
I'm more inclined not to buy a Trek because of the badly placed popup ads on this website, that could not be closed. And before people start going on about ad-blockers, I like to see ad's targeted at me, as long as I can not interact with them if I choose.
 
Jul 26, 2012
524
0
0
The OP's contempt for things corporate might best be directed at Nike for which there might be more justification seeing how closely they hung to Armstrong despite the mounting evidence. It suggests they know more about the doping.
 
Jan 23, 2013
239
0
0
To Dirty Works:

I worked in a shop that carried Specialized, Trek, and a few other brands. Speciallized and Trek accounted for about 80% of the showroom space, collectively.

We would do internal market analysis to determine which bikes were placed in prominent displays. Customer feedback, as well as sales figures, were each important aspects of that internal analysis.

If customers were to come in and state that they were "put off" by Trek due to their association with LA or other business practices, it would matter.

I understand that my experience includes a total of one shop and that there are very few shops that carry both Specialized and Trek, so it is not indicative of the industry as a whole.

Ironically, you mention it is a "moot" point, and the shop also is a "port of entry" for customers wanting to custom order a Moots.

Trek "concept stores" are definitely influenced greatly by the corporate office, but to what extent I am not sure.
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
Not really. Armstrong was just an image on theh poster for half or more of the average Trek shop's customers. Their growth/sales/profits came from a couple of areas:

Expanded product line that sold. Trek went from roughly "mountain bike" and "road bike" lines to mountain, road, flat bar road, 29er, full suspension, XC, comfort bike, comfortable road bike, and still more.

Abandoned the Independent Bike Dealer model and went vertical. That is a fundamental driver to their success.

Shifted production to low-cost production centers and went to the S/M/L Giantification of the bike industry. Trek is still probably a big customer for Giant.

Specific to the U.S.
The bike industry's investment in lobbying for more bike access in transportation policy started paying dividends maybe 10 years after getting started with increased demand for product.

In the U.S. increasing numbers of people unable to afford owning a car.

To be fair, it is very difficult to grow a business that resells stuff. Which, is mostly what they do. I give them credit for that. And they do support grassroots participation mostly with Bro-deal stuff like most bike-related companies.

If more stuff about their role enabling the doping comes to light, then we'll see what happens. Some of the participants on this forum are inside the bike business and can probably better comment on their current business reputation. I distantly recall it as being a very difficult company to deal with. But, that was a looooong time ago now.
Nothing new under the sun in the sports arena which poses the question; if a baseball arena is built for a franchise with the assistance of public funds, of which most are, and a franchise player is busted on doping, is that not also fraud if it's proven the ownership new about it? The singular focus on Armstrong amazes me at times, but the big leagues have no worries because their not a signatory of USADA.:D
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
Fortyninefourteen said:
Everytime someone buys a Trek, God kills a kitten.
The talking point from Dorel Industries? Such is the appeal of emotional reasoning, but not surprising since it is an effective device in adverts.
 
A reasonable response to TREK

:D
Master50 said:
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.

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.
Billy the Kid

"Oh, please! This is imperious nonsense. Let's talk oil leases in Alaska next

Billions there old boy."


Your tongue in cheek and sarcastic comments do nothing to advance the need for rational discussion about the lack of accountability in the corporate world. You both sound like Lehman Brothers or Exxon Mobile apologists (massive investment fraud and massive environmental degradation - any memory of that?)

All Bryins is saying, and it is a reasonable argument to make is that TREK had to know about the doping, and yet failed to take reasonable steps to resile from their knowledge of the fraud. They were like the UCI, Verbruggen and McQuaid, see no evil, hear no evil, there must be no evil (Sorry I cannot see while I have my head so far up LA's ***)

TREK's massive moral failure was undertaken to make obscene profits. That seems to me like a reasonable reason to boycott TREK's products. Knowingly tolerating fraud, lies and cheating has consequences!

If somehow riding your wife's TREK bike makes you feel good, go ahead. And if unwitting employees want to associate with a corrupt company, they pay the economic consequences of that corruption. Who said life was fair! :D
 
Aug 7, 2010
1,247
0
0
BillytheKid said:
The talking point from Dorel Industries? Such is the appeal of emotional reasoning, but not surprising since it is an effective device in adverts.
Just like in politics, going negative is like doping....evil but it always pays off in the home stretch.

Hypothetically, if one worked at Dorel, one would seek to avoid directly referencing Trek and their Armstrong woes......but indirectly creating the pathway for the consumer to follow on their own....hypothetically of course...
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
RobbieCanuck said:
:D

Billy the Kid

"Oh, please! This is imperious nonsense. Let's talk oil leases in Alaska next

Billions there old boy."


Your tongue in cheek and sarcastic comments do nothing to advance the need for rational discussion about the lack of accountability in the corporate world. You both sound like Lehman Brothers or Exxon Mobile apologists (massive investment fraud and massive environmental degradation - any memory of that?)

All Bryins is saying, and it is a reasonable argument to make is that TREK had to know about the doping, and yet failed to take reasonable steps to resile from their knowledge of the fraud. They were like the UCI, Verbruggen and McQuaid, see no evil, hear no evil, there must be no evil (Sorry I cannot see while I have my head so far up LA's ***)

TREK's massive moral failure was undertaken to make obscene profits. That seems to me like a reasonable reason to boycott TREK's products. Knowingly tolerating fraud, lies and cheating has consequences!

If somehow riding your wife's TREK bike makes you feel good, go ahead. And if unwitting employees want to associate with a corrupt company, they pay the economic consequences of that corruption. Who said life was fair! :D
You say yes. I say no. You provide much to aid point with you own words.
I've search in vain for a youtube link to Monty Python's short "Corporate Raiders" which was, as I remember, the opening act of "The Life of Brian."
The wit of "Corporate Raiders" speaks volumes to the corporate mentality.
There's is no proof to date that TREK or had any knowledge of the USPS scheme which in my view Armstrong only took ownership of as it existed before his arrival there. Is TREK as corrupt as next corporation? The logic of your conclusion makes no sense to me.

In the absence of direct evidence, I would agree TREK might have known better. Your opinion is like saying Tiger Woods' sponsors had direct knowledge of his troubles, but you see no zeal to take them down. Are they too big to take on?
TREK as an independent, can be more easily put to into the cross hairs.

I question such motives as being encouraged here. There's lust for blood in the air and those willing to exploit it as it always been.

As said circa 1000 BC "There's nothing new under the sun."

If you've not seen "Corporate Raiders," you might want to check it out.
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
Fortyninefourteen said:
Just like in politics, going negative is like doping....evil but it always pays off in the home stretch.

Hypothetically, if one worked at Dorel, one would seek to avoid directly referencing Trek and their Armstrong woes......but indirectly creating the pathway for the consumer to follow on their own....hypothetically of course...
Exactly, but why use their same device? "like killing kittens." Let the courts decide.
 
May 19, 2012
537
0
0
Maybe

Master50 said:
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.
Your wife doesn't really love the bike but bought into the hype?

Maybe she loves the LA myth?

Perhaps she has a crush on the man himself?

Now that he has had his downfall, he might need some consoling?

We know how Lance will hit anything.

If you guys are around HI, Austin, or Aspen, and your wife goes out with the girls, maybe she might run into the Man himself?

Hmm..:eek::cool:
 
Jeremiah said:
Your wife doesn't really love the bike but bought into the hype?
Chances are excellent she just likes the bike. Most of the money in the bicycle industry that's going to Trek really doesn't care about Armstrong.

I think they even tried Livestrong branded Trek bikes and that ended before the scandals finally hit. Which comes as no suprise to any sensible person.

There's no question Lance transcended bike culture and the bike industry. But, he's not responsible for 99% of Trek's success/sales. He's not even a little responsible for the industry's growth!

I agree that the issue of Trek representatives role in the doping system needs to be revealed. Furthermore, if laws were broken and can be prosecuted then that absolutely should happen.

I doubt it will ever get that far though. Pay attention to how the narrative is constructed. It's always a story about the "bad athlete" and never seems to implicate the federation and team and all the other conspirators.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY