No More Treks!!!!

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
BillytheKid said:
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.
Quite frankly it is hard to follow you rather rambling response. How Monty Python logically figures into this is a pretty bizarre comment. The evidence regarding Trek's knowledge of doping is circumstantial at this point, but it starts with Greg Lemond's outspoken criticism of Armstrong, the fact Armstrong owns shares in Trek and suddenly Trek dumps Lemond.

If Trek was aware of the doping and hence the fraud, then yes they are more corrupt than the next corporation. Corporations generally are not corrupt, in spite of the paranoia among organizations like Occupy Wall Street. On the other hand many are and this is why organizations like OWS want to "take down" corrupt companies.

The logic of my argument is pretty simple. It was,

"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. ... 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!"

This is not a very difficult piece of logic to understand!

And yes Tiger Woods sponsor Nike DID know about his serial cheating. A lot of people knew about it, but the media had no cajones to report it. In fact Nike has a disreputable history of backing duds, such as Michael Vick (dog fighting), Ben Rothlesburger (sexual assault) and Armstrong. And Nike is taking a lot of heat for it and many consumers and athletes do boycott their products. How is Trek any less independent than Nike?

What you seem to be missing is that tolerating cheating in the circumstances of Trek has consequences and a lot of people like Bryins are simply arguing that consumers should boycott Trek. Loss of market share is one of those consequences.

What "lust for blood", circa 1000 and Corporate Raiders" have to do with anything is absurd.
 
May 19, 2012
537
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
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.
I don't know. Honestly, is there really that much difference between bikes?

At the high point of the Armstrong kool aid drinking, the minimally informed, bike interested masses, DID believe Treks were superior. I heard too many LBS/newbie conversations-----sales queries/pitches to believe otherwise.

The uninformed DID believe that a Trek 5900 was better than a C-40/50..They didn't even know what a Colnago was...

That's just the way it was.
 
Jul 28, 2009
898
0
0
BillytheKid said:
Exactly, but why use their same device? "like killing kittens." Let the courts decide.
Your arguments are entirely spurious as befits the fishing expedition you have engaged in this thread. Like the OP I reserve my right as a consumer to make my own judgement regarding who I will give my business to. Presumably people purchased from these companies on the basis at least in part that it was endorsed by someone they admired. The converse argument if you despise that person is equally credible so there is nothing wrong with the OPs point.
 
Jeremiah said:
I don't know. Honestly, is there really that much difference between bikes?
No.

Jeremiah said:
At the high point of the Armstrong kool aid drinking, the minimally informed, bike interested masses, DID believe Treks were superior. I heard too many LBS/newbie conversations-----sales queries/pitches to believe otherwise.

The uninformed DID believe that a Trek 5900 was better than a C-40/50..They didn't even know what a Colnago was...

That's just the way it was.
I am certainly not an authority on this particular issue. As always, more information is better. You may be right and I may be wrong about the effect on sales Wonderboy might have had. But, understand that Trek's move away from the independent bike dealer model and S/M/L Giant bikes made the business much more profitable.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY