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.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.
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.