Should the fans boycott Armstrong's sponsors?

Do the sponsors bear some of the responsibility?

  • Other (see comments)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
As far as I can tell, Nike, Trek, Oakley, etc. all paid Armstrong all the money he used to get his exclusive relationship with Ferrari that, according to Hamilton, put Armstrong two years ahead of Ullrich and everyone else in terms of substances, techniques, masking, micro-dosing, etc.

Don't the sponsors bear some responsibility here?

Sure, they can't control what the athletes do with their money, but can't they put no doping clauses in their contracts? I don't see why not.

I think sponsors are a big part of the problem. These [expletive deleted] are STILL supporting Armstrong today.

Do you think they bear the responsibility?

Should we start a boycott? A Twitter campaign, perhaps?
 
Aug 2, 2010
217
0
0
Personally hate boycotts. They are collectivist. I DO NOT WANT to become like the Livestrong cult zombies.

Love truth. So let's expose and shame -- and keep shaming, over and over -- LA's sick cult:

1. Cycling:
UCI (Hein, Pat), US Cycling( Steve Johnson), backers (Weisel, Knaggs, Stapleton), mouthpieces (Fabiani), etc.

2. Sponsors
Nike, Oakley...

3. Armstrong's Cancer Charities
LAF, Livestrong

4. Media
Liggett, Sherwin, Sally Jenkins, Rick Reilly, Buss Bissinger
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
1
0
Its already in effect, the list goes beyond those listed.

Its the only way the fans can make an impact and in the best way. With the bike shows in full effect anyone going just needs to re-iterate to those companies, "nope not buying till you stop supporting the conspiracy". Don't even pick up a brochure or make sure to toss it out in the view of their booth. Anyone ignoring this is just supporting the status quo and is part of the problem.
 
Apr 11, 2009
2,250
0
0
Ninety5rpm said:
As far as I can tell, Nike, Trek, Oakley, etc. all paid Armstrong all the money he used to get his exclusive relationship with Ferrari that, according to Hamilton, put Armstrong two years ahead of Ullrich and everyone else in terms of substances, techniques, masking, micro-dosing, etc.

Don't the sponsors bear some responsibility here?

Sure, they can't control what the athletes do with their money, but can't they put no doping clauses in their contracts? I don't see why not.

I think sponsors are a big part of the problem. These [expletive deleted] are STILL supporting Armstrong today.

Do you think they bear the responsibility?

Should we start a boycott? A Twitter campaign, perhaps?
I don't think a boycott would work (these guys are in too deep a market), but a Twitter campaign can grab attention. Bad publicity can hurt companies fast.

Agree with your analysis 100%.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,796
0
0
well i dont blame the companies if it makes them money go for it :S well i guess they shouldn't be activley hurting people but sponsoring someone like armstrong I dont think is bad enough for me never to buy stuff from a company, obviously the product would have to meet my standards and budget... but to be fair i hardly pay attention to slave labour and other misdemeanours by big companies and always do what is easiest for me, so it would be a bit stupid and hypocritical for me to boycott something just because i dont like lance :S we live in a capitalist world and quite frankly i like it, so i shall not join in any boycott... not that i buy stuff from nike or whatever sponsors lance anyway :S
 
Aug 14, 2012
13
0
0
Of course!

I am never going to buy any products from Nike ever again. Many reasons for that, most of them are much more "serious" than the LA thingy, but sticking to the one relevant to The Clinic; they defend a proven cheater after the fact. The implications of that is very simple to me; Nike is not a company that has a well calibrated moral compass. That said, I dont have any illusions that buying sneakers from, say, Adidas, is going to make me sleep any better... But still, my little protest is to not make Nike any richer.
 
Mar 26, 2009
342
0
0
I am in favour of a boycott, because every little bit DOES help. Your friends find out why you don't buy Nike, then they begin to question. Word gets out that a bunch of informed cycling fans are boycotting Nike, somebody writes a story. Story gets more people talking. And so on.

However, to be fair, I think companies should be given a reasonably amount of time to respond and make the decision to drop Lance, but these decisions really need to start being made as more evidence comes to light.

But what am I supposed to do with the wife's Livestrong treadmill? I swear the thing started to rattle the day the USADA decision was announced.
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
What about us schmucks who already don't buy anything sold by those brands because the brands are not good value or quality? What are we gonna do?

:(
 
Jul 7, 2009
583
0
0
the big ring said:
What about us schmucks who already don't buy anything sold by those brands because the brands are not good value or quality? What are we gonna do?

:(
Nike junk never did appeal to me from day 1.
$30 T shirts from sweat shops in Asia, no thanks.
I am constantly amazed by the media driven culture/society that markets to the never ending supply of lemmings.
 
Mar 20, 2009
249
0
9,030
Boycotted their sh:t for years already.

why Nike when we've got Umbro, Lotto,Adidas at cheaper prices
Why Oakley when Rudys are waaay better and cheaper at times
Why Liggett whn Kelly is a much betternpresenter (arguably)
 
Jul 31, 2012
56
0
0
the big ring said:
What about us schmucks who already don't buy anything sold by those brands because the brands are not good value or quality? What are we gonna do?


:(
Go to a few Op Shops. Buy up all the old Nike (etc) stuff you can find.
Take to the front of a Nike store or similar, and burn it in protest. :D

If the cops turn up, tell em your just waiting for the flames to settle before you wack the billy on. ;)
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,384
0
0
ExRower said:
Boycotted their sh:t for years already.

why Nike when we've got Umbro, Lotto,Adidas at cheaper prices
Why Oakley when Rudys are waaay better and cheaper at times
Why Liggett whn Kelly is a much betternpresenter (arguably)
Jesus.....Nike own Umbro (for the time being) :rolleyes: Do you think that Umbro are sh*t now?
 
Jul 3, 2009
335
0
0
I will wait to see if these sponsors renew thier contracts with Armstrong when their current ones run out. That for me will be a better indication of there public attitude to doping in sport.
 
Jul 25, 2009
263
0
0
Every bit helps indeed. But we should not held too much faith in the global effectiveness of the whole "voting with your wallet" thing, more often than not a feel-good myth to blunt how powerless we "consumers" are. For it to achieve any kind of effect, there first must be some real collective outrage over the issue (like, say, child labor or the scandalous work conditions that goes with those products).
Maybe the situation will be ripe for this, once the USADA case have run its course... if it establishes firmly in the US public opinion mind that LA was indeed a fraud. We're not yet there.

But it cannot hurt that on a personal level we do strive to make our consumption coherent with our beliefs, to put some thought in the consequences entailed in buying product X or Y.

Jesus.....Nike own Umbro (for the time being) Do you think that Umbro are sh*t now?
This illustrates perfectly the difficulties of doing the above (lining personal beliefs with consumer conduct): the economic landscape is now so vast, complex and interconnected that it is an impossible feat to pretend to have all the information to make a "perfect" decision.

Not buying Nike, OK. But is buying Adidas better? Or any small / no-name brand for that matter? What do I know about how those products are made, who do they endorse, the brand philosophy?

---

The Nike association was being raised in that ABC show about marketing that was linked a few days ago: the guests noted that Nike apparently do stick to their "sponsored athletes" even in dire times (Kobe Bryant, Tiger Woods were named), and that loyalty was a factor in their sponsoring deals (when you sign with Nike, they won't stab you in the back). That should not be viewed with rose-tinted glass, but there's some truth to it (It does segway nicely in their marketing, isn't it? The famous Lance ads from the 00's is a shining example).
 
good nike

it's a personal choice.........i did however vote yes boycott as i never would buy nike oakley etc as i always disliked armstrong.............ever since he came to my attention at the '93 worlds

with so much negative publicity re pharmstrong his value to nike etc is going to diminish

probably enough to devalue the brand beyond the liestrong lines

armstrong will be 'gone' soon enough anyway

it's not like tiger being a 'lad' it's sporting fraud
 
Jul 7, 2012
509
0
0
Yes, we should boycott them, as in this 'neo-liberal' capitalist world the freedom to choose what you buy is just about the only freedom the individual has left.

I have never bought anything sold by Nike, Oakley or Trek (or Sram come to that) because of the links to Armstrong, and also because I don't agree with the model of capitalism that such companies follow. That is, outsource your production to low-wage economies where the population is practically enslaved in order to better serve the corporate interests that want to exploit their labour, then use the power of 'marketing' (including using people like Armstrong) to raise the perceived value of the product as high as the market will bear, then sit back whilst the profits flow in, profits that largely end up in the pockets of the already super-wealthy. Hence the situation were companies like Nike can have sports shirts made for literally a few cents each, and yet sell then for $50.

Unfortunately, it is getting difficult to choose to buy from companies that still have a sense of social responsibility, who support jobs in the home market and so forth. Far too many 'manufacturers' these days are simply marketing and design companies, having all their products made in low-wage economies, even as they draw on the image of traditional home-based manufacture. Companies who resist this model, such as Campagnolo, are liable to be labelled as being 'arrogant' in their assumption that more traditional models of production are still viable. For example, see

http://www.bicycling.com/news/featured-stories/italian-job

In many ways companies like Nike and Armstrong are perfect mirror image of one another. Corporate power wants to see a world where everyone views individualistic, hierarchical, inequitable, amoral 'To the winner the spoils', 'Dog eat dog', 'Look after number one' capitalism, where the only real winners are the '1%', as being the only game in town. Hyper-competitive sports people like Armstrong provide the perfect role model for such a system.

As the excellent documentary film The Corporation points out, following the US model, companies are legally viewed as being persons. However, the typical behaviour of corporations would have them labelled as sociopaths or even psychopaths if they were persons. Again Armstrong offers an appropriate model.

I think that in many ways the world is sinking into a new form of totalitarianism based on unaccountable corporate power. Huge attempts have been made to brainwash people into thinking that 'Big government' is the real problem, 'restricting individual freedoms' and stifling the so-called 'free market'. In reality governments are at least democratically accountable and can act to protect the individual from exploitation by more powerful interests, protecting workers rights and safety, protecting the environment and so forth. Corporate interests naturally want to act without restraint, that is have totalitarian power, and so try to portray 'governments', 'the state' and collectivism in general as being a 'Road to serfdom' to use von Hayek's famous phrase. In reality the opposite is true and, as the financial crisis shows, the 'so-called 'free market' doesn't actually work in any case.

So-called 'libertarianism' might have a superficial attraction to some, but the only real 'liberty' it ultimately supports is that of corporate power. I have noticed that supporters of 'libertarianism' are fond of quoting from George Orwell's review of von Hayek's book, where he agrees that collectivism can give a "tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamed of". (My emphasis). However, they always omit Orwell's conclusion that a "return to 'free' competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the state".

Anyhow, yes let's boycott the likes of Nike, as I said the freedom to choose what you buy is just about the only freedom the individual has left. However, a similar ethical stance needs to be taken in the case of everything we buy.

Oh, and if you work in advertising or marketing, kill yourself now. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo
 
Mar 10, 2009
251
0
0
I like my German car, despite what they did to my country in the second world war, and more recently with the euro.

Boycotting because of Armstrong, why not if it gives you pleasure. Just as long as it's not cutting off your nose to spite your face.
 

LauraLyn

BANNED
Jul 13, 2012
594
0
0
Ninety5rpm said:
As far as I can tell, Nike, Trek, Oakley, etc. all paid Armstrong all the money he used to get his exclusive relationship with Ferrari that, according to Hamilton, put Armstrong two years ahead of Ullrich and everyone else in terms of substances, techniques, masking, micro-dosing, etc.

Don't the sponsors bear some responsibility here? . . .
It does not seem that Armstrong's relationship with Ferrari was in any way exclusive. Ferrari has been busy selling his services to all who come knocking. And he must be pretty good at it considering what people have been willing to pay.

The sponsors do, it seems to me, bear responsibility for doping in sports. Especially in their close association with teams and events where there is more than good reason to suspect doping. The "anti-doping clauses" in their sponsoring contracts appear as little more than a way to say "it wasn't us" when the kitchen catches on fire. But holding the sponsors accountable appears much more difficult.

All in all, boycotting those who have sponsored Armstrong will probably have an immeasurable impact on their profit margins. Mostly sponsors go with athletes for the image-making, image-building. The biggest impact one could have on the sponsors of Armstrong would be through the destruction of Armstrong's image. This is the biggest public threat to Armstrong.

Where this topic was discussed previously in The Clinic I pointed out how slow sponsors can be (not always) in making decisions. There is so much legal advise they need, and sometimes they prefer to be behind the curve rather than risk being too far out in front.
 
May 9, 2009
283
1
0
Ninety5rpm said:
As far as I can tell, Nike, Trek, Oakley, etc. all paid Armstrong all the money he used to get his exclusive relationship with Ferrari that, according to Hamilton, put Armstrong two years ahead of Ullrich and everyone else in terms of substances, techniques, masking, micro-dosing, etc.

Don't the sponsors bear some responsibility here?
If they were completely in the dark about where the money went and if they had no clue that it went towards doping, then maybe the would not have any responsibility. But what is a bike company's options? If they suspect their team is doping, what should they do? Not sponsor them - or any other team at all? That would put them at a competitive disadvantage. Plus, they probably don't have any proof. Do you think anybody at Trek knew for certain there was doping going on? If not, they can't just pull out of a contract. Look at the SCA lawsuit - they eventually lost. I guess Trek could choose not to renew, but as I said, that would put them at quite a disadvantage compared to the other companies.

This line of reasoning falls apart a bit if they knew that the products they supplied to the team were being sold for drugs. TH hints at this in his book, and Landis (or someone) said that USPS was doing this. This would be hard to hide from the sponsors because when they showed up at a race or a training camp, they would be familiar with their stuff and notice if the B riders were riding on old equipment. If I were a sponsor, this would p!ss me off.
 
Robert21 said:
Yes, we should boycott them, as in this 'neo-liberal' capitalist world the freedom to choose what you buy is just about the only freedom the individual has left.

I have never bought anything sold by Nike, Oakley or Trek (or Sram come to that) because of the links to Armstrong, and also because I don't agree with the model of capitalism that such companies follow. That is, outsource your production to low-wage economies where the population is practically enslaved in order to better serve the corporate interests that want to exploit their labour, then use the power of 'marketing' (including using people like Armstrong) to raise the perceived value of the product as high as the market will bear, then sit back whilst the profits flow in, profits that largely end up in the pockets of the already super-wealthy. Hence the situation were companies like Nike can have sports shirts made for literally a few cents each, and yet sell then for $50.

Unfortunately, it is getting difficult to choose to buy from companies that still have a sense of social responsibility, who support jobs in the home market and so forth. Far too many 'manufacturers' these days are simply marketing and design companies, having all their products made in low-wage economies, even as they draw on the image of traditional home-based manufacture. Companies who resist this model, such as Campagnolo, are liable to be labelled as being 'arrogant' in their assumption that more traditional models of production are still viable. For example, see

http://www.bicycling.com/news/featured-stories/italian-job

In many ways companies like Nike and Armstrong are perfect mirror image of one another. Corporate power wants to see a world where everyone views individualistic, hierarchical, inequitable, amoral 'To the winner the spoils', 'Dog eat dog', 'Look after number one' capitalism, where the only real winners are the '1%', as being the only game in town. Hyper-competitive sports people like Armstrong provide the perfect role model for such a system.

As the excellent documentary film The Corporation points out, following the US model, companies are legally viewed as being persons. However, the typical behaviour of corporations would have them labelled as sociopaths or even psychopaths if they were persons. Again Armstrong offers an appropriate model.

I think that in many ways the world is sinking into a new form of totalitarianism based on unaccountable corporate power. Huge attempts have been made to brainwash people into thinking that 'Big government' is the real problem, 'restricting individual freedoms' and stifling the so-called 'free market'. In reality governments are at least democratically accountable and can act to protect the individual from exploitation by more powerful interests, protecting workers rights and safety, protecting the environment and so forth. Corporate interests naturally want to act without restraint, that is have totalitarian power, and so try to portray 'governments', 'the state' and collectivism in general as being a 'Road to serfdom' to use von Hayek's famous phrase. In reality the opposite is true and, as the financial crisis shows, the 'so-called 'free market' doesn't actually work in any case.

So-called 'libertarianism' might have a superficial attraction to some, but the only real 'liberty' it ultimately supports is that of corporate power. I have noticed that supporters of 'libertarianism' are fond of quoting from George Orwell's review of von Hayek's book, where he agrees that collectivism can give a "tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamed of". (My emphasis). However, they always omit Orwell's conclusion that a "return to 'free' competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the state".

Anyhow, yes let's boycott the likes of Nike, as I said the freedom to choose what you buy is just about the only freedom the individual has left. However, a similar ethical stance needs to be taken in the case of everything we buy.

Oh, and if you work in advertising or marketing, kill yourself now. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo
Wow. Great post.
 
Companies sponsor athletes to promote their brand and make more sales, I don't see why it shouldn't work both ways. The whole point is to associate the athlete to the product, same as how every single cycling team receives it's funding. I will not buy a Trek nor Nike. But then again, what bike should I buy? Vino's Specialized? Valverde's Pinarello? Millar's Cervelo? Basso's Cannondale? Ha ha, like so many things in life I guess it just depends who you hate the least!
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS