Should the fans boycott Armstrong's sponsors?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Do the sponsors bear some of the responsibility?

  • Other (see comments)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
Jun 15, 2010
1,318
0
0
unsheath said:
Been actively avoiding the Treks, Oakleys, Giros, Bonterager, SRAM (until he sells his interest at least) for years. Luckily none of them make anything 'best in industry' so have never had a disadvantage doing so.

I've also made sure I've not recommended any of the above brands to friends new to cycling who have asked for advice on what to buy. It's a a small but personal choice as there's no way I'm contributing to the revenue of these scumbags who have profited off fraud.
I agree with you about most of that except the Oakley's.Who do you think is better?
I'm not trying to start an argument just looking for recomended cycling shades.
 

LauraLyn

BANNED
Jul 13, 2012
594
0
0
Ninety5rpm said:
. . . . Imagine if Armstrong was contractually bound to return all the money he ever earned from his sponsors if found to be in violation of doping during the sponsorship periods.

Imagine if the fans demanded such clauses in the contracts.

Would having such clauses in their contracts make at least some of them think a bit more about not doping?
Imagine if the USADA or USA Cycling or ASO demanded such clauses?

But from what I'm seeing, most riders are doping to get to a level where they can get such contracts. Crossing the line is difficult; crossing back over even more difficult.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
There is a thread of all the companies associated with Armstrong for those who want a comprehensive list of those they wish to boycott.

I have been boycotting most of them for a long time for other reasons as well as their link to wonderboy.

There is also the now famous Dim graphic of those associated with wonderboy.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
2
0
I know the companies are not what they should be or used to be in some situations. Boycott? That seems a little naïve and childish in my opinion. The clinic is NOT the mainstream opinion.

I do not wear Nike shoes when I run. I do own quite a few running shorts (called “silks” back in the day) and shirts (if I wear one). They are the most comfortable for me and I have no urge to switch just because someone Nike sponsors doped.

Trek I don't own and never will own one. I never liked their frames and was not gravitated towards the brand just because Lance Armstrong rode the madone. Shimano is on my 1995 Cannondale and will be on it until I die and give it away. I noticed Shimano was not on the list but they supported the guy for a long time. Since they are on just about 70% of all cycles produced good luck to you guys.
Boycott SRAM since Lance has some ownership in them? Take them down especially now that Contador has won the Vuelta.
Maybe there should be an Occupy Nike, and all other sponsors. Just camp out at their HQ and see how far you get? That would interesting…..??????
 
Glenn_Wilson said:
The clinic is NOT the mainstream opinion.
Do you think the level of agreement (regarding Armstrong in particular) between the clinic and mainstream opinion has changed in the the last two months? If so, more, or less, agreement? Can you estimate what you think it was vs. what you think it is now? Like 1% vs 2%? What do you think the level of agreement will be two months from now? A year from now?

I believe that the opinion the clinic has long held about Armstrong IS about to go to mainstream.
 
Mar 26, 2009
342
0
0
I think this thread is about companies that have active endorsement contracts with LA, not simply about products that he uses. Otherwise we'd be boycotting bananas, cotton, and jetfuel. There is clearly a difference between Nike and Oakley, and a company like Shimano.
 
Deagol said:
Bontrager, Sram, Trek, Giro, Honey Stinger, FRS, ...
Just an FYI, "Bontrager" is Trek's in-house brand name for all the stuff they buy from bike parts OEM's. So, you'll always see Bontrager branded stuff inside a bike dealer's shop that has agreed to Trek's franchise deal.

If anyone has a even a moderate ethics bias, I don't think they would be a consumer of most of Wonderboy's sponsorship deals anyway. But, there's always people that just don't know and don't care to know that might be surprised/offended by some of these businesses.
 

LauraLyn

BANNED
Jul 13, 2012
594
0
0
Ninety5rpm said:
Do you think the level of agreement (regarding Armstrong in particular) between the clinic and mainstream opinion has changed in the the last two months? If so, more, or less, agreement? Can you estimate what you think it was vs. what you think it is now? Like 1% vs 2%? What do you think the level of agreement will be two months from now? A year from now?

I believe that the opinion the clinic has long held about Armstrong IS about to go to mainstream.
The mainstream opinion will always be more nuanced than what we find in Internet postings. We should keep in mind that many people never really liked the person Armstrong, but did admire his achievements in cycling and cancer. Many of these people felt in the beginning of this case that, even though the guy himself might be an arrogant jerk, the USADA's case was unfair. Others were Lance lovers who thought he was all there was that needed to be said about cycling or about being an American hero. Some of these people will change, and may even be more likely to "hate" Lance than the first group I mentioned. Others didn't like him and didn't believe him, and they feel as many people in The Clinic feel. But they might express themselves differently.

One of the weaknesses of The Clinic, and what might not make it believable for some others, is that people are at times insulted and shouted down here for expressing a point of view other than all out hatred. Even trying to open up the discussion to other perspectives is met at times with outrageous personal attacks. Replacing one false god with another only leads to years and years of wandering in an empty desert.

Not sponsors, not boycotts, but in the end a fair process and the media will make the difference regarding how Lance is viewed by the public.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
2
0
Ninety5rpm said:
Do you think the level of agreement (regarding Armstrong in particular) between the clinic and mainstream opinion has changed in the the last two months? If so, more, or less, agreement? Can you estimate what you think it was vs. what you think it is now? Like 1% vs 2%? What do you think the level of agreement will be two months from now? A year from now?

I believe that the opinion the clinic has long held about Armstrong IS about to go to mainstream.
I am not sure it IS about to go mainstream but I do believe that these two opinion's have come closer in agreement over the last few months. It will take some serious pounding by the "mainstream" media to do the damage. Remember all the while most of this is playing out within the cycling community. 60 minutes I hope does a follow up story. It has much more ammunition now. PBS would do some good if they done a Insider / Front-line type story on this.

HBO sports ESPN all of them have a journalistic job to do for this story. Lets see if it gets done.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
LauraLyn said:
......
One of the weaknesses of The Clinic, and what might not make it believable for some others, is that people are at times insulted and shouted down here for expressing a point of view other than all out hatred. Even trying to open up the discussion to other perspectives is met at times with outrageous personal attacks. Replacing one false god with another only leads to years and years of wandering in an empty desert.
Still cant help letting the real you out in your postings can you?

Still calling those who are anti armstrong haters.

I would like to see the so called false gods that people are replacing armstrong with?

What about those that never had Armstrong as a god unlike you?
 
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Still cant help letting the real you out in your postings can you?

Still calling those who are anti armstrong haters.

I would like to see the so called false gods that people are replacing armstrong with?

What about those that never had Armstrong as a god unlike you?
Must be Wiggins, huh ;)

Yep, this post (the one you were responding to, that is) seemed odd to me also.
Seems to me that the clinic is just a group of posters, not one mind with the same opinion on everything. Most seem to want a clean sport, which would more likely lead to the view of not having any sporting "gods" in the first place.
 
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
Just an FYI, "Bontrager" is Trek's in-house brand name for all the stuff they buy from bike parts OEM's. So, you'll always see Bontrager branded stuff inside a bike dealer's shop that has agreed to Trek's franchise deal.
....
I saw a pair of Bontragger road bike shoes in the bike shop on Friday, was a bit suprised. I would not buy them.
 
Oakley? Seriously guys. They make the best Rx sunglasses...why boycott a great product and hurt their employees because of the entire USADA/Fed nonsense with Lance?

Next, good luck boycotting some of these products and having any effect whatsoever on their brand.

Shoot, Tiger Woods did stuff much worse than LA IMO. Nike is still in business somehow.

Wait, didn't Jordan gamble? Nike still in business.

Blah..
 
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
zigmeister said:
Oakley? Seriously guys. They make the best Rx sunglasses...why boycott a great product and hurt their employees because of the entire USADA/Fed nonsense with Lance?
....
Oakley: reason enough for me with the Stephanie McIlvain story. No one expects these companies to go out of business, of course. I did steer a team order away from Oakley about 2 years ago due to what I knew from this.

Oakley also makes ski goggles, so this stuff can carry over to other sports. Hopefully, so will the awarness of what a bunch of #%%&& the company execs are.

It's not going to change the world, of course, but it is the principal of the matter.
 
LauraLyn said:
One of the weaknesses of The Clinic, and what might not make it believable for some others, is that people are at times insulted and shouted down here for expressing a point of view other than all out hatred. Even trying to open up the discussion to other perspectives is met at times with outrageous personal attacks. Replacing one false god with another only leads to years and years of wandering in an empty desert.
Maybe you posted this to the wrong site? Or, maybe you are confusing the doping/Armstrong trollers with the rest?

Excluding trolls, there are some posters who are defending some very unlikely opinions. Is there some personal sniping? Yes. But "outrageous personal attacks" and "all out hatred" completely mischaracterizes The Clinic.
 

LauraLyn

BANNED
Jul 13, 2012
594
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
I am not sure it IS about to go mainstream but I do believe that these two opinion's have come closer in agreement over the last few months. It will take some serious pounding by the "mainstream" media to do the damage. Remember all the while most of this is playing out within the cycling community. 60 minutes I hope does a follow up story. It has much more ammunition now. PBS would do some good if they done a Insider / Front-line type story on this.

HBO sports ESPN all of them have a journalistic job to do for this story. Lets see if it gets done.
What will take this mainstream will not be the sponsors or the fans, including a boycott, I believe.

Tim Hoebeke:

"A hero needs to possess capacities that the normal mortal lacks, but just as important is that we consider him/her as 'one of us.'"
"Journalists are the troubadours of our time. They sung in the Middle Ages about brave fighters and actually journalists do the same thing today, but with a microphone or a computer. They create the hero's of today."
One of the things we need to understand is that it was primarily the media that turned Lance into a hero (or Lance & Co. knew very well how to play the media to attain that status).

The USADA is not going to be allowed by the media to bring Lance down. The media reserves that right for themselves. It is a question of honor: "anything short of murder."
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
LauraLyn said:
Thanks. It is difficult to explain why Lance gave Ferrari more than half a million USD.

It would be interesting to see any sources or notes on this.
Ferrari was known to be not on a fee for service but a cut of the winnings.

It was said to be between 10% and 20% although Ferrari denies such as arrangement.

Armstrong had an exclusive arrangement with Ferrari not to prepare other GC contenders (source: "Lance Armstrong's War").

Based on the above I would suggest that the moneys paid from Armstrong to Ferrari in 2006 ($800,000?) would be a negotiated percentage of his 2005 cycling winnings.
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
LauraLyn said:
You asked a question (after quoting me): 'Are you saying Ferrari doped lots of other riders for those tours Lance "won"?'

I responded:



Now, is there something difficult about that for you?
NOTHING you wrote answered the question. The fact that you simply reposted your nonsense response does not suddenly change it into an answer.

Hint: "Are you saying XYZ" is a CLOSED QUESTION. Look it up. The applicable answers to a closed question are YES or NO. Possibly, "I don't know". BUt that would make your original claim ("I don't think Armstrong had exclusivity with Ferrari") look a bit silly.

I hope my explanation makes things a little easier for you.
 
LauraLyn said:
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.
as i have mentioned in a previous thread, I read an in depth article in the old french velo magazine back in 2001-2 (not sure) that armstrong had an exclusive contract with ferrari. in the article an american rider (unnamed) asks for ferrari's contact info. armstrong replies "i can give you his address but he won't work with you because i have an exclusive contract with him". In the same article it was reported that armstrong paid him $800,000 a year at the time.

now this exclusivity is corroborated by the sudden drop in performance of gotti (a ferrari doper still in 1999) who is hardly ever heard from after (unless it is the discovery of his parents' camper being full of doping products during the giro soon after). also i have also suspected axel's performance dropoff from WC bronze, etc...to average support rider to be due to this.

now, it is apparent as the years went by, and to ensure dominance, armstrong introduced some of his teammates to the ferrari magic. however, it was with restrictions, that he still get the very top-end doping so that teammates could never supersede him (we now see that was always a concern).
 
Jun 16, 2012
210
0
0
Back to the topic. Sponsors want good feelings. 90% of the public will shy away from brands associating themselves with cycling. 85 % will shy away from brands associating themselves with Mr. Armstrong. Statisticians help me here, but the total stepping away from cycling and Armstrong brands will be higher than 90%. The point of advertising is "I want to be/do that." But now your ad budget is working directly against you if you spent it on cycling or Armstrong. Livestrong, well that's gray, but turning against you now too as the dirt rolls out.
 

LauraLyn

BANNED
Jul 13, 2012
594
0
0
the big ring said:
Are you saying Ferrari doped lots of other riders for those tours Lance "won"? . . . .
LauraLyn said:
It could be interesting if the Italian authorities would investigate Ferrari's patients, the one's listed in his book and the one's making "donations" to his bank account.

When we see how much Armstrong was paying Ferrari, it seems that their relationship might have been deeper than just Ferrari writing prescriptions for Lance and sticking needles in his arm.

Still whatever pack they made it would have been a pack among thieves.
the big ring said:
NOTHING you wrote answered the question. The fact that you simply reposted your nonsense response does not suddenly change it into an answer.

Hint: "Are you saying XYZ" is a CLOSED QUESTION. Look it up. The applicable answers to a closed question are YES or NO. Possibly, "I don't know". BUt that would make your original claim ("I don't think Armstrong had exclusivity with Ferrari") look a bit silly.

I hope my explanation makes things a little easier for you.
the big ring: Thank you. And yes, this does make it easier for me to understand your response.

So to respond in the sense you thought I should have to a "closed question:" My guess is that whatever pack Lance and Ferrari shared was a pack among thieves and the word they gave to one another would not have been worth much more than Ferrari saying, "I never got the USADA's charging letter." or Lance saying, "I never doped." But truly, as you suggest, I don't know.

But all of that I thought too obvious to state. And I did think the more interesting thing was to open up what I thought was a good question by you to find a real answer, that I think would be valuable. And for that I believe the Italian authorities are best placed.

I hope this is now satisfactory for both of us.
 
Jun 16, 2012
210
0
0
Lance pretty quickly was able to shutdown Trek's marketing of the Lemond bicycles when Lemond dared to speak about the possibility the Lance was taking Performance Enhancing stuff. Brands are fragile. The more discussion there is about whether people should avoid brands such as Nike, Trek, and others that spend on Lance, the more likely it is they'll stop that spending.

Real World.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS