Should the fans boycott Armstrong's sponsors?

[Berzin]

I believe Armstrong will lose so much credibility as a corporate shill that a boycott won't be necessary, but we'll have to see who is standing by Armstrong after the USADA makes their decision.

He'll just slowly but surely slither into irrelevance.

What will probably happen is he'll receive some tepid initial support, and then when his contracts are up they won't be renewed.

 

[ThisFrenchGuy]

It does not seem that Armstrong's relationship with Ferrari was in any way exclusive.

This is something that has been quite repeated on this forum though (sourced in a report of the 00's), that Armstrong was working on an exclusivity deal with Ferrari, as far as cycling go. It could be extended to his teammates, and maybe the good doctor was also advising under the table other riders then.
But maybe the reports were confirmed or denied since then...

Good post by Robert 21 BTW.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Who besides Armstrong and his team in pro cycling were customers of Ferrari during the 1999-2005 period?

I want names.

 

[mewmewmew13]

It seems pretty clear that Armstrong bought his way into exclusivity with Ferrari ..at least for most of his Tours.
In the periphery Ferrari worked with others but not against Armstrong's teams when it counted.


btw I would never buy a trek, but I'm not feeling like tossing my Oakleys, which I received at a deep discount, into the garbage just because I strongly dislike Armstrong. It's a dilemma...I would not go out of my way to line their coffers but if something comes my way through an indirect route it would be hard to refuse...
E.g. My running group gives us a Nike tee with our group name on it ...do I toss it or get on with my life?

I think each of us choose our ways of 'boycott' in personal choices.

I for one, personally refuse to shop at Whole Foods because I have strong sentiments against their CEO Mackey and I think they prey on ripping folks from their hard earned cash with a faux 'healthier' ethic. Bah.

 

[noddy69]

Greed. Im sick of seeing it everywhere....could go on for ages but I cant be bothered as it would end up a nonsense ramble so ill finish. Greed, Im boycotting nike et al,they are all morally bankrupt, the end.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

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.

Like I said in the OP, I think a clause in the contract could do wonders.

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?

 

[Elagabalus]

Time to bring back DeCanio's black list of companies.

Does it include the guys who faked the moon landings?

 

[trailrunner]

Like I said in the OP, I think a clause in the contract could do wonders.

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?

I'm not sure if it would be much of a deterrent. If they are willing to face a two-year suspension (which for some turns into a de facto lifetime ban if they can't find a team that will sign them), loss of results, and some degree of public humiliation, I don't think that the fear of losing their sponsorship money would tip the scales.

And say there was such a clause in the contract. If Trek were to now sue Armstrong to pay back the sponsorship money they had given him during 99-05, it might create a public backlash against Trek. To the uninformed public (a large part of Trek's customer base), it would look like the big bad mean bike company was piling on the poor cancer savior and was on their own witch hunt, just to get back a few dollars that a company the size of Trek surely doesn't need. If I were LA, even with a clause, I'd say that surely I helped your sales between 99-05 and therefore you got what you wanted out of me, so why are you picking on me now?

 

[LauraLyn]

. . . . Armstrong was working on an exclusivity deal with Ferrari, as far as cycling go. It could be extended to his teammates, and maybe the good doctor was also advising under the table other riders then.
But maybe the reports were confirmed or denied since then...

Good post by Robert 21 BTW.

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.

 

[LauraLyn]

. . . . If Trek were to now sue Armstrong to pay back the sponsorship money they had given him during 99-05, it might create a public backlash against Trek. . . .

"Now" is the operative word here. Give it a few months.

But if I was on the board at Trek or another company, I wouldn't want to wait too long either. There will likely be a cue at the door to Armstrong's lawyer.

(An aside: Lance is still part owner of Trek.)

 

[Benotti69]

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.

It aint difficult at all fanboy.

Ferarri was his doping doctor and got paid for doping Armstrong for years and years. Simple.

 

[trailrunner]

Hmm..I'm a bit of a poster child for some of these brands.

I have a lot of Nike running clothes. This is because the local running store carries Nike, and I like to support them instead of mail-order. I don't have any Nike cycling clothes. I have some Nike jammers, but I buy grab-bag suits and don't care if they are Nike, Speedo, or TYR.

I do have a Madone that I bought during the Armstrong era. It was my first carbon bike, and that's the brand that my LBS carried, and it was a good value. Ironically, it replaced the steel Lemond I was riding at the time. I've bought 4 bikes since then, none of which are Treks. But my decision on which bike to buy has nothing to do with which company sponsored which athlete.

I have several pairs of Oakleys. I get them at a deep discount. I have tried other brands, but I think Oakleys simply work the the best. My old team used to get a deal on Rudys, but I didn't like them. Somewhere I have a pair of vintage bug-eye Brikos from around 1997. I think JM wore those, so maybe I should burn them in protest?

I have been wearing Giro helmets for 15 years. They have always fit my head well. So should I try a Bell helmet because Giro sponsored LA? Well, Giro owns Bell (or the other way around). Yeah, there are other brands, but I'm not going to try another brand just because Giro sponsored LA.

For me, who sponsors who has no influence, as far as I can tell, on which brand I buy: I buy what is best for me. Besides, if switched brands to avoid Nike, Oakley or whoever, I'm sure that whatever brand I chose with would have some skeleton in the closet.

 

[LauraLyn]

It aint difficult at all fanboy.

Ferarri was his doping doctor and got paid for doping Armstrong for years and years. Simple.

Oh gee, how silly of me. Thank you for this great moment of deep intellectual insight. Back to polishing my toenails, and feeling so relieved.

 

[ElChingon]

Hmm..I'm a bit of a poster child for some of these brands.

I have a lot of Nike running clothes. This is because the local running store carries Nike, and I like to support them instead of mail-order. I don't have any Nike cycling clothes. I have some Nike jammers, but I buy grab-bag suits and don't care if they are Nike, Speedo, or TYR.

This is good.

I do have a Madone that I bought during the Armstrong era. It was my first carbon bike, and that's the brand that my LBS carried, and it was a good value. Ironically, it replaced the steel Lemond I was riding at the time. I've bought 4 bikes since then, none of which are Treks. But my decision on which bike to buy has nothing to do with which company sponsored which athlete.

Yes, but would you buy one now?

I have several pairs of Oakleys. I get them at a deep discount. I have tried other brands, but I think Oakleys simply work the the best. My old team used to get a deal on Rudys, but I didn't like them. Somewhere I have a pair of vintage bug-eye Brikos from around 1997. I think JM wore those, so maybe I should burn them in protest?

You should elaborate on this discount, We're not saying burn what you have already bought, its about not continuing to support them.

For me, who sponsors who has no influence, as far as I can tell, on which brand I buy: I buy what is best for me. Besides, if switched brands to avoid Nike, Oakley or whoever, I'm sure that whatever brand I chose with would have some skeleton in the closet.

The point it if for fans to make their voice or pocket book heard and there is only one way, and that is to not buy those products backing the conspiracy. You don't think it will have an effect, well lets give it a try. Skeleton's sure but not living bodies.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I'm not sure if it would be much of a deterrent. If they are willing to face a two-year suspension (which for some turns into a de facto lifetime ban if they can't find a team that will sign them), loss of results, and some degree of public humiliation, I don't think that the fear of losing their sponsorship money would tip the scales.

And say there was such a clause in the contract. If Trek were to now sue Armstrong to pay back the sponsorship money they had given him during 99-05, it might create a public backlash against Trek. To the uninformed public (a large part of Trek's customer base), it would look like the big bad mean bike company was piling on the poor cancer savior and was on their own witch hunt, just to get back a few dollars that a company the size of Trek surely doesn't need. If I were LA, even with a clause, I'd say that surely I helped your sales between 99-05 and therefore you got what you wanted out of me, so why are you picking on me now?

we have addressed this mythical 'Lance effect' over and over in this forum. I don't feel like looking up the links right now but if you do a search in the forums for this phrase you will find plenty to dispel that fallacy.
Or google it....charts and graphs from the bike industry show NO discernible effect due to Lance...it is quite misleading and some years show a LOSS in sales.

Please stop repeating incorrect facts here.

edit: I am speaking about bike sales here..not fanboi clothing etc...livewrong items

 

[the big ring]

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.

Are you saying Ferrari doped lots of other riders for those tours Lance "won"? Coz I'd be

1. wanting my money back and
2. wondering why they believed Ferrari could dope them successfully after he didn't do it THE FIRST 6 TIMES

 

[zalacain]

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?

Exactly - I can think of thousands of (child labour ) reasons not to buy Nike.

 

[Pulpstar]

Like others have said, going to be tough for alot of us to boycott, sits in New Balance and Ron Hill kit ^^;

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

...Google it....charts and graphs from the bike industry show NO discernible effect due to Lance...it is quite misleading and some years show a LOSS in sales.

I am not going to dig up the links either, but there is a lot of strong numbers backed opinions that big name athletes (or stars) do very little to boost product sales, especially compared to what they cost to sponsor. Lance would have to be an even bigger anchor, along the lines of Tiger Woods.

As to boycotting the companies, I say sure. I don't buy any of that crap anyway, but it's not going to hurt. What may be more effective though is simply to openly criticize these companies, and make people aware that Lance is a liar, doper and cheater with the facts we already have at hand. Tell people not in the Clinic, but in out in the rest of your circle.

 

[infoleather]

The news spread, said a bunch informed circulating fans boycott Nike, someone wrote a story. The stories get more and more people speak.

 

[LauraLyn]

Are you saying Ferrari doped lots of other riders for those tours Lance "won"? . . .

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]

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.

Why are you quoting to my post when nothing you've written is in response to it?

 

[LauraLyn]

Why are you quoting to my post when nothing you've written is in response to it?

You asked a question (after quoting me): 'Are you saying Ferrari doped lots of other riders for those tours Lance "won"?'

I responded:

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.

Now, is there something difficult about that for you?

 

[unsheath]

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.

 

[Benotti69]

Are you saying Ferrari doped lots of other riders for those tours Lance "won"? Coz I'd be

1. wanting my money back and
2. wondering why they believed Ferrari could dope them successfully after he didn't do it THE FIRST 6 TIMES

dont take any mind of LL. Posts are totally about lengthing threads to make them difficult to read and new posters get to the real information.

LL posts nothing but repititive stuff to fill threads.

LLs posts are subliminal damage limitation for wonderboy.