Lucky Luke.

St Luke's is great and they always have late Argus entries if you're stuck, or would just like to help them out by joining their sponsored bunch of riders. Edit: here's the link http://www.stlukes.co.za/newsitem.asp?p=440

Well naked hiking sounds interesting - maybe one day I'll give it a bash There seems to be a common assumption on this thread that it's based on some kind of crusading and self-righteous extremist outlook. To use your example, I'm not going to take issue with Luxxotica because a. I've never heard of them and b. even if the planets line up and by some miracle me and the 10 other yes voters manage to drive them to bankruptcy, somebody else will just buy Oakley and it will be marketing as usual. For me it's about the specific brands trading on the LA persona and the message that sends out to millions of people. In my view not buying their stuff is a tiny step to take, but one of the only channels the average joe has to demonstrate distaste for how cycling, and sport at large, is being manipulated to make money for people who ultimately don't give a crap about it.

The idea that we must do nothing because our irresponsible actions risk putting thousands out of work is frankly a bit daft. People make fickle choices around what to buy or not buy every minute of every day. Now, it seems to me, because my choice is not fickle enough for you, you take issue with it? Essentially I'm saying, these brands, by their actions, have shown me what they stand for, and I don't like it, so I'm not buying their stuff. Simple as that. The rest of you will do as you please. I'm not standing in your way, just asking a few questions to find out how everyone else feels about it.

For sure. I'm dubious myself but haven't seen any concrete report of their fundraising contributions. Here's some info from CharityWatch's page on Cancer outfits: http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/cancer.html

When, in your opinion, is it justifiable to not buy stuff as a form of protest? Is the concept as a whole dumb, or do you just not like the thread, hence it must be dumb?

Thanks Bob, for addressing the dumbest statement on this whole thread. How do I extend the ignore function to quoted replies?

Yes, this is a popular point of view, that Lance's doping is outweighed on the karmic scale by his Cancer activism. My view is the sponsors came to him not as a cancer activist, but as an athlete who survived cancer and triumphed against the odds. Without a doubt an inspiring story worthy of the sponsors $$$. But I don't buy this story, have not for years, neither does the USADA, and I think trading on it perpetuates the lie, and sends a crappy message for competitive cyclists, and by extension the rest of the sporting planet, young and old, amateur and professional. If I don't buy the story, then why buy the products attached to it? Obviously I'm in the minority here .. but that's my way of looking at it. The fact that I have never really liked Nike (especially since No Logo came out), Trek or Oakley will make it easier for me. Sram will be the tester though .. please God let LA sell his shares haha

So far Landis, Hamilton and apparently Zabriskie, Hincapie, Vaughters and many others, are all telling an extremely similar and detailed story. Must be a massive coincidence if they all invented it.

I've pre-ordered it from Loot, expecting delivery late October if I remember correctly.

I'm just putting it out there Swiss, not really here with an axe to grind Genuinely interested to know what the peeps think.

ok, thanks for clearing that up, rich in semantics this thread is

Ok, I'll help you out on this one. Roberto Heras was criminally allowed to race the 2009 Brompton World Champs, which he won. I'm not sure if they controlled him after or not. http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/399834/heras-crowned-world-champion.html http://cyclingweekly.media.ipcdigital.co.uk/11141%7C00000288c%7Cafc0_Brompton-podium-123.jpg

Ullrich - only banned (retroactively) this year. He was barred from the tour in 2006 but not banned or sanctioned AFAIK. Retired by choice in 2007. Contador - missed the tour and served his ban, short and backdated though it was. Armstrong - caught in-competition at the 1999 TDF for cortisone. Was allowed to continue racing, won it. Caught in-competition at the TDS in 2001. Continued racing and stood on top of the podium. '99 samples retroactively positive for EPO. Nothing came of it. etc etc etc

what if I called you a fat keyboard warrior? would that be misconstrued authority? or hot air? That was the statement I mistakenly responded to.

I'm not trying to create authority for the site, they hardly need me to do that. Another poster here made a windgat judgement about the value of votes on that poll. I'm merely stating a fact about the membership of the forum to try add some reality to the hot air. Don't believe me, go and have a look for yourself. It's a massive and carefully maintained resource.

Well the sponsors poured money into LA and his teams. What they used it for is open to interpretation. Ultimately the point is not what they paid for, but the message they send by putting him on a pedestal as an icon for their brand. As to the membership at the Cyclingnews forum, by and large the content there is strictly moderated and demonstrates a far deeper knowledge of cycling than I can lay claim to. Many ex-pros and pro tour insiders including Vaughters weigh in there from time to time.

Interesting to see the poll direction on cyclingnews.com (US site with international readership) vs. our own little poll.

I take your point, but from where I'm standing Lance still represents those very values and embodies them with his actions. He's still going around publicly telling devoted crowds that he won 7 tours and he's still trying to enter sporting events.

Yes there will be morally objectionable actions to be dug up on every large company that ever operated. No, my suggestion is not to exact punishment on these companies, although some deserve it, ultimately their actions come down to the corporate culture, not individual human beings. The point is to strategically show your non-support in order to effect a change in the way sponsorship contracts are drawn up, how corporates respond to doping issues, and how large brands market themselves. They reach millions through advertising and have huge power to affect public opinion.

There's no need to get all worked up. Go right ahead and buy whatever you like from companies with no moral or ethical accountability. Strange thing to get upset about, but this is your choice. Knock yourself out. Paying taxes has nothing to do with this topic.

Yes, and for me this is the crux of the matter. There's no accountability enforced by the people buying the stuff. Essentially what the market is doing is giving a green light to doping in sport. If you extend this to it's logical conclusion, anti-doping agencies have no mandate from the people that count, to do the job they were created to do. The LA debacle is by no means the sum total of doping in cycling but it throws the above situation into stark relief. There's huge media attention on the story right now and in my opinion, publicly declaring your non-support for these brands is a pragmatic way to force the issue of showing where you stand on doping and, above and beyond that, fair play in sport. Not for any personal or self-righteous agenda, but to force the big players to do the same by not buying their stuff. They are choosing now which side of the fence they stand on, more publicly than ever. Boycotts played a huge part in changing a 50-year-old government in this country so I don't think changing the guard at the top of cycling is too ambitious, nor is it a trivial thing to aim for.

Well I'd happily boycott the UCI, actually I did recently by not racing the UWCT world champs, although to be honest that was mostly because I am fat and out of shape at the moment. However it is much more accessible and commercially significant for consumers to boycott large corporate behemoths like Nike, Oakley and Trek, all of whom continue to throw cash at the man. CSA, sheisters and boycott-worthy as they are, throw cash at nobody in my experience. Also they're a monopoly, whereas there are alternatives to the aforementioned brands.

What did I presume? Armstrong is banned, the sponsors continue to give him cash. Either you agree, don't care and will buy what you like, think the judgement against him is wrong or perhaps d. none of the above.. ?