Should the public boycott banned athlete Lance Armstrong's sponsors?

[Lucky Luke.]

Trek, Oakley, Nike all continue to support Lance Armstrong despite his recent ban from competition due to unchallenged charges of a massive doping conspiracy.

 

This has been arguably the largest, most successful and most profitable doping fraud the sporting world has ever known, and yet these global, vastly wealthy and influential companies continue to back Armstrong.

 

Simple question, should the public be boycotting these sporting mega-brands?

 

I'm inclined to vote yes, and will encourage everyone I know to do so.

 

Here's a thought-provoking answer from a similar thread on another popular cycling forum.

 

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 where 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....es/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://forum.cyclingnews.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

 

 

Edited October 23, 2012 by Lucky Luke.

[scotty]

No guessing my vote

[Agteros]

"

Should the public be boycotting Oakley, Nike, Trek and other sponsors supporting convicted doping cheats?" is such a loaded question.

 

 

Implication of moral obligation, an all else that goes with that. Much like a religious debate. Also, implications of the removal of free will by others forcing people to make choices they either do not care about, or what they do not want to do.

 

Anycase, the public is free to do what they WANT. Not what they SHOULD do! So, purely out of the loaded nature of the question, the answer is "NO"

 

Another question: Since doping is rive in cycling, should PnP/Game/wherever sell bicycles and support the doping culture?

[GLuvsMtb]

The difference between this and other similar actions is that Armstrong still enjoys huge public support and there are still serious questions about the method used to find him "guilty".

 

I suspect that any boycot (especially in SA) would have about the same impact as the recent Woolworths Boycot. Currently Woolworths is getting the sympathy vote from the majority of the public and I am guessing that they'll use the leverage out of this with any questions asked in future about their BEE status in certain departments. Win Win for Woolworths. If the Armstrong case turns out the same way, it will be Win Win for Armstrong too.

[Lucky Luke.]

"

Should the public be boycotting Oakley, Nike, Trek and other sponsors supporting convicted doping cheats?" is such a loaded question.

 

 

Implication of moral obligation, an all else that goes with that. Much like a religious debate. Also, implications of the removal of free will by others forcing people to make choices they either do not care about, or what they do not want to do.

 

Anycase, the public is free to do what they WANT. Not what they SHOULD do! So, purely out of the loaded nature of the question, the answer is "NO"

 

Another question: Since doping is rive in cycling, should PnP/Game/wherever sell bicycles and support the doping culture?

 

The question isn't loaded, it's yes or no with no baggage attached. Of course the public is free to do what they want. If they were not it would be totally irrelevant to pose the question.

 

Whether Pn'P etc sell bicycles is naturally of no concern to me or anybody else considering sporting fraud.. or even considering sport at all seeing as none of them are fit for competition.

 

Anyone hoping to win the TDF on a Game bike is going to need more than a bucketload of EPO and a few oil changes on the floor of the team bus.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Lucky Luke.

[Agteros]

The question isn't loaded, it's yes or no with no baggage attached.

 

Whether Pn'P etc sell bicycles is naturally of no concern to me or anybody else considering sporting fraud.. or even considering sport at all seeing as none of them are fit for competition.

The answer is a simple "No". Nobody has the right to tell somebody what they should do. As plain and simple as that. "Should" implies action to confirm / even appease. All of that implies consequences for doing / not doing. Simple really!

[Agteros]

Should/SHo͝od/ Verb:

• Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions: "he should have been careful".
  

 

 

ob·li·ga·tion/ˌäbliˈgāSHən/ Noun:

• An act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment.
  

Maybe I'm just a rebel, but I know I am not the only one then

Do not tell be what I 'should'. Rather ask me if I would! Makes a massive difference

 

Should you(public) boycott .... vs Would you boycott....

Makes a difference, doesn't it?

[Lucky Luke.]

The answer is a simple "No". Nobody has the right to tell somebody what they should do. As plain and simple as that.

 

Yes, this is why I'm asking and not telling. If you disagree with the OP then feel free to explain why.

 

"Should" implies action to confirm / even appease. All of that implies consequences for doing / not doing. Simple really!

 

Correct. My opinion is that, obviously dependent upon the numbers, there are consequences for boycotting or not boycotting / ignoring the issue or voicing support for Armstrong / his sponsors.

 

This is exactly the type of opinion I am soliciting with my thread.

[Agteros]

I've rebelled against the "should". Did not even take the morals of the question into account.

I'll comply with laws I do not agree with, as they have a stick attached to them. A mere "should" carries no weight

 

EDIT:

Also: Nike, Oakley or Trek (or Sram come to that)

Not using any of them out of freedom of choice. Oh, and I still cycle irrespective of what the public (myself included) thinks of cyclists

Edited September 9, 2012 by RoboCyclist

[Lucky Luke.]

I've rebelled against the "should". Did not even take the morals of the question into account.

I'll comply with laws I do not agree with, as they have a stick attached to them. A mere "should" carries no weight

 

EDIT:

Also: Nike, Oakley or Trek (or Sram come to that)

Not using any of them out of freedom of choice. Oh, and I still cycle irrespective of what the public (myself included) thinks of cyclists

 

thanks, we have your vote, I'm still not sure what else you're trying to say, but I appreciate the bumps all the same.

[Agteros]

thanks, we have your vote, I'm still not sure what else you're trying to say, but I appreciate the bumps all the same.

I'm going after the presumptuous nature of the question

[River Rat]

While you're about it why not boycott the Tour de France and the UCI as well. It would appear that they are all part of the conspiracy. In theory this would mean you will not do any races sanctioned by our own CSA as they are aligned with UCI. I suspect that there are not too many innocent parties in this mess.

 

The real question is are whether you are going to be selective in your little boycott or not.

[Lucky Luke.]

I'm going after the presumptuous nature of the question

 

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.. ?

[Lucky Luke.]

While you're about it why not boycott the Tour de France and the UCI as well. It would appear that they are all part of the conspiracy. In theory this would mean you will not do any races sanctioned by our own CSA as they are aligned with UCI. I suspect that there are not too many innocent parties in this mess.

 

The real question is are whether you are going to be selective in your little boycott or not.

 

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.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Lucky Luke.

[Slowbee]

sheesh, I must be really stupid. Should, would, could ...... that comedy clip seems to apply to all the angles here. And I still cannot see how the question is loaded.

 

And for the life of me I cannot see any assumptions in the question. But lets not hijack this thread. The question is indeed a good one.

 

The poll question is should the public be supporting sponsors of convicted doping cheats. The simple answer is YES! The practical application of that answer is for all intents and purposes alot more tricky. I am wanting to buy a pair of oakleys. Will this event stop me from doing so, I doubt it. Will the fact that I have read something about look after number one' capitalism, make me change? Not sure. Heck Lonmin could fall into the same capitalist category - but I dont know enough. I are stupid.

 

Nice topic Luke, Monday may be hot indeed.

 

EDIT: APOLOGIES, I meant to say yes boycott them!

[petatodd]

I already do, have done so since this cheating scum won the TDF in 2000. Am proud to say that in that time I have not bought or owned a product made by Nike, Trek nor Oakley. Now Nissan, Radio Shack or that stupid yellow band.

 

I did let myself down briefly by owning a set of Jones XR tyres made by Bontrager. When I fletted with them I immediately knew why.

 

So my vote is an irrelevant YES.