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

[Delgado]

Isaacs.

,,,,free factory ride Isaacs? Edited September 10, 2012 by Delgado

[goya-goya]

It's worth protesting when an actual injustice has occurred. Racism, Human Rights abuses. That sort of thing. This is sport. Nothing more. He's not a murderer. He just cheated at riding a bicycle. And going off on some crusade to put Oakley, Trek, SRAM and whoever out of business because one of it's sponsored riders used performance enhancing drugs is pathetic to say the least.

 

If this gained momentum and the whole world took up the boycott of these companies and thousands of people lost their jobs would you feel vindicated?

 

Dude I am willing to take a bet that this bloke is not in anyway a crusader for rights other than his own

[Guest Omega Man]

Meh. My blood is Yamaha. I even considered putting Yamaha stickers on the BMW. Will wait till I upgrade to a Sten.

Yeah I have a blue bike too. I'm so stoked James Stewart is off Yam. Now I can support them again.

[scotty]

I still maintain that Lance has a positive balance sheet, that he did more good than harm in his career. For that reason the boost that his sponsors gave him was beneficial, to cycling and to fighting cancer. My spending patterns won't change due to his decision to no longer fight the charges against him.

Not sure i would use the word positive and Lance in the same sentence.

[Tumbleweed]

Wasn't the hub going to be boycotted a while back? P

[petatodd]

It's worth protesting when an actual injustice has occurred. Racism, Human Rights abuses. That sort of thing. This is sport. Nothing more. He's not a murderer. He just cheated at riding a bicycle. And going off on some crusade to put Oakley, Trek, SRAM and whoever out of business because one of it's sponsored riders used performance enhancing drugs is pathetic to say the least.

 

If this gained momentum and the whole world took up the boycott of these companies and thousands of people lost their jobs would you feel vindicated?

A business sponsors someone for a return, not for love.

 

So yes, if the whole world takes up a boycott and that company falters, the aim is to make that company lose some of the gains it acquired by associating itself with cheating scum.

 

However, as soon as it drops the association, the world buys again so the staff jobs are saved. Cause and effect? Actually economics 101.

[scotty]

Look at it this way. The companies sponsor the athletes so that we will buy their cr@p. They want a return on investment. When they sponsor cr@p, why should we support them? Let them reap what they sow?

take it's a "hell yes" from you then

[goya-goya]

I am willing to do a service to all of you who want to take up your justifiable right to boycott the suggested companies...

 

I will accept these nasty goods that have been defiled by a "no contest"...

 

Put your actions to more than your keyboard... selling these goods makes you just as culpable as the companies you wish to bring down... so by giving them to me... I will be able to ease your conscience... and give you the chance to show that you are true to your word...

 

What can I say... I am just a nice guy!

[Lucky Luke.]

I agree completely.

 

And I still dispute this constant "he did so much for cancer victims" drivel.

 

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:

 

The Lance Armstrong Foundation (LAF), founded by the champion bicyclist and cancer survivor of the same name, is celebrating its 10-year anniversary this year. Wouldn’t you think a charity that receives massive publicity for having one of the most popular causes and most admired celebrities as the face of the organization would be able to easily raise lots of money? Unfortunately this is not the case. LAF spent as much as $45 to raise each $100, exceeding AIP’s 35% recommended fundraising ceiling by a significant margin. While LAF had difficulty raising contributions efficiently, it did prove to be a savvy merchandise marketer. LAF sold over $24 million in merchandise, including the ubiquitous yellow “LIVESTRONG” wristband, as well as clothing, sports gear and even dog leashes. Yet after spending $10 million in solicitation costs, the group brought in only $22 million in contributions, according to AIP’s analysis of LAF’s 2005 financial statements.

 

http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/cancer.html

[DoubleDee]

Cycling is the only loser here, Lance has never been proved guilty! Boycotting these sponsors is not going to change anything!!

[eddy]

I will continue to support Lance Armstrong...

 

 

That of course is your prerogative.

 

 

 

That idiot with the first article missed the point completely... governments control corporate... .

 

You do not have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognise that the influence on legislators of lobbyists on behalf of vested business interests is significant. Whether oil and gas, arms manufacture or the banking industry it is clear that the voice of business is better funded and louder than that of the regulators.

 

Typically, politicians with the deepest pockets get elected,typically political funding comes with very clear strings attached. Typically, the primary cause elected officials care about is getting re-elected.

 

In theory, regulators control the industries big business operates in, the evidence is that in practice they run interference on behalf of those that have funded their elections.

 

 

 

 

.

Edited September 10, 2012 by eddy

[Lucky Luke.]

It's worth protesting when an actual injustice has occurred. Racism, Human Rights abuses. That sort of thing. This is sport. Nothing more. He's not a murderer. He just cheated at riding a bicycle. And going off on some crusade to put Oakley, Trek, SRAM and whoever out of business because one of it's sponsored riders used performance enhancing drugs is pathetic to say the least.

 

If this gained momentum and the whole world took up the boycott of these companies and thousands of people lost their jobs would you feel vindicated?

 

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.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Lucky Luke.

[eddy]

 

Not sure i would use the word positive and Lance in the same sentence.

 

You can now. He has stopped suing people who do......;-)

[goya-goya]

@Luck Luke: Seriously dude... if you spent as much of your efforts training as you do finding reasons to doubt that this man has done more for cycling, sport, well-being, cancer and motivation in general than you and - i am big enough to say - myself... you would be able to ride the tour de france and win it drug-free... and that would be an awesome statement to the world...

 

c'mon... I know you have it you!

[Guest Omega Man]

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.

 

Ok. Point taken. You are voting with your wallet and that is respectable. You are also OBVIOUSLY impartial when it comes to drug cheats.

 

So let's be logical here. Oakley for example is just a brand. It's actually owned by a company called luxottica. They do, amongst others Ray Ban, Arnette, Vogue and of course The chief evil doer amongst eyewear brands Oakley. So by extension the next time you buy eyewear you are going to have to exclude all of luxottica's labels because they are actually the money behind Oakley.

 

Now if you are going to be boycotting products used all drug cheats then surely you have to boycott all Giro products as they sponsor Alberto Contador. Now Giro is owned by Easton-Bell sports. So no Easton products. And no bell helmets. At this rate you are going to be a naked hiker.

 

Dumb thread.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Omega Man

[Wayne Potgieter]

At this rate you are going to be a naked hiker.

 

Dumb thread.

 

Pearl of wisdom.

 

I like it.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Wayne Potgieter