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

[Unknown MTBR]

Whoever vote yes, go see a psychiatrist

[Eldron]

If we boycotted all the sponsors who stood by their dopers we'd be limited to buying racing machines from Makro and our sunnies at the robot.

[Agteros]

If we boycotted all the sponsors who stood by their dopers we'd be limited to buying racing machines from Makro and our sunnies at the robot.

I like this. Mid day summer endurance races over XC terrain. Last bike working (or last cyclist still seeing) is the winner!

[dre]

 

 

So kinda moo point for me, you know? Like a cow's opinion.

 

 

LOL thats funny!! remember that from Friends

[carbon29er]

If we boycotted all the sponsors who stood by their dopers we'd be limited to buying racing machines from Makro and our sunnies at the robot.

But we could find a reason to boycott Macro through them being owned by Walmart? So no bikes for anyone then?

[Delgado]

Tiger admitted to Pomping around

.........instead of pompimg it in!!?

[Tumbleweed]

Well, I'm never buying another Sheryl Crow CD again*…

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/witnesses-feel-sheryl-crow-lance-amstrong-activities-article-1.1152899

 

*Okay, that's not quite accurate…I've never bought one before…

[rudi-h]

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.

 

That's a really douche-bag suggestion. FFS, so you're gonna make a list now of all brands, companies, banks, etc. that have not been associated to any controversy or wrongdoing and only support them? Are you gonna withhold taxes cause our government is corrupt (a lot more than Armstrong btw)? Get real

[Lucky Luke.]

If we boycotted all the sponsors who stood by their dopers we'd be limited to buying racing machines from Makro and our sunnies at the robot.

 

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.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Lucky Luke.

[fabes]

 

 

That's a really douche-bag suggestion. FFS, so you're gonna make a list now of all brands, companies, banks, etc. that have not been associated to any controversy or wrongdoing and only support them? Are you gonna withhold taxes cause our government is corrupt (a lot more than Armstrong btw)? Get real

Bad Monday morning?

[Lucky Luke.]

That's a really douche-bag suggestion. FFS, so you're gonna make a list now of all brands, companies, banks, etc. that have not been associated to any controversy or wrongdoing and only support them? Are you gonna withhold taxes cause our government is corrupt (a lot more than Armstrong btw)? Get real

 

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.

[Shebeen]

Lance being banned has to have a negative effect on these companies, despite the stats on this poll. They are all huge brands however, so the lance part of the pie can't be that big especially since he's not a mainstream athlete anymore

[Lucky Luke.]

I like this. Mid day summer endurance races over XC terrain. Last bike working (or last cyclist still seeing) is the winner!

 

[scotty]

If we boycotted all the sponsors who stood by their dopers we'd be limited to buying racing machines from Makro and our sunnies at the robot.

Nike has an Iphone and android sports app, perhaps we can boycott all units that enable this.

[Lucky Luke.]

But we could find a reason to boycott Macro through them being owned by Walmart? So no bikes for anyone then?

 

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.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Lucky Luke.

[Tumbleweed]

Nike has an Iphone and android sports app, perhaps we can boycott all units that enable this.

 

So, owning a BB is ethical still?

Edited September 10, 2012 by Tumbleweed