Li Mu Bai Posted September 10, 2012 Share 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 possible if humans and money are involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted September 10, 2012 Share Oh, the Spanish Meat Board…sorry for the misunderstanding… Ha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fandacious Posted September 10, 2012 Share ok this gets a bit ridiculous... should we boycott pick n pay because they sponsored doped up athletes as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaLoCo Posted September 10, 2012 Share ok this gets a bit ridiculous... should we boycott pick n pay because they sponsored doped up athletes as well?Already do...but only because Spar is 5 km closer, and is the better choice in Jbay (because one of my friends owns the Spar ) Edited September 10, 2012 by DaLoCo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Dale Posted September 10, 2012 Share It's fascinating that these mega-powered brands, all USA-based companies, have kept going with LA.Other than the grey clouds of doubt, he is also no longer competing as a PRO cyclist. Interesting. Baffling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLuvsMtb Posted September 10, 2012 Share I don't think that active boycott would help anyone. Rather place your focus on supporting brands, products and stores that offer good value for money, good quality and fits in with your life style and financial ability. Why should consumers punish themselves to voice dissatisfaction about every single thing that they don't agree with?I don't buy fair trade coffee exclusively,I don't eat organic free range eggs and meat onlyI may or may not buy GM foods. Never bothered to look reallyI fill up at my local filling station and to be honest I don't know or care if they support fracking or not. I think that ever since the "United Breaks Guitars" video went viral that consumers have over-inflated estimates of their influence on consumer behaviour. We all like to think that we are changing the world, meanwhile we are p#ssing into the wind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubehunter Posted September 10, 2012 Share I have owned a Trek and many Nike products. Never been much of an Oakley fan however. (Can't get my mind around dropping that sort of cash on plastic! Ocean Earth do a fine job at a fraction of the price). I now run in Asics cos the fit on my high arch feels better and the Scott Addict I'm riding is super sweet. I doubt I would purchase any Trek bikes in future, along with additional Nike products. There are cheaper moisture wicking garments and other functional sport specific shoes that are cheaper yet as good quality. I did however vote No in this poll. Why? Our greatest freedom is the frredom of choice. Why give this up voluntarily?? As a few have already suggested, whenever someone calls on a group of people to boycott a particular product or company there are almost always layers of hidden agendas at play and the only people who actually suffer the fall out are the people who can least afford it, making the product itself. I don't see Nike, Trek or Oakley changing their business model however many people actively participate in a boycott. Therein lies the problem with trying to go this route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaLoCo Posted September 10, 2012 Share It's fascinating that these mega-powered brands, all USA-based companies, have kept going with LA.Other than the grey clouds of doubt, he is also no longer competing as a PRO cyclist. Interesting. Baffling.They are getting mega miles from Livestrong, and that will not change. The minor bad publicity they are getting from the doping issue is negligible. Just as a though....How much mainstream publicity is the Armstrong issue getting in the US media? Is it making headlines, or just footnote publications? Tiger Woods made headlines with his fornication, thus all his sponsors either cut back or dropped him due to image perceptions, but that is changing again. Morality has a short memory. Edited September 10, 2012 by DaLoCo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skott5 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Maybe if Woods had fornicated with dope ( Viagra ) they would have been more forgiving .. DaLoCo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Parker Posted September 10, 2012 Share Christmas is going to be boring this year,no woolies food,no fnb ipad, now I have to cross Nike, Oakley, and Trek off my christmas list to. and that Juke i wanted - gone. Thats Armstrong you b@st@rd, you just ruined christams. :clap: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selous Scout (aka LegTrap) Posted September 10, 2012 Share Of course I will not boycott the sponsors,it was not them that took drugs etc.Livestrong has done enormous good,so how can one stop supporting them too. Maybe one day thre truth will come out why they targetted Lance and not all the other dopers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flymango Posted September 10, 2012 Share Christmas is going to be boring this year,no woolies food,no fnb ipad,now I have to cross Nike, Oakley, and Trek off my christmas list to. and that Juke i wanted - gone. Thats Armstrong you b@st@rd, you just ruined christams. :clap: And it will get worse - no Hot Cross Buns going into Easter either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Dale Posted September 10, 2012 Share Interesting read and snippet here (about Nike's decision to stick with Livestrong): http://www.cyclingtips.com.au/2012/09/the-gruen-planet-on-lance-armstrong/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luke. Posted September 10, 2012 Share Those are the votes of sixty two lard-arse keyboard activists.......wonder how many people visited the website during the voting period, and decided not to bother with such a loaded question? The voting question is loaded, because it implies that anything but a yes vote pools you in the a group that supports doping. The sponsors have poured resource into an athlete, not doping....... 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grebel Posted September 10, 2012 Share So, owning a BB is ethical still? I'm not sure owning a BB was ever ethical...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Java001 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Interesting read and snippet here (about Nike's decision to stick with Livestrong): http://www.cyclingti...ance-armstrong/ Things get very interesting when sponsors ad their spin - think how different it was with Neotel and Hoffman not so long ago. Or maybe they just used it as excuse to get out of their sponsorship ? https://community.bikehub.co.za/topic/60845-neotel-withdraws-cycling-sponsorship-official/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now