Jump to content

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


Should the public be boycotting Oakley, Nike, Trek and other sponsors supporting convicted doping cheats?  

148 members have voted

  1. 1. See poll title, yes or no.

    • Hell Yes
      28
    • Hell No
      120


Recommended Posts

Guest Omega Man

But... My Oakleys make me look so cool. Oh but wait. They are the Troy Lee Designs limited edition ones so that offsets Lance.

 

But Troy Lee. sponsors JD Suangen and he was bust for weed so I'm back at stomping on my sunnies. Can I just pop one lens out?

Edited by Omega Man
  • Replies 198
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

You cannot create authority by mere association!

Did any of these ex-pros and pro tour insiders vote on the poll there? What did they vote? Not for a moment wil I believe that ex-pros will vote *(to support) on a boycott of a brand that supports cycling!

 

*edit

 

To be fair, JV has voiced his opinion, or vote if you will, on doping, often, loudly, and repeatedly.

Guest Omega Man

Only acceptable if used on a 'berg 360. If you use goggles on a mtb of any sort, you will forever be known here as Steve Urkel.

I'm a downhiller. And I've got a YZ250F. Oh and those rydon sunnies are so ugly I'd rather poke both eyes out and wear 2 eye patches. Guess I'm gonna have to vote no.

Edited by Omega Man
Guest Omega Man

I'm reliably informed that to overcome that you need to smoke more dope.

Bill Clinton smoked weed so I'm already boycotting that.

George Bush started a war about nothing so I'm boycotting stupidity. Except my own of course.

Tiger Woods is a sex addict so I'm boycotting sex and Golf.

The springboks suck so I'm boycotting Castle beer, Land Rover, BMW and ABSA.

DSTV repeat everything 10000000000 times so I'm boycotting their repeats.

The government is useless so I'm boycotting tax.

DSTV repeat everything 10000000000 times so I'm boycotting their repeats.

Woolies hate whites so I'm boycotting them. Except of course when it's my turn to cook.

DSTV repeat everything 10000000000 times so I'm boycotting their repeats.

SAA too but I've got lot's of voyager miles so that's tough.

DSTV repeat everything 10000000000 times so I'm boycotting their repeats.

The Chinese abuse human rights so I'm boycotting everything else. Including the keyboard I'm typing on right now.

The British have bad teeth so I boycotting everything they make. Pft. Who are we kidding. They don't make anything.

Most of all I'm Boycotting Jeffrey Boycott. Anyone with the surname Boycott deserves a good Boycotting.

 

This is a ridiculous thread. and the person that started it deserves to be boycotted.

Edited by Omega Man

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.

 

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

Edited by Lucky Luke.

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.

 

I agree completely.

 

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

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout