Armstrong - Where does this leave Trek?

Udder

With latest reports furthering the accusations that Lance Armstrong is at the hub of the biggest cheating scandal the sporting world has ever seen, where does this leave the maker of the bikes he rides who continue to support him?

I don't think it would be unfair to suggest that perhaps Trek were in on it all along. Armstrong's success helped elevate Trek into a position as one of the leading sporting brands in the world. Could Trek have really not known that Lance was cheating? Maybe that's why Nike and Trek continue to back him as Lance has the ability to bring them all down with him?

alihisgreat

Nike and Trek continue to back him for marketing reasons...

Believe it or not they can take something positive away from it as it makes them appear loyal.


(+the fact that in the eyes of most americans Lance is still a hero).

Mikey23

And matrix aka Johnson who I believe are closely connected to Nike also have contracts. There are two livestrong labelled machines at my local gym. Not sure if I would still want my corporate business associated with a proven liar, doper and cheat ...

Udder

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Nike and Trek continue to back him for marketing reasons...

Believe it or not they can take something positive away from it as it makes them appear loyal.


(+the fact that in the eyes of most americans Lance is still a hero).

To say that they can take something positive from it is marketing spin in itself in my opinion. I personally think that they have no choice but to back him because Armstrong has dirt on them.

That said, I understand why Nike stuck with Tiger Woods after his scandal. Tiger hasn't been accused of using performance enhancing drugs to win his titles. Tiger's bedroom antics had nothing to do with his golf talent, either.

Cannock Chase

I personally don't believe that any large multi-national company would knowingly associate themselves with anyone who they knew to be a doper. They would know that ultimately they would have too much to lose. For companies like Oakley and Nike, cycling is only a very small part of their sales. I'm sure Nike would have soon hoofed Armstrong & Co off their books at the first sniff of trouble.

Perhaps I'm just a little naive in all this.. :? :?

Guanajuato

What about the throwaway bit in the ruling about Armstrong being able to close down Greg Lemond's bikes with one phone call to Trek, shortly before Lemond bikes disappeared? Hmmmm

Flâneur

I'm with Cannock on this, Oakley and co have far too much to lose over gain from investment. I doubt Trek were involved and it will probably make very little difference to their sales. People buy a bike due to spec and fit over brand, unless you buy a well known brand for the support you feel it offers. The Livestrong product will be an interesting one to watch. I know very little about it but it seems a worth while cause etc, I am not sure it can survive now, I certainly can't see it going strength to strength.

Udder

Cannock Chase wrote:

I personally don't believe that any large multi-national company would knowingly associate themselves with anyone who they knew to be a doper. They would know that ultimately they would have too much to lose. For companies like Oakley and Nike, cycling is only a very small part of their sales. I'm sure Nike would have soon hoofed Armstrong & Co off their books at the first sniff of trouble.

Perhaps I'm just a little naive in all this.. :? :?

I don't want to believe that a company as big as Trek could pull that amount of wool over their own eyes either. BUT, Armstrong won 7 tours on their bikes. Ethics could easily go out of the window when it comes to that kind of exposure.

Here's 202 pages of the report.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... trong.html

meesterbond

I think you credit big business with a little too much forethought... I'm sure Nike, Trek, Oakley etc had their suspicions, but whilst you've got the biggest name in the sport on your books who's going to be brave enough to take the step of sacking him

I think we'll now see the above companies quietly stepping as far away from Armstrong as they can. If it starts to get messy, then I imagine they'll be digging out the old contracts to see what other options are open to them.

cookeeemonster

http://www.theonion.com/articles/lance-armstrongs-bike-it-was-me,28549/

demunb

The great thing about corporations is, they don't care. They've all made tons of cash marketing Lance products. The interesting thing will be if they continue those relationships. I agree with the OP, Trek will be the interesting one. Nike will still sell plenty of Livestrong stuff here in the States because most Americans don't pay any attention to professional cycling and like wearing the yellow armband because it shows they care. Other sponsors can drop him if it hurts their bottom line or doesn't continue to sell and claim they no longer want to be associated with a "cheater"- even though its really about sales dollars. Trek is kind of in a weird position. He sold a lot of bikes because of Lance. We'll just have to wait and see what happens to that relationship. As of right now, the Livestrong branded fitness bikes are still on the website.

greentea

Trek wont give a sh*t. That era is long gone and its not like they sell bikes with Armstrongs name on anymore.

Cant see it being a problem. Would it stop you buying a Trek? thought not.

ShutUpLegs

Soon to bring out the Trek Madone EPO which loyal followers will lap up

jezzasnr

Quick bit of market research.
Q1 do majority of our target market believe him or not
A = Y stick with him
A = N drop him like a steaming turd.
or thereabouts.. £££'s

Grill

More importantly, where does this leave SRAM?

Udder

So what if Trek were to drop Armstrong for doping and then Armstrong provides thoroughly detailed account of how Trek knew about it all along? This is all speculation of course, but if Trek were to be found guilty of helping Armstrong and his team members dope, shouldn't they be banned from all competitions as well on the basis that they are a cheating team?

Armstrong has made some pretty strong threats to anyone who breaks the 'omerta', which is why (I think) Trek is sticking by him.

Armstrong gets all the flack because he's so rich off the back of his cheating. He's worth about $125m and flies by his own private jet. When looking at Armstrong's and Trek's wealth and power - cheating obviously pays.

Anonymous

I bet the big issue is the negative press for abandoning a cancer survivor in his time of need

(my brain is fried just thinking about the "i'm not sure what part of speech" the 'time of need' could be)

mallorcajeff

If i was in a bike shop looking at a range of bikes from all makes I would not rule the Trek out because a guy that was on drugs rode one? It would make not a toss difference to me and I would think 99% of the population. Trek have made millions over the years and that moneys i the bank and so has Armstrong, so neither will give a toss. Riders may think different if for example if you were proven years ahead to have taken drugs then all earnigns from that period need to be repayed then that woudl make you think twice. One day sat on millions and big house etc etc then one day your proved you doped then the whole lot is sold to pay it back (quite fair I think) like the proceeds of crime act. But going back to trek they have had marketing expose and sales over the years and that moneys in the bank so they dont care I doubt. Imagine how many flag waving americans bought a trek purely on the "hero factor" Bad publicity is still good publicity jesus look at ryanair!

Monty Dog

Oakley - one of their employees Stephanie McIlvain perjured for Larry in the SCA Promotions case, but the fact that she still works there speaks volumes for them. Obviously more interested in selling LiveSTRONG sunnies to homies rather than having a shred of moral fibre.

Trek deserve all they get after the way they treated Greg Lemond. Cue another Trek fanboy flame-out like the last time I mentioned that.

As for the swooshy company from Oregon, it's been standing joke for years about being on their 'programme'.

buckmulligan

Udder wrote:

I don't think it would be unfair to suggest that perhaps Trek were in on it all along.

I know the Armstrong-Trek relationship was shady to say the least, but I think this is a step too far. Keeping all of this under wraps would have been top of the priority list for Armstrong and USPS and you would assume the first and foremost part of that is limiting knowledge of it to as few people as possible.

Undoubtedly, being on the inside of the sport Trek would certainly have had their suspicions (especially so given the sports reputation at the time) but when you're getting that kind of exposure, why would you go asking questions that you don't want to hear the answers to?

ben@31

Maybe they are not 2 faced. Once saying "yey Lance is the greatest, we want to be with him" to now saying overnight "boo Lance is a terrible evil barsteward, quick lets turn our back on him".

And maybe they don't fall for media frenzy hysteria. Never letting the truth get in the way of a good story that sells newspapers.

Its the same with all the other celebraties, people soon forget how many millions of pounds they raised for charity and only think about the one bad rumour some journalist has spun.

alihisgreat

ben@31 wrote:

Maybe they are not 2 faced. Once saying "yey Lance is the greatest, we want to be with him" to now saying overnight "boo Lance is a terrible evil barsteward, quick lets turn our back on him".

And maybe they don't fall for media frenzy hysteria. Never letting the truth get in the way of a good story that sells newspapers.

Its the same with all the other celebraties, people soon forget how many millions of pounds they raised for charity and only think about the one bad rumour some journalist has spun.

hmm.. so what's the 'truth' about Lance then?

ben@31

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

hmm.. so what's the 'truth' about Lance then?

I suppose only Lance would know.

I take what I see in the media with a pinch of salt and despise comics like The Sun.

But whatever the truth, I certainly won't think any differently of Lance. He's still an inspirational hero.

Anonymous

ben@31 wrote:

But whatever the truth, I certainly won't think any differently of Lance. He's still an inspirational hero.

There are none so blind as those who won't see....

The kind who bullies his own junior teammates into submission and forces them into a complex, coordinated and dangerous doping programme just to stay on his team otherwise forces them into obscurity, then threatens them and their families with multi-million pound lawsuits if they dare mention a word of it?

Inspirational, indeed. Jesus christ boy. Wake up

Grill

coriordan wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

But whatever the truth, I certainly won't think any differently of Lance. He's still an inspirational hero.

There are none so blind as those who won't see....

The kind who bullies his own junior teammates into submission and forces them into a complex, coordinated and dangerous doping programme just to stay on his team otherwise forces them into obscurity, then threatens them and their families with multi-million pound lawsuits if they dare mention a word of it?

Inspirational, indeed. Jesus christ boy. Wake up

Amen to this.

ben@31

coriordan wrote:

There are none so blind as those who won't see....

The kind who bullies his own junior teammates into submission and forces them into a complex, coordinated and dangerous doping programme just to stay on his team otherwise forces them into obscurity, then threatens them and their families with multi-million pound lawsuits if they dare mention a word of it?

Inspirational, indeed. Jesus christ boy. Wake up

How do you know Lance did this?

I'm not blind, I just think theres two sides to every story.

And like I said earlier, you're soon forgetting all the other good work he has done.

alihisgreat

ben@31 wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

hmm.. so what's the 'truth' about Lance then?

I suppose only Lance would know.

I take what I see in the media with a pinch of salt and despise comics like The Sun.

But whatever the truth, I certainly won't think any differently of Lance. He's still an inspirational hero.

Maybe you should look into it yourself..


there is a whole 200 page report from the USADA outlining the evidence against Lance.

A summary as well as the whole report is available here: http://inrng.com/2012/10/usada-armstrong-report/

I suggest you read it before you make any assumptions that what the mainstream media is saying is incorrect.


p.s. you're not trolling are you? I mean seriously? Don't think there is anyone that actually believes that Lance didn't dope anymore.. not since the details of the USADA investigation were made public yesterday.

ben@31

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Maybe you should look into it yourself..


there is a whole 200 page report from the USADA outlining the evidence against Lance.

A summary as well as the whole report is available here: http://inrng.com/2012/10/usada-armstrong-report/

I suggest you read it before you make any assumptions that what the mainstream media is saying is incorrect.


p.s. you're not trolling are you? I mean seriously? Don't think there is anyone that actually believes that Lance didn't dope anymore.. not since the details of the USADA investigation were made public yesterday.

Is that the report written by the USADA for the USADA?

I'm sure the USADA would be very selective in the evidence they choose to publish, when trying to prove their controversial point.

It's not likely the USADA would print evidence that goes against themselves.

Has Lance ever failed a drugs test?

alihisgreat

ben@31 wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Maybe you should look into it yourself..


there is a whole 200 page report from the USADA outlining the evidence against Lance.

A summary as well as the whole report is available here: http://inrng.com/2012/10/usada-armstrong-report/

I suggest you read it before you make any assumptions that what the mainstream media is saying is incorrect.


p.s. you're not trolling are you? I mean seriously? Don't think there is anyone that actually believes that Lance didn't dope anymore.. not since the details of the USADA investigation were made public yesterday.

I'm sure the USADA would be very selective in the evidence they choose to use, when proving their controversial point.

It's not likely the USADA would print evidence that goes against themselves.

Has Lance ever failed a drugs test?

Yep. You're a troll. (or just really stupid.)

ben@31

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Yep. You're a troll. (or just really stupid.)

No, whats wrong with having a different opinion to you?

I just acknowledge the fact Lance has never failed a drugs test. Not one.

alihisgreat

ben@31 wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Yep. You're a troll. (or just really stupid.)

No, whats wrong with having a different opinion to you?

I just acknowledge the fact Lance has never failed a drugs test. Not one.

I suggest you google something along the lines of "Lance Armstrong positive test 1999"