Armstrong - Where does this leave Trek?

Grill

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.

What's the decor like in your cave? Also, I live in a noisy and harshly lit area and have trouble sleeping, so if you could let me know which earplugs and blindfold you use that would be great.

ben@31

Grill wrote:

What's the decor like in your cave? Also, I live in a noisy and harshly lit area and have trouble sleeping, so if you could let me know which earplugs and blindfold you use that would be great.

Are you being insulting because I'm remaining open minded about this and won't say the same as you?

Grill

ben@31 wrote:

Grill wrote:

What's the decor like in your cave? Also, I live in a noisy and harshly lit area and have trouble sleeping, so if you could let me know which earplugs and blindfold you use that would be great.

Are you being insulting because I'm remaining open minded about this and won't say the same as you?

The irony of that statement makes me weep for the future of the human race. 700 years ago you would have been the first off to the Crusades to beat open-mindedness into those heathen Muslims.

cougie

These companies knew cycling inside out. Their reps are there at all the big races.
Theyve seen lance beat riders that have been busted for drugs.
Any common sense would tell you that he must have been on them too.

What does it mean to them though ? I buy sunglasses because I like them. I'm not bothered about who they support. Same with frames and kit. I doubt it will have much impact on their sales. Festina watch sales improved after their scandal ?

ben@31

Grill wrote:

700 years ago you would have been the first off to the Crusades to beat open-mindedness into those heathen Muslims.

Errr no I wouldn't.

I just think we can't say Lance is definitely guilty yet. One one hand the evidence against Lance doesn't look good but then it's the USADA's job to look like its's finding dopers. The witnesses gain if they testify. And more importantly the UCI still hasn't made a decision.

But you can't forget the good sides to Lance, he did raise $450,000,000 for charity. Which is probably $450,000,000 more than some people. And with all the EPO in the world I still couldn't win 7 Tour de France's.

Omar Little

Udder wrote:

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.

Not strictly true - Woods has been a patient of a doctor convicted of doping offences, has been accused of taking HGH and has even admitted to blood doping. Its not cycling though so noone seems to care.

Same with the fifa youth world cup in Mexico where over a 100 under 17 players tested positive for clenbuterol which Contador got banned for - the footballers got excused on the dodgy bit of beef excuse though.

demunb

ben@31 wrote:

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

But there is evidence to suggest that he avoided tests and masked his tests.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/sport ... d=pl-share

I still think he's done a lot of good work, but he's not a saint. Neither are any of the top performers.

Grill

ben@31 wrote:

Grill wrote:

700 years ago you would have been the first off to the Crusades to beat open-mindedness into those heathen Muslims.

Errr no I wouldn't.

I just think we can't say Lance is definitely guilty yet. One one hand the evidence against Lance doesn't look good but then it's the USADA's job to look like its's finding dopers. The witnesses gain if they testify. And more importantly the UCI still hasn't made a decision.

But you can't forget the good sides to Lance, he did raise $450,000,000 for charity. Which is probably $450,000,000 more than some people. And with all the EPO in the world I still couldn't win 7 Tour de France's.

How about I walk you through this as I'm actually getting embarrassed for you. Being "open minded" as you say involves actually looking at ALL the information at hand in order to form a valid opinion. Unfortunately you've missed the most basic and integral part of this whole debacle which is IT'S NOT ABOUT LANCE DOPING. It never was. If you actually bothered to read the evidence, or even a two phrase synopsis of the whole case, you would see that.

You don't need a degree in deductive reasoning to come to the conclusion that Lance is not only guilty of doping (this has been common knowledge for a decade), but of leading a world class doping ring. He is a criminal plain and simple.

Contending that no one can say that he is definitely guilty in the face of such overwhelming evidence is akin to questioning Hitler being a grade-A douchebag by saying no one has proven the holocaust. While I'm on the subject, let's take the analogy a step further.

Both Lance and Hitler went through adversity that shaped them but also left them with huge chips on their shoulders. Both only had one nut, buried anyone who stood against them, had their closest friends turn against them, are/were conceited the point of blind madness, and as has been noted on a personal level are absolutely disgraceful bullies of human beings which history will not be kind to. Neither admits to doing anything wrong and went about their own agenda regardless of who got hurt.

Now you may be tempted to reiterate your point of all the good Lance did. Go for it. Believe it or not Hitler did good things too, does that make him a standup guy? The fact that Lance has raised loads for cancer charities (which never would have happened had he not got cancer) doesn't change any of the facts nor does it give him a special license to be such a douche-canoe. Jimmy Saville also raised loads for charity, does that negate all the things he did or give him some sort of "credit" that negates his reprobocity?

I'll give you that he was the best cyclist of his era regardless of doping but that's never been up for debate as no one here has questioned that.

I'm open minded too, but I'm also a logical and rational person. Tell me, is it more reasonable to conclude that one person (you don't even need to take into account this persons extreme narcissism) is lying, or that there is a huge conspiracy against said über rich hero/celebrity and EVERYONE else wants to take him down for their own benefit? Be reasonable for once.

EdgarAllenPoe

Noting the fact that Armstrong put pressure on Trek to cancel Greg LeMondes line of bikes because of his outspoken comments, I personally will never buy a Trek bike or any of it subsidiaries. They are just as culpable in my opinion.

Udder

I notice this has gone a little off topic here and we're back on to debating on whether Armstong doped or not.

Perhaps there lies my answer when questioning where this leaves Trek if they knew that cheating was going on. Lance Armstrong is so big that he clouds his sponsors.

If Trek did know that the doping was going on, I don't see it any different to an F1 team getting found out for putting an illegal fuel in their cars in seasons they won World Championships... Shouldn't Trek be banned from competing for life as well?

alihisgreat

Udder wrote:

I notice this has gone a little off topic here and we're back on to debating on whether Armstong doped or not.

Perhaps there lies my answer when questioning where this leaves Trek if they knew that cheating was going on. Lance Armstrong is so big that he clouds his sponsors.

If Trek did know that the doping was going on, I don't see it any different to an F1 team getting found out for putting an illegal fuel in their cars in seasons they won World Championships... Shouldn't Trek be banned from competing for life as well?

Your analogy doesn't quite work because F1 teams own and run the team.. whereas Trek were 'just' a sponsor.

It would be more like banning Ferrari because one of the teams using their customer engine cheated... or banning Vodaphone from sponsoring because McLaren cheated.

Udder

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Udder wrote:

I notice this has gone a little off topic here and we're back on to debating on whether Armstong doped or not.

Perhaps there lies my answer when questioning where this leaves Trek if they knew that cheating was going on. Lance Armstrong is so big that he clouds his sponsors.

If Trek did know that the doping was going on, I don't see it any different to an F1 team getting found out for putting an illegal fuel in their cars in seasons they won World Championships... Shouldn't Trek be banned from competing for life as well?

Your analogy doesn't quite work because F1 teams own and run the team.. whereas Trek were 'just' a sponsor.

It would be more like banning Ferrari because one of the teams using their customer engine cheated... or banning Vodaphone from sponsoring because McLaren cheated.

It does work if they KNEW they were cheating to get results and helped in the cover up.

alihisgreat

Udder wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Udder wrote:

I notice this has gone a little off topic here and we're back on to debating on whether Armstong doped or not.

Perhaps there lies my answer when questioning where this leaves Trek if they knew that cheating was going on. Lance Armstrong is so big that he clouds his sponsors.

If Trek did know that the doping was going on, I don't see it any different to an F1 team getting found out for putting an illegal fuel in their cars in seasons they won World Championships... Shouldn't Trek be banned from competing for life as well?

Your analogy doesn't quite work because F1 teams own and run the team.. whereas Trek were 'just' a sponsor.

It would be more like banning Ferrari because one of the teams using their customer engine cheated... or banning Vodaphone from sponsoring because McLaren cheated.

It does work if they KNEW they were cheating to get results and helped in the cover up.

not really because they still don't own and run the team.. so your analogy doesn't work.

I agree if they knew about it and helped to facilitate it knowingly then they should be banned from sponsoring the sport... but your analogy still doesn't work.

Omar Little

EdgarAllenPoe wrote:

Noting the fact that Armstrong put pressure on Trek to cancel Greg LeMondes line of bikes because of his outspoken comments, I personally will never buy a Trek bike or any of it subsidiaries. They are just as culpable in my opinion.

What Trek did to the LeMond brand was just the same as they've done with other brands like Klein, Bontrager and more recently Gary Fisher. Less to do with Armstrong putting pressure onto them and more about their business model.

ugo.santalucia

Frankly, who cares about trek?
They have never brought an innovative product to the market... they are just part of a big movement that sells the same thing with different stickers. Even if it had to go bust for lack of sales, the only ones I would feel for would be the employees.
That said, they are a robust company, that can take a dent to the image... I would be a lot more worried about the volatility of these brands... they come and disappear within 5 years

Grill

Dunno, the Domane still has my interest and I'd look at one seriously if all I did was ride cobbles or had a bad back.

You're right though, companies like this bounce back. Look at Nike- Vick, Kobe, Woods, and now Lance. I'm still buying their kicks and they're more popular than ever.

Monty Dog

Any notion that a particular frame design will alleviate you from a battering over pave in spurious - the wheels, tyre type, size and pressure are far more significant as well as the fitness and strength of the rider. It's only the likes of Trek and Specialized that try to make it so as part of their marketing. To the contrary - Cancellara was effectively closed-out from a number of races in 2011 because he was riding a Trek!

thegreatdivide

Monty Dog wrote:

Any notion that a particular frame design will alleviate you from a battering over pave in spurious - the wheels, tyre type, size and pressure are far more significant as well as the fitness and strength of the rider. It's only the likes of Trek and Specialized that try to make it so as part of their marketing. To the contrary - Cancellara was effectively closed-out from a number of races in 2011 because he was riding a Trek!

All of this.

ugo.santalucia

Monty Dog wrote:

Any notion that a particular frame design will alleviate you from a battering over pave in spurious - the wheels, tyre type, size and pressure are far more significant as well as the fitness and strength of the rider. It's only the likes of Trek and Specialized that try to make it so as part of their marketing. To the contrary - Cancellara was effectively closed-out from a number of races in 2011 because he was riding a Trek!

Indeed, the spring flemmish classics and Paris-Roubaix are the only races where PROs abandon their Team branded materials and go back to artisan made tyres and wheels... often re-badged with the sponsors logos. Virtually anyone who wants to have a say in the PR rides FMB or Dugast tubulars. The reason is those have a stronger and harder carcass, which allows to run 60-70 PSI without the risk of a flat. On the pave' sections the rolling resistance of such tyres at low pressure makes the difference, if one has the legs to push hard. other makes require a higher minimum pressure, which ultimately results in higher resistance on the stones...
All other components are pretty much irrelevant, from frames with inserts, to bars, stems, saddles... much of a muchness

Grill

Monty Dog wrote:

Any notion that a particular frame design will alleviate you from a battering over pave in spurious - the wheels, tyre type, size and pressure are far more significant as well as the fitness and strength of the rider. It's only the likes of Trek and Specialized that try to make it so as part of their marketing. To the contrary - Cancellara was effectively closed-out from a number of races in 2011 because he was riding a Trek!

Sure, but I'd still be curious to see if I can notice a difference or if it's all marketing hype. With the type of riding I do, I'd be far more likely to go for a Madone.

Point is I don't care about marketing affiliation* if the product is solid.

*to the extent of sponsoring LA. Obviously if their corporate culture was to kill a puppy for each bike sold I probably wouldn't buy one.

Stedman

After what was reported on the yesterday’s front page of the New York Times and as the leading sports news item in the Washington Post, even in the US it appears that Lance has finally lost his credibility as modern-day American icon.

With a possible perjury charge now, I suspect that even Trek will be quickly distancing themselves from Lance!

ilm_zero7

ben@31 wrote:

I just think we can't say Lance is definitely guilty yet.

what? !! and there was I thinking the space mission to Mars was unmanned, clearly not... have you seen Elvis and lord lucan yet?

Mr Will

Anyone else thinks this could reflect positively on Trek's bikes? "The man who would do anything to win, chose to ride a Trek"

leedpayne

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/spo ... 2101144612

Mikey23

Not sure how easy or difficult it is to get out of these global corporate contracts. My guess is that trek, Nike, johnson matrix et al will express their continuing support but quietly withdraw when up for renewal. If things go criminal , as I suspect they will, they will distance themselves quite quickly ...

Mikey23

Aww... Has he gone? Funniest thing I've read for a long time

Udder

Nike have sacked Armstrong after he stepped down as Livestrong chairman. I'm waiting to see what Trek, Oakley etc do...

ShutUpLegs

Udder wrote:

I'm waiting to see what Trek, Oakley etc do...

Pretty obvious isn't it....

Hoopdriver

ShutUpLegs wrote:

Udder wrote:

I'm waiting to see what Trek, Oakley etc do...

Pretty obvious isn't it....

They done it

Grill

Can't wait to pick up a whole punch of Nike kit on the cheap!