Should cycling fans boycott Trek and Nike?

tailwindhome

Should cycling fans boycott Trek and Nike due to their ongoing support of Armstrong?


Maybe you already do?

ilm_zero7

never excited by trek anyway, but Nike because they were a sponsor? then are you going to burn your Oakley jawbones too?..... thought not.

No, but have been avoiding anything Armstong/Livestrong for years, so no change, just justification rather than a suspicion

Anonymous

If you had any moral compass, you would have boycotted Nike already for the child labour etc.

Trek seem to be a damn fine company from all accounts regarding warranty, product support, dealer support and if I wasn't a childish brand snob, I would definitely buy one (if it fit, right price, etc)

Its business, and bloody good business at that.

TMR

I suspect the impact on Nike would be negligible, simply due to the sheer scale of the business and the vast array of sports they support. Trek I'm not sure about. People who like their bikes will still buy them.

Personally, I wouldn't let an association with a tainted sportsman/woman dissuade me from purchasing a brand I liked. I don't buy Trek or Nike though.

LangerDan

coriordan wrote:

If you had any moral compass, you would have boycotted Nike already for the child labour etc.

.

^^^this. If Phil Knight doesn't particularly care about how his sub-contractors treat kids, why would he have qualms about something as objectively inconsequential as some cyclist faffing around with some chemicals.

prawny

Unfortunately if I tried to boycott every bike or equipment manufacturer that supported dodgy characters or engaged in dodgy business techniques (like spesh v volagi) there would be little left for me to buy. I suppose I could get a Rourke frame but no doubt he's wound someone up and maybe lusso clothes? Feck knows.

It's definitely something I consider when buying something, one of the reasons I went for the verenti over a madone.

Buckled_Rims

If you boycotted everything from cheats, thieves, low lifes etc, you'd be living in a mud hut with no clothes. Have you boycotted seat belts because of a certain Clunk-Click advert or trains for that ;-)

Bakunin

I have a madone that I love and it is very sweet, but I hate everything Trek and all that bone-drager junk.

Trek and Specialized are Coke and Pepsi -- and both can be nasty to LBS that stock them.

My wife wouldn't let me get what I wanted (Orbea Orca), and my trek was best buy for the dollar (it was a better deal than Specialized/Look and a few others). It is so depressing how much these things cost, especially with children ready to do college.

rebs

I'll gladly by Chinesey Oakleys now at least. :P

mike6

Don't like Trek bikes and have boycotted Nike products for the last 20 years. Always thought Oakley glasses overpriced, I wear Briko.

Mikey23

Certainly will and the matrix livestrong machines at my gym. I have emailed both Nike and matrix expressing my opinion

AchillesLeftKnee

If we all boycotted cyclings brands that had had some sort of connection with past drug taking, we'd probably be reduced to running around naked whilst making whirring noises. Kinda defeats the point, and the thought of repeating "the night with the scrumpy" doesn't really appeal.

coriordan wrote:

If you had any moral compass, you would have boycotted Nike already for the child labour etc.

Agreed. Not the nicest of setups by all accounts.

andy_wrx

Always thought Armstrong a thoroughly unpleasant, arrogant b*st*rd so was never into riding a Trek, wearing Disco kit or Oakleys

But anyone right-minded should have started boycotting them after their appalling treatment of LeMond

rick_chasey

I'm all principled about stuff on the internet but that soon flies out of the window in real life.

I'd have bought a trek if it was the best bike for me for my budget and I've got some great arm warmers that are Nike. Picked them up dirt cheap when Armstrong retired first time around.

So no.

mrushton

Might as well boycott Shimano,Giroand any one else eg Specialized since Vino rides them.

Crankbrother

Principles are for the stupid or rich ... or stupidly rich ...

I have a LA ltd edition Giro Atmos ... My old 'dale was blue, so was my kit so wanted a black/white/blue lid and the company I tried to buy a Disco helmet from made a mess of it so offered the ltd. version as an alternative ... Great helmet, no-one else I know has one, job done ...

I have a LA Nike watch ... It's actually rubbish but it's titanium, light-ish and saves my proper watch when on the bike ... It's good for hill-walking tho' ...

I have Livestrong bib-knicks ... Just have the yellow band on left leg ... Comfy, control temperature just as I want ...

My gf had 2 Trek road bikes, she enjoyed them ...

My point? Everything is as good as you decide it is ... No amount of money or hindsight posturing makes a difference ...

If Nike still made kit I'd be first in the queue ... My personal experience is that good ...

RichN95.

I've got a Trek mountain bike for going to the shops. I bought it because it was half price at my local LBS. And I'd do the same again because I'm not some pompous self-righteous idiot. My brother is though - I think he writes Sky's recruitment policy.

As for Nike? My hockey club is sponsored by Adidas, so my loyalty is there.

liquor box

LangerDan wrote:

coriordan wrote:

If you had any moral compass, you would have boycotted Nike already for the child labour etc.

.

^^^this. If Phil Knight doesn't particularly care about how his sub-contractors treat kids, why would he have qualms about something as objectively inconsequential as some cyclist faffing around with some chemicals.

What a load of bollocks, Where does it end?

If you dont buy NIKE then who do you buy? How do you know that they do not use child labour? Think of the thousands of individual items that go into selling any product (computer parts, plastic bags, ink, carpet, tiles, wood, metal racks, material, importers and exporters...the list is endless) and inevitably you will be using clild labour for something.

Child Labour is a terrible thing, and should be avoided where possible, but who makes us westerners so important that we deny a third world family its income to buy food? There are occasions where the children work because the parents are unable to due to ilness from poor living conditions and if the child does not work then the family literally dies. It is a similar argument to saying that third world workers should get western world wages, this would be nice, but what happens when a few billion people have no money?

I think I would rather support NIKE as it has helped bring me many hours of exciting cycling over the years and has halped me fall in love with a sport that is exciting and healthy too. Thanks NIKE and TREK.

Where are the calls for boycotting doctors and pharmecutical companies, these are the real criminals. Unless Lance Armstrong is smarter than I thought, did he invent his own form of doping?

mercsport

andy_wrx wrote:

Always thought Armstrong a thoroughly unpleasant, arrogant b*st*rd so was never into riding a Trek, wearing Disco kit or Oakleys

But anyone right-minded should have started boycotting them after their appalling treatment of LeMond

Absolutely spot-on re' Lemond. Back then Trek were already bottom of the heap for having Lance's arse on their product, but how they and LA connived and weaselled and chiselled Greg Lemond was disgraceful.

Additionally when I learned that Lance has a shareholding in SRAM that association immediately tainted the company forever to me. Beyond consideration. Not that it matters as I have always been a Campagnolo fella

Odd, I often wonder at myself for how sunny days suddenly turn into night when certain names are impressed into my waking hours. :oops: Tony Blair is another one that stirs the juices of despair at mankind's failings too.

Anonymous

Liquor - that's my point. Plus those children, while given a wage, are exploited and underpaid

rick_chasey

If nike is doing said terrible stuff, it's up to the authorities to do something about it, not me.

When I go into a shop I don't get given the working conditions of every single person who helped make the product I'm looking to buy.

It's not unreasonable for a consumer to buy something on the basis of quality and/or price. It's also not unreasonable to assume that given the product is being sold legally that it was produced in a fair way.

If that's not the case, the authorities should do something.

That's what they're there to do.

tailwindhome

Rick Chasey wrote:

If nike is doing said terrible stuff, it's up to the authorities to do something about it, not me.

You suprise me. I thought you would have an up to date list of left wing approved companies.

Assumptions eh?

liquor box wrote:

[Where are the calls for boycotting doctors and pharmecutical companies, these are the real criminals. Unless Lance Armstrong is smarter than I thought, did he invent his own form of doping?

Not sure this makes sense. My understanding is that EPO has a legitimate medical use. I may be wrong. I'm also unlikely to ever be doing business with Dr Ferrari.

Crankbrother wrote:

Principles are for the stupid or rich ... or stupidly rich ... ...

That makes no sense either. I don't need to be rich to decide to buy Reebok or Adidas instead of Nike.

If Nike insist on marketing their product using a liar, cheat and bully such as Armstrong then it doesn't seem stupid to make the decision as a consumer not to but their product.

Its certainly no more stupid than buying the product 'because' Lance wore/rode it.

ariege_cyclist

Haven't heard any top athletes from other sports (yet) complaining to Nike about their continued support for LA.
People like Paula Radcliffe have a strong anti-drug stance and are Nike sponsored athletes. These people need to get on to Nike and "encourage" them to pull the plug on Lance.

Personally I don't see how any athlete at any level could continue to buy from a company that continues to support anyone so massively linked to the most anti-sporting behavior as Lance.

I'm thinking of creating my own brand, Syringe swoosh style logo and "Just take it" text. Anyone fancy buying anything?

ariege_cyclist

TailWindHome wrote:

If Nike insist on marketing their product using a liar, cheat and bully such as Armstrong then it doesn't seem stupid to make the decision as a consumer not to but their product.

Its certainly no more stupid than buying the product 'because' Lance wore/rode it.

^ and this, +1, definitely.
If I was on O2 for my phone contract I'd even be canceling that, what with all their adverts linked to Nike sports personalities.

fast as fupp

this is funny!

tailwindhome

fast as fupp wrote:

this is funny!

Funny how?

mike6

RichN95 wrote:

I've got a Trek mountain bike for going to the shops. I bought it because it was half price at my local LBS. And I'd do the same again because I'm not some pompous self-righteous idiot. My brother is though - I think he writes Sky's recruitment policy.

As for Nike? My hockey club is sponsored by Adidas, so my loyalty is there.

So anyone who believes in doing what they think is the right thing, in there opinion, is a "pompous self-righteous idiot" are they?
Well, I applaud people who have the b***s to make a stand, rather than settle for the path of least resistance. O.K one person makes little difference, but if enough buyers vote with there feet companies change, or go out of business.

Noclue

It's actually saddened me a little this thread, it seems some peoples attitudes are that those less fortunate than themselves who happen to be born in a third world country should expect to live 20-30 years less than their counterparts in the west, and that their children should expect not to get an education and improve their lot in life as long as they are producing affordable goods for us to buy.

I'm not naieve enough to believe that all the worlds ills can be put right with a socialist utopian masterplan but consumer boycotting can work and change big corporations policies.

nathancom

Noclue wrote:

It's actually saddened me a little this thread, it seems some peoples attitudes are that those less fortunate than themselves who happen to be born in a third world country should expect to live 20-30 years less than their counterparts in the west, and that their children should expect not to get an education and improve their lot in life as long as they are producing affordable goods for us to buy.

I'm not naieve enough to believe that all the worlds ills can be put right with a socialist utopian masterplan but consumer boycotting can work and change big corporations policies.

+1 what is the point of living in a consumer society if we abdicate the power that is given to us as consumers. Companies will change their attitudes only when they see their bottom line being affected. We can either harness this power, which has the potential to be a radical form of democracy or we can apathetically just like at the price sticker and which celebs endorse which products for very fat checks.

I find the comment above that we should simply leave it up to legislators laughable. Corporations have deliberately avoided governmental scrutiny by shifting operations overseas.

meagain

I've never owned anything by Trek nor NIke. Simply a matter of good taste. I think my 1989 Dawes Escape and early '90s Saracens are morally neutral.

Cookie91

Is it just me who thought that perhaps some of his branded stuff will be in the sale and a great opportunity to buy some good gear cheap?