Should cycling fans boycott Trek and Nike?
Comments
-
I'm going to boycott my Lance Armstrong brand EPO, it's totally gone mainstream recently and I love to use gear no-one else knows about yet. I'll switch to a more obscure supplier and stay indie!0
-
nathancom wrote:
+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.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.
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.
As I said, gov'ts should regulate. A consumer can't be expected to know the ins and outs of the production process and see if the products are being produced fairly or not.
A regulator can and should.0 -
I agree Rick, in an ideal world, trouble is big corporations have lots of lawyers on their payroll and will happily spend millions to defend their profit margins whilst taxpayer backed regulators are left floundering in a legal quagmire.
Concerned consumers can quite often make an informed decision with a little searching on the internet, only takes a little effort.0 -
How can they regulate and enforce against the actions of corporates overseas? It is up to the local govts to do so but the economic imperative is so strong to gain foreign investment for these relatively poor nations that the likelihood of effective oversight is nil. Anyway our wealth is premised upon the exploitation of foreign labour so I very much doubt that our govts are going to make serious moves even if they could.Rick Chasey wrote:nathancom wrote:
+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.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.
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.
As I said, gov'ts should regulate. A consumer can't be expected to know the ins and outs of the production process and see if the products are being produced fairly or not.
A regulator can and should.0 -
TailWindHome wrote: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.
Don't Amgen, who sponsor the Tour of California, make EPO?0 -
greasedscotsman wrote:TailWindHome wrote: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.
Don't Amgen, who sponsor the Tour of California, make EPO?
Think so.
Or have read it on t'internet anyway.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
How can they regulate and enforce against the actions of corporates overseas? It is up to the local govts to do so but the economic imperative is so strong to gain foreign investment for these relatively poor nations that the likelihood of effective oversight is nil. Anyway our wealth is premised upon the exploitation of foreign labour so I very much doubt that our govts are going to make serious moves even if they could.[/quote]nathancom wrote:
A regulator can and should.
If they have evidence that they're produced unfairly by a reasonable set of standards they can forbid the sale of the item if they want to.
It's unreasonable to expect a consumer to consider and seek out the provenance of every product they buy.0 -
greasedscotsman wrote:TailWindHome wrote: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.
Don't Amgen, who sponsor the Tour of California, make EPO?
Yup.0 -
I wouldn't like to be responsible for framing and enforcing that law. Can you imagine the litigation it would produce. It flies directly against the entire framework of our economic system as well. The cost to enforce would be massively prohibitive due to the global flow of goods. I really don't think there is any practical recourse to legislation in this case.Rick Chasey wrote:nathancom wrote:
How can they regulate and enforce against the actions of corporates overseas? It is up to the local govts to do so but the economic imperative is so strong to gain foreign investment for these relatively poor nations that the likelihood of effective oversight is nil. Anyway our wealth is premised upon the exploitation of foreign labour so I very much doubt that our govts are going to make serious moves even if they could.Rick Chasey wrote:nathancom wrote:
+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.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.
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.
As I said, gov'ts should regulate. A consumer can't be expected to know the ins and outs of the production process and see if the products are being produced fairly or not.
A regulator can and should.
If they have evidence that they're produced unfairly by a reasonable set of standards they can forbid the sale of the item if they want to.0 -
Nor is it correct or reasonable to expect consumers to seek out the provenance of everything they buy.
Life is too short.
My weekly supermarket shop has probably 30 odd items at least.0 -
No, but then you hope journalists will publicise the most egregious examples of corporate exploitation such as Nike, Nestlé and Apple. In the last case I believe there was an immediate response following bad publicity and this is much swifter than we could expect as a result of government regulation. I hate that I sound so free market about this, but this is one area where I think govt really is powerless compared to the market.0
-
It's not reasonable to expect the average consumer to actively seek out the provenance of everything they buy. Doesn't mean they shouldn't stop buying something if they find out the product is tainted in some way and if they feel particularly strongly about it, I'm happy to listen to their points (within reason). Heck I might even try and remember to stop buying their products. However, most of the time, I'll do a bit of research, conclude that every other company selling a similar service is just as bad, and we'll end up where we started. Only now, most of the time, I won't bother with the research, and just go to that conclusion straight away.
So I still won't buy trek bikes, but I never liked the brand anyway, I'll still occasionally buy Nike products, when I can't find an alternative from a different brand in the shop and I'll still buy Oakleys, because for my sins, I'm a bit of an Oakley whore.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
nathancom wrote:
How can they regulate and enforce against the actions of corporates overseas? It is up to the local govts to do so but the economic imperative is so strong to gain foreign investment for these relatively poor nations that the likelihood of effective oversight is nil. Anyway our wealth is premised upon the exploitation of foreign labour so I very much doubt that our govts are going to make serious moves even if they could.Rick Chasey wrote:nathancom wrote:
+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.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.
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.
As I said, gov'ts should regulate. A consumer can't be expected to know the ins and outs of the production process and see if the products are being produced fairly or not.
A regulator can and should.
Surely it would be better for our country's wealth if we erradicated the sources of cheap labour in other countries as it would enable us to produce and export more goods cost effetively ourselves?0 -
Jez mon wrote:...I'll still buy Oakleys, because for my sins, I'm a bit of an Oakley whore.
Yeah, me to! Greg Lemond wore Oakleys long before Armstrong did and he's a good guy, right?
0 -
I think we should all boycott British Cycling seeing as it is affiliated to the UCI. The UCI should be abolished, rotten and incompetent to the core.0
-
I hate Trek and anything Armstrong, always have. He was so obviously doping 10 years back and that whole apple pie/USPS/Trek/bontrager/bumboy thing drove me mad.
I dont even think about if a bike manufacturer has sponsored a doper though when buying, only LA. Armstrong created an extra special level of hate in me, bastard. Even made me stop reading Mags, I still cant buy PC, I puked when i saw this months cover. I am worse than Insp. Dreyfus when it comes to LA and his folk, so in answer to your question, yes, please everyone should do so and they would care, the PR fallout would be too great.0 -
And how do you do that? Either through prohibitive tarifs on goods produced overseas or by outright embargoes on foreign goods. Neither is going to happen and if we did impose either then our own goods would face reciprocal worldwide tarifs/embargoes effectively impoverishing all of us in one fell swoop. We would have to be entirely self sufficient.Pross wrote:nathancom wrote:
How can they regulate and enforce against the actions of corporates overseas? It is up to the local govts to do so but the economic imperative is so strong to gain foreign investment for these relatively poor nations that the likelihood of effective oversight is nil. Anyway our wealth is premised upon the exploitation of foreign labour so I very much doubt that our govts are going to make serious moves even if they could.Rick Chasey wrote:nathancom wrote:
+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.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.
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.
As I said, gov'ts should regulate. A consumer can't be expected to know the ins and outs of the production process and see if the products are being produced fairly or not.
A regulator can and should.
Surely it would be better for our country's wealth if we erradicated the sources of cheap labour in other countries as it would enable us to produce and export more goods cost effetively ourselves?
The only way I can see this situation improving is by the living standards of these countries with cheap labour improving to the point where the govts feel secure enough to regulate on work conditions. However, corporations will simply move production to the next poor zone of the world, which at this moment in time is most likely the more stable countries of Africa.0 -
I probably would nt buy a Madone but have lusted after a FuelEX for the last 5 years or so...make of that what you will.
Can never afford Oakleys, my endura glasses look the same anyway and rarely come across any Nike Stuff I want . That said I have a GoreTex walking jacket that is Nike and I think it's fantastic - bought for a steal of a price at TK Maxx tho.We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Consumer boycotts do work, ask Shell. Mass movements are powerful and frighten those who would have a pliant population. So expect to be mocked for suggesting any form of selective purchasing as large business interests understand that it might be them next. Influential people will be deployed to minimize any unwanted outcome.
BTW, I own a Trek hybrid (I know) it was a nice bike at a good price. However it did not have Mr Armstrong's name on it, that may have been a deal breaker. I do not buy Nike, I think I can buy better, for less, elsewhere. The whole 'Brand' thing tends to leave me cold, thanks to the internet it is easy to find generic equivalents for many things, price rules.'fool'0 -
This is close to what concerned people should do, boycott any certified UCI products, deny them money until they improve things. Not buying Nike or Trek wont change cycling, it will just hurt poor third world familiesTrev The Rev wrote:I think we should all boycott British Cycling seeing as it is affiliated to the UCI. The UCI should be abolished, rotten and incompetent to the core.0 -
-
The only language big business understands is money. If an effective consumer boycott can be coordinated then they will change. Its the 'Free market'.
Shell have been mentioned, Barclays Bank stopped dealing with South Africa. Even Tesco and MacDonalds have responded to consumer pressure.
Sadly there are all too many people who are too selfish to even try to help others. I bet those children just love working long hours in horrendous conditions, they must be delighted to be supporting their families. If they were prevented from working, the companies would be forced to employ the parents. But hey, don't you bother to go just down the rack to the ethically sources trainers, you save the extra £10 that you might have to spend on the alternative cycling jersey. What is the misery of a few foreigners if you can afford a couple more pints or yet another pair of Oakleys.0 -
Anyone been watching that programme about life in India? It puts working in a factory into perspective, in fact, kids in factories earning a few quid a week appear to me to be in a better position than some of the poor souls in this documentary. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01n8278. I don't agree with child labour, I'm just saying0
-
stigofthedump wrote:What is the misery of a few foreigners if you can afford a couple more pints or yet another pair of Oakleys.
I'm sure the American workers in the Oakley factory are very happy.0 -
so when are Trek, Nike and Oakley lower their prices?0
-
The point of this thread is a bit simpler than provenance of goods and third world conditions.
In a nutshell there is no point bitching about Livestrong, Nike and Trek for their piblic support for Lance and continuing to pump money into his bank account yet continuing to reward Nike and Trek by buying their products.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:British cycling does good value 3rd party insurance and legal assistance.
Exactly, plus if you want to compete in road races, you're going to have to be a member. Frankly, riding my bike is more important to me, than watching a clean professional sport, so if I were to get fit enough to race again, the thought of boycotting BCF because of the UCI wouldn't cross my mind.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
As I would never buy a product (cycling or not) just because its used by or endorsed by a top athlete or public figure, I would not boycott a product because a top athlete has cheated whilst using it.
Unless Trek and Nike directly supported Armstrong or arranged the doping themselves ( not through simply paying Armstrong ) then I wont be boycotting them.Cycling prints
Band of Climbers0 -
y33stu wrote:Unless Trek and Nike directly supported Armstrong or arranged the doping themselves ( not through simply paying Armstrong ) then I wont be boycotting them.
I don't think that's the issue anymore though, the actual 'cheating in a bike race' part is an increasingly minor detail.
It's the continuation of support for an athlete who is has been proven essentially ran an organised crime gang (fraud, drug smuggling, coercion, witness intimidation, perjury etc etc).0 -
le patron wrote:y33stu wrote:Unless Trek and Nike directly supported Armstrong or arranged the doping themselves ( not through simply paying Armstrong ) then I wont be boycotting them.
I don't think that's the issue anymore though, the actual 'cheating in a bike race' part is an increasingly minor detail.
It's the continuation of support for an athlete who is has been proven essentially ran an organised crime gang (fraud, drug smuggling, coercion, witness intimidation, perjury etc etc).
Totally agree. Whether someone elects to boycott the sponsors or not, THESE are the real issues that make their ongoing and future support of Armstrong, obnoxious.0
