Should cycling fans boycott Trek and Nike?
Comments
-
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
Richmond Racer wrote: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.
I don't condone the support of LA by his sponsors, but from their point of view, any publicity is good publicity. How many pictures of LA have been published worldwide since the announcement. How many pictures have their been with Trek and Nike logos? According to Livestrong, their donations have increased massively since this whole thing came out. Who's to say Trek and Nikes sales haven't done the same? If that's the case, as unethical as it may be, would you pull your support IF sales were increasing? As a marketing person, I wouldn't.Cycling prints
Band of Climbers0 -
Take Oakley : http://uk.oakley.com/livestrong
An 'Online Memorial & Dedication Wall' on the same page as the products, and LA's signature and '7xTDF winner' claim.
Everything is so intertwined and interdependent. Hard to unpick.
But all this only works if you are an aspirational role model.
Not sure if Lance Armstrong : 'Cheat, Fraud, Drug Smuggler' will sell as many Jawbones.
Might email them and ask.0 -
0
-
iainf72 wrote:
If that is true then that's something different altogether, something a lot bigger than one individual. And if its true, where does that stop? Do they cover up LA's doping, an entire football teams doping? or more.Cycling prints
Band of Climbers0 -
Despite what the article suggests you have to ask why? Why would you boycott Trek and Nike, Trek (not so much Nike) played little part in the doping scandal.
If we were to boycott brands that that unwittingly sponsored outed cheats then we'd have to give up a hell of a lot of cycling brands: Pinarello, Willier, Giant, Specialized and Trek to name a few. Hell, we may as all ride and purchase Raliegh's bikes and gears - assuming they're safe.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Read more DDD - allegedly (massively allegedly) Nike actually paid for the positives to go away themselves.0
-
-
Rick Chasey wrote: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.
^^^This is the City talking.
It is completely unreasonable to assume legal = fair.___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
OK, fair point but no matter what precedes the word allegedly it is still 'allegedly' and going from the strength of that to an actual boycott is a huge trigger happy leap. Not least of which, what shop sells Nike cycle gear anyway?coriordan wrote:Read more DDD - allegedly (massively allegedly) Nike actually paid for the positives to go away themselves.
Also, Nike aside, why should we boycott Trek? For all the bad from this one case, Trek do a lot of good in cycling. Seems a little extreme to boycott one of the most forward thinking bicycle manufacturers on the strength that a few bad eggs (yes a few when you consider the entire cycling/pro cycling market) liked and were sponsored by their brand.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Despite what the article suggests you have to ask why? Why would you boycott Trek and Nike, Trek (not so much Nike) played little part in the doping scandal.
If we were to boycott brands that that unwittingly sponsored outed cheats then we'd have to give up a hell of a lot of cycling brands: Pinarello, Willier, Giant, Specialized and Trek to name a few. Hell, we may as all ride and purchase Raliegh's bikes and gears - assuming they're safe.
Look what the cat dragged in
Lance used his leverage with Trek to try to destroy Lemond.
Both brands continue to support this cheat, liar and bully and line his pockets. Their support also props up what remains of the Lance myth, a myth they perpetuate by through their advertising“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Despite what the article suggests you have to ask why? Why would you boycott Trek and Nike, Trek (not so much Nike) played little part in the doping scandal.
If we were to boycott brands that that unwittingly sponsored outed cheats then we'd have to give up a hell of a lot of cycling brands: Pinarello, Willier, Giant, Specialized and Trek to name a few. Hell, we may as all ride and purchase Raliegh's bikes and gears - assuming they're safe.
Look what the cat dragged in
Lance used his leverage with Trek to try to destroy Lemond.
Both brands continue to support this cheat, liar and bully and line his pockets. Their support also props up what remains of the Lance myth, a myth they perpetuate by through their advertising
Shhhhh, you can't say 'cheat' and 'liar' in front of DDD - he's a Lance apologist, he was hardly likely to understand this thread was he.
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12874142&hilit=I+dont+believe+lance+doped0 -
calvjones wrote:Rick Chasey wrote: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.
^^^This is the City talking.
It is completely unreasonable to assume legal = fair.
It is reasonable to assume legal should help enforce fairness, no?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:calvjones wrote:Rick Chasey wrote: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.
^^^This is the City talking.
It is completely unreasonable to assume legal = fair.
It is reasonable to assume legal should help enforce fairness, no?
Yeah of course, that's why nonces get their own wings.0 -
calvjones wrote:Rick Chasey wrote: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.
^^^This is the City talking.
It is completely unreasonable to assume legal = fair.
I guess it is the City talking, in the sense that as I see it, if you've decided to use a free-market model, you've got to embrace it for what it is and regulate out the bad exernalities accordingly.
I'm of the opinion people are usually inherently selfish when it comes to buying stuff, so they'll more often than not go on quality and price. That's difficult to change, and that change is what the boycotters are suggesting.
It's more straightforward to regulate out the bad sh!t to begin with, rather than leaving it on the shoulders of the consumer, who, like any bloke in the City, serves their own interest rather than the producer's.0 -
I have very rarely read you type words with such conviction and passion.TailWindHome wrote:Look what the cat dragged in
Lance used his leverage with Trek to try to destroy Lemond.
Both brands continue to support this cheat, liar and bully and line his pockets. Their support also props up what remains of the Lance myth, a myth they perpetuate by through their advertising
You know, upon further reflection and reading some of Trek's press releases about their disinvestment with the brand, you may have a point.
It seems that they are being hypocritical, because whether Armstrong cheated or not, he has done more to harm the brand than LeMond did and all i can see is a cyclist (LeMond) who wanted to realise his own improvements on bicycle technology in the same way Boardman has
Mmmmm.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
'whether Armstrong cheated or not'....
are you in fact Uncle Phil L?0 -
I wonder how many of those boycotting Nike etc still shop at Primark, Tesco etc."I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)0
-
inkyfingers wrote:I wonder how many of those boycotting Nike etc still shop at Primark, Tesco etc.
It doesn't necessarily follow that because you care about one thing you care about other things.
I'm sure Primark does OK in Sun boycotting Scouseland“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:inkyfingers wrote:I wonder how many of those boycotting Nike etc still shop at Primark, Tesco etc.
It doesn't necessarily follow that because you care about one thing you care about other things.
I'm sure Primark does OK in Sun boycotting Scouseland
Indeed, i'm sure it does. The poor sods who live outside of South-east England probably can't afford to be too picky.
I wasn't just referring to people boycotting Nike because of Armstrong etc, lots of people boycotted Nike for their alleged treatment of their workers in the developing world, but Nike are just one example that the media/pressure groups picked up on. Most of the major clothing (and other) manufacturers have spent the last 30 years shifting their production around the world in the hunt for the lowest possible costs, which basically translates to the lowest possible wages. If you boycott Nike then you probably need to boycott everything apart from the local farm shop, and even that because the fertilisers the farmer use probably came from a big corporation who test it on animals or make the stuff in Bhopal."I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)0 -
0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:calvjones wrote:Rick Chasey wrote: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.
^^^This is the City talking.
It is completely unreasonable to assume legal = fair.
It is reasonable to assume legal should help enforce fairness, no?
In many countries that produce Nike stuff? Not really, no.___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
inkyfingers wrote:TailWindHome wrote:inkyfingers wrote:I wonder how many of those boycotting Nike etc still shop at Primark, Tesco etc.
It doesn't necessarily follow that because you care about one thing you care about other things.
I'm sure Primark does OK in Sun boycotting Scouseland
Indeed, i'm sure it does. The poor sods who live outside of South-east England probably can't afford to be too picky.
I wasn't just referring to people boycotting Nike because of Armstrong etc, lots of people boycotted Nike for their alleged treatment of their workers in the developing world, but Nike are just one example that the media/pressure groups picked up on. Most of the major clothing (and other) manufacturers have spent the last 30 years shifting their production around the world in the hunt for the lowest possible costs, which basically translates to the lowest possible wages. If you boycott Nike then you probably need to boycott everything apart from the local farm shop, and even that because the fertilisers the farmer use probably came from a big corporation who test it on animals or make the stuff in Bhopal.
There is a (part) solution to this (for us at least).
Buy Exteondo, Sidi, Sportful, Kask, Orbea etc. etc.___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
RichN95 wrote:Look. If you want to shop according to some half-arsd ethical code then go ahead, that's your prerogative. But don't make a big show of it, rubbing your self-precieved moral superiority in other peoples' faces just because you once read a Naomi Klein book.
Fvck me look who got out of bed the wrong side this morning.
Yep, the Klein book is pretty sh1t. Didn't get halfway through. However, depressing stories related by me to colleagues who spend months with textile workers on the subcontinent have more bite.
If you don't want your face rubbed in any half arsed ethical nonsense, don't read threads with titles like 'Should cycling fans boycott Trek and Nike?', eh?___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
RichN95 wrote:Look. If you want to shop according to some half-arsd ethical code then go ahead, that's your prerogative. But don't make a big show of it, rubbing your self-precieved moral superiority in other peoples' faces just because you once read a Naomi Klein book.
Is that directed at me? Hope not. Only started the thread as I thought it was an interesting discussion. Didn't intend it to be a leftie change the world type deal. Just seems illogical to me to spend hours on line discussing all the wrongdoings of Armstrong/Livestrong then chosing to hand them your hard earned cash...
Just an open question on an internet forum.
Who's Naomi Klein?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
No not you, just a general rant. I have a dim view of 'protesters' who think are somehow morally superior and make sure a big show of it. I guess it comes from growing up three miles from Greenham Common.TailWindHome wrote:RichN95 wrote:Look. If you want to shop according to some half-arsd ethical code then go ahead, that's your prerogative. But don't make a big show of it, rubbing your self-precieved moral superiority in other peoples' faces just because you once read a Naomi Klein book.
Is that directed at me? Hope not. Only started the thread as I thought it was an interesting discussion. Didn't intend it to be a leftie change the world type deal. Just seems illogical to me to spend hours on line discussing all the wrongdoings of Armstrong/Livestrong then chosing to hand them your hard earned cash...
Just an open question on an internet forum.
Who's Naomi Klein?Twitter: @RichN950 -
Wasn't going to comment on this thread until I found myself subconsiously "boycotting" starbucks this morning. Had heard on the radio that they pay less tax than me, and I don't pay very much at the moment, and this had led to a half arsd ethical moment.
Consumer boycotts are hugely important in a consumer society. They do work and the corporate world hates them. Having said that, in this case, I think I will confine my actions to placing my Madone at the back of the rack until next summer. Trek will suffer more than Nike out of this, which is a bit of a shame, 'cos unlike many on here I think they make good bikes.
On another note, it is worth remembering that even the biggest and most important, and historically succesful boycotts - like the sproting boycott of South Africa - can be broken. Just ask Fat Pat.0 -
People who boycott unethical businesses *are* morally superior though - well depending on what else they get up to of course.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
0
