Anyone else thinking of ditching their Oakleys?

neeb

OK, I know there's a similar thread on Trek & Armstrong, but I guess Oakley is the brand (unlike Trek and Nike) that probably most keen road cyclists use or have used at some point. Personally I have 5 or 6 pairs of Oakley shades that I use for cycling and non-cycling use, but I'm really starting to feel that I no longer want to associate myself with the brand now that they are continuing to support Armstrong even in the light of the recent U.S. ADA ruling, and still have crap like this on their website:

http://www.oakley.com/sports/performanc ... hletes/258

I'm seriously thinking about selling all of my Oakleys on ebay and donating the money to a suitable charity.

Any suggestions for another brand/model of shades that can replace Radars?

alihisgreat

I'm looking forward to picking up some nice cheap oakleys.

lostboysaint

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

I'm looking forward to picking up some nice cheap oakleys.

That!

neeb

I'll make sure to post links to the auctions here and elsewhere... If you're happy to wear the things that's fine by me (and you're not increasing Oakley's profits by buying them).

Looking at Specialized and Giro, preferably something with a reactive lens that doesn't have a base tint.

TimB34

neeb wrote:

Looking at Specialized and Giro, preferably something with a reactive lens that doesn't have a base tint.

If you're moving away from Oakley due to Armstrong's connection with them, then Giro is not exactly a logical choice! (ok more for helmets than glasses, but still;)

Edit - ignore me, I hadn't seen that Giro have terminated their contract with LA, along with Nike, Trek Bicycles, RadioShack and Anheuser-Busch.

neeb

TimB34 wrote:

neeb wrote:

Looking at Specialized and Giro, preferably something with a reactive lens that doesn't have a base tint.

If you're moving away from Oakley due to Armstrong's connection with them, then Giro is not exactly a logical choice! (ok more for helmets than glasses, but still;)

Yes, I was just checking out Giro and came to same same conclusion myself.

Have they stated a position on their relationship with Armstrong since the USADA ruling?

neeb

<cross posting before your edit>

Ok, well that's a start. Didn't stop them (Giro) supporting him until it was commercially untenable however.

Ber Nard

I thought Oakley are currently "reviewing the situation". Have they publicly committed their support?

Might be a bit rash selling them just yet.

Rob

neeb

Ber Nard wrote:

I thought Oakley are currently "reviewing the situation". Have they publicly committed their support?

Might be a bit rash selling them just yet.

Rob

I'll give them until next week...

TommyEss

The product is good - I don't see any reason to change - plus mine are Fabian Cancellara white and red, not Lance Armstrong black and yellow, so it's fine!!

Bozman

This is turning pathetic, i can't believe that anyone would ditch a product because of the Armstrong connection, i am finding it hilarious that foik are feeling that way, it's a comical side show that's attached its self to the Armstrong issue.

grantsteve

Apologies for the slight thread hijack, but on a related point, I've just received a new jersey from Mellow Johnny's Bike Shop :oops: I've not even had a chance to wear it yet and, as I'm new to this cycling lark, it was my first proper cycling jersey!

Its a great looking jersey IMO but I'm not sure whether I can bring myself to wear it now. What would you do?!

gaspode

Bozman wrote:

This is turning pathetic, i can't believe that anyone would ditch a product because of the Armstrong connection, i am finding it hilarious that foik are feeling that way, it's a comical side show that's attached to the serious side of the issue.

+1

subwoofer

I don't use those over hyped glasses anyway. For me it is proper protective eye-wear certified to industrial standards, the Bolle Silium Safety Spectacles. So there is no matter of principal for me to follow here.

If there was a matter of principal, I would not ditch expensive products, but would simply not buy more of them.

grantsteve

Gaspode wrote:

Bozman wrote:

This is turning pathetic, i can't believe that anyone would ditch a product because of the Armstrong connection, i am finding it hilarious that foik are feeling that way, it's a comical side show that's attached to the serious side of the issue.

+1

Whilst I can appreciate that neither of you may feel the same way, surely you can see why some people may feel that others would perceive them to be supporting LA by wearing a brand that he is associated with. Even more so, if it is a specific LA 'range' within that brand. Hell, why else would Nike and Trek drop their sponsorship of him other than for the fact that they fear the same thing if they continue the association and their sales will fall as a result?

estampida

That only works if you the kind of prat that bought livestrong glasses to match the rubber band on you w*nking hand

what if you have the same type of glasses as a F1 Driver or jimmy saville????

they were late with a tie-in deal almost after the horse had bolted........

will check ebay but keeping mine.... cos they are real good glasses

ShutUpLegs

Most people were probably wearing Oakleys 10 years before Lance turned up, but Rudy Project are a much better product anyway.

neeb

Gaspode wrote:

Bozman wrote:

This is turning pathetic, i can't believe that anyone would ditch a product because of the Armstrong connection, i am finding it hilarious that foik are feeling that way, it's a comical side show that's attached to the serious side of the issue.

+1

From previous experience I knew I'd get some reactions like this, some people just get rubbed up the wrong way by any sort of exercise of consumer choice on moral grounds, I guess it's a political/cultural thing.

Fact is that big brands ARE very sensitive about their brand images, and grass roots attitudes make a difference. If people in cycling ditch Oakley or threaten to, it will change their policy and public attitude, however slightly. They may not care and it may be a decision made purely on commercial grounds, but it moves things along in the right direction. Just like voting for a minority party in a UK election - they may not ever get a seat, but the big parties take notice and change their policies to some extent.

IF Oakley continue to support Armstrong, it is a blatant statement from them that they don't care (either privately or publicly) about doping in cycling. By associating with their (prominently branded) products, you are implicitly stating that that doesn't bother you and that giving them license to continue with that attitude. It's not just abstract stuff either - if teams know that big sponsors such as Oakley don't care about doping, it is one less incentive for them to care.

"Pathetic" in my book is NOT fully exercising the limited power we have as consumers to influence big corporation policy in positive directions.

Bozman

grantsteve wrote:

Gaspode wrote:

Bozman wrote:

This is turning pathetic, i can't believe that anyone would ditch a product because of the Armstrong connection, i am finding it hilarious that foik are feeling that way, it's a comical side show that's attached to the serious side of the issue.

+1

Whilst I can appreciate that neither of you may agree with this, surely you can see why some people may feel that others would perceive them to be supporting LA by wearing a brand that he is associated with. Even more so, if it is a specific LA 'range' within that brand. Hell, why else would Nike and Trek drop their sponsorship of him other than for the fact that they fear the same thing if they continue the association and sales fall as a result?

Why just Armstrong, lets ditch every cycling product endorsed by any drug taking cyclist then we'll end up on bamboo bikes wearing hemp clothing.

fudbeer

ShutUpLegs wrote:

Most people were probably wearing Oakleys 10 years before Lance turned up, but Rudy Project are a much better product anyway.

Agreed,I gave up on Oakleys after my last 3 pairs literally fell apart,have had 1 pair of Ruby Projects for the last 3 years with no problems amazing fit and clearly a lot of thought goes into there design specifically with cyclists in mind rather than just a fashion statement.

grantsteve

Bozman wrote:

Why just Armstrong, lets ditch every cycling product endorsed by any drug taking cyclist then we'll end up on bamboo bikes wearing hemp clothing.

I was more taking issue with your "pathetic" comment than anything more specific about Lance. I don't agree that exercising choice in this way is pathetic.

That said, I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying here. The LA issue won't stop me wearing my Oakleys, nor will it stop me wearing Nike branded gear, but it would make me think carefully about wearing a specific LA 'range' within those brands and is troubling me about wearing a jersey with his shop's 'brand' on it.

desweller

Bozman wrote:

grantsteve wrote:

Gaspode wrote:

Bozman wrote:

This is turning pathetic, i can't believe that anyone would ditch a product because of the Armstrong connection, i am finding it hilarious that foik are feeling that way, it's a comical side show that's attached to the serious side of the issue.

+1

Whilst I can appreciate that neither of you may agree with this, surely you can see why some people may feel that others would perceive them to be supporting LA by wearing a brand that he is associated with. Even more so, if it is a specific LA 'range' within that brand. Hell, why else would Nike and Trek drop their sponsorship of him other than for the fact that they fear the same thing if they continue the association and sales fall as a result?

Why just Armstrong, lets ditch every cycling product endorsed by any drug taking cyclist then we'll end up on steel bikes wearing wool clothing.

I think this is more appropriate in so many ways. It would definitely look more tasteful.

DevonClimber

I totally agree with everyone, now where is the ebay link?!

gaspode

neeb wrote:

Gaspode wrote:

Bozman wrote:

This is turning pathetic, i can't believe that anyone would ditch a product because of the Armstrong connection, i am finding it hilarious that foik are feeling that way, it's a comical side show that's attached to the serious side of the issue.

+1

From previous experience I knew I'd get some reactions like this, some people just get rubbed up the wrong way by any sort of exercise of consumer choice on moral grounds, I guess it's a political/cultural thing.

Fact is that big brands ARE very sensitive about their brand images, and grass roots attitudes make a difference. If people in cycling ditch Oakley or threaten to, it will change their policy and public attitude, however slightly. They may not care and it may be a decision made purely on commercial grounds, but it moves things along in the right direction. Just like voting for a minority party in a UK election - they may not ever get a seat, but the big parties take notice and change their policies to some extent.

IF Oakley continue to support Armstrong, it is a blatant statement from them that they don't care (either privately or publicly) about doping in cycling. By associating with their (prominently branded) products, you are implicitly stating that that doesn't bother you and that giving them license to continue with that attitude. It's not just abstract stuff either - if teams know that big sponsors such as Oakley don't care about doping, it is one less incentive for them to care.

"Pathetic" in my book is NOT fully exercising the limited power we have as consumers to influence big corporation policy in positive directions.

Exercising your limited power as a consumer means choosing not to buy any more Oakleys - ditching the ones you already have is the ridiculous part (assuming that they do the job you bought them for rather than buying them because you thought you'd look more like Lance).....

ai_1

I buy stuff that works well, is good value for money and that I like.
As far as possible I ignore all the advertising nonsense that tries to associate successful teams and individuals with specific products. I'm not so naive as to think I'm not influenced by advertising at all but I do my best.
If I bought something because of it's association with an individual then perhaps I would no longer want it when the association became negative. However, I don't buy products for those reasons (at least not conciously) so in most cases I wouldn't dispose of them for those reasons either. I wouldn't purchase further products from a company I had moral misgivings about but that's a somewhat separate issue from using something you already own.

DevonClimber

Personally, I think you have a point. You are standing up for doping, bullying tactics and corporate greed by wearing those things...it makes me sick!
Now, PM me the link to your auction, and I will buy them with pure contempt!

mallorcajeff

Im going to continue wearing mine jawbones because I like the product. they no way make me think of lance and to be honest until this thread I did not know what glasses he used so makes no difference to me. Plenty of other clean riders wear them. For me whats more important is a 200 euro pair of glasses I wont be parting with them because some american stuck a needle in his arm. We all have our own moral compass but even if we all ditched them I dont think it would even show up on their sales figures.

feelgoodlost

No.

greasedscotsman

ShutUpLegs wrote:

Most people were probably wearing Oakleys 10 years before Lance turned up...

This. I first bought a pair because I thought Lemond looked cool in his Razor Blades at the '89 Tour. And he's a good guy, right?

Joeblack

Gaspode wrote:

Bozman wrote:

This is turning pathetic, i can't believe that anyone would ditch a product because of the Armstrong connection, i am finding it hilarious that foik are feeling that way, it's a comical side show that's attached to the serious side of the issue.

+1

+2

If ever iv seen a bandwagon jumping this is it, I really don't care who's doped and who hasn't, I cycle because I like to and if professional cycling falls apart so be it, I will still have my bike and the roads will still be open so my side of the sport will continue, and I will use the products I like in the store regardless of who's attached to them.

This is just another case of the reoccurring snobbery in cycling

Yawn yawn and yawn again about this whole affair

Joeblack

DevonClimber wrote:

Personally, I think you have a point. You are standing up for doping, bullying tactics and corporate greed by wearing those things...it makes me sick!
Now, PM me the link to your auction, and I will buy them with pure contempt!

Tbh I think he should GIVE them to you!! So you can wear them with disgust and no more filthy money should change hands over these shameful dope assisted glasses!!!