Anyone else thinking of ditching their Oakleys?
Comments
-
Can't argue with that attitude, if you don't give a damn about the issue, do what you want, no one is going to convince you otherwise.Joeblack wrote: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.
Let's get the facts straight - the problem for me isn't that Lance doped and that Lance wore Oakleys, it's not even that Oakley probably supported Lance when they knew damn well that he was doping - as has been pointed out, if we avoided all companies who have done that there wouldn't be many left. The problem is that even after the USADA ruling, which demonstrates publicly beyond reasonable doubt that LA systematically cheated over many years and that his success in cycling is a cynical sham, Oakley continue to publicly support him. That, for me at least, is sufficient incentive to want to distance myself from Oakley and to try to kick up a fuss about it. Basically, Oakley have crossed my personal line in the sand of what is acceptable public behavior for a cycling equipment retailer. Other people will have their own lines, and that's their choice.mallorcajef wrote: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.0 -
Oakley will get over this easily imo. They're too big a company not to. I'll still wear mine and buy more.0
-
Haa, me too, ridiculously overpriced specs considering they are plastic mouldings from China shipped to Luxottica's plant in Italy to screw polycarb lenses onto the front. Cant understand why people are getting so precious about the fact that Armstorng, amongst several milloin other sportsmen, happened to wear them a lot. Each to their own.ALIHISGREAT wrote:I'm looking forward to picking up some nice cheap oakleys.
Incidentally, the Luxotica factory also owns the other major sunglasses brands in the world like Rayban, D&G, chanel, etc. etc. but its all chinese made stuff. Amazes me that the whole 'brand' thing is still so bought-into so widely at crazy money.0 -
So what's you logic - that you'll still buy them because Oakley is a big company and there's nothing you can do about it? Or that you have no problem with a company that publicly support LA and continue to portray him as a hero on their website?giant man wrote:Oakley will get over this easily imo. They're too big a company not to. I'll still wear mine and buy more.
Is there any public stance that any company could take on any issue that would cause you to want to avoid their products? If so, how extreme would it have to be?
Not getting at you, just trying to understand the attitude.0 -
Oakleys are good shades - sure, they are overpriced if you think of them as a piece of manufactured plastic, but that's not what you pay for. You pay for the design and for the brand image. The brand image is carefully created by marketing and advertising, and it's perfectly valid to see that as something that can be sold as part of a fair transaction. Oakley spend a lot of money creating an aura / look that you do to some extent "acquire" when you buy and wear the product. It's an abstract commodity, but it has real value. If someone buys a pair of oakleys in the full knowledge that they are paying for a bit of cheap plastic, but one that carries with it a media-created aura that they want to aquire, they aren't necessarily being conned.Sprool wrote:ridiculously overpriced specs considering they are plastic mouldings from China shipped to Luxottica's plant in Italy to screw polycarb lenses onto the front. Cant understand why people are getting so precious about the fact that Armstorng, amongst several milloin other sportsmen, happened to wear them a lot. Each to their own.
Incidentally, the Luxotica factory also owns the other major sunglasses brands in the world like Rayban, D&G, chanel, etc. etc. but its all chinese made stuff. Amazes me that the whole 'brand' thing is still so bought-into so widely at crazy money.
That's why whatever factory happens to make them isn't the point, the point is that Oakley own the brand image and sell it.0 -
Remembering two World Wars may as well go the whole hog then and not buy anything German or Japanese!
Or anything from countries where they eat dogs!
Or countries where human rights appear pretty low in priority!
For Christ's sake. Get real. In the great scope of life a sporting drugs cheat is fairly insignificant..!!I'm not getting old... I'm just using lower gears......
Sirius - Steel Reynolds 631
Cove Handjob - Steel Columbus Nivacrom
Trek Madone - Carbon0 -
Nope...im happy with the product and they've given me good customer service over the years i dont care who else wears them or who they sponsor.Sprool wrote:
Haa, me too, ridiculously overpriced specs considering they are plastic mouldings from China shipped to Luxottica's plant in Italy to screw polycarb lenses onto the front. Cant understand why people are getting so precious about the fact that Armstorng, amongst several milloin other sportsmen, happened to wear them a lot. Each to their own.ALIHISGREAT wrote:I'm looking forward to picking up some nice cheap oakleys.
Incidentally, the Luxotica factory also owns the other major sunglasses brands in the world like Rayban, D&G, chanel, etc. etc. but its all chinese made stuff. Amazes me that the whole 'brand' thing is still so bought-into so widely at crazy money.
Oakley's are made in the US, only bit made in China is the case.0 -
Yeah it's ok neeb. I dunno, I don't see how this disassociation with LA will have much bearing on them as a company, apart from which I like my oakleys, the best glasses I have ever used. We all know they're overpriced, and the frames are plasticky, but you've got to admit the optics are brilliant. I think you will see them change their attitude towards LA just as Nike and Trek have done, it's only a matter of time imo. As I said, it won't put me off buying them I never was a Trek fan before the LA association anyway so that's no problem avoiding buying their bikes, as a comparison.neeb wrote:
So what's you logic - that you'll still buy them because Oakley is a big company and there's nothing you can do about it? Or that you have no problem with a company that publicly support LA and continue to portray him as a hero on their website?giant man wrote:Oakley will get over this easily imo. They're too big a company not to. I'll still wear mine and buy more.
Is there any public stance that any company could take on any issue that would cause you to want to avoid their products? If so, how extreme would it have to be?
Not getting at you, just trying to understand the attitude.
As far as customer service goes, Oakley are first rate as Omar above states. There's not many large companies with such satisfactory customer attitudes imo. If Oakley glasses were just run of the mill, then I probably would avoid buying them again I guess.0 -
I don't think Oakley are too worried.
They supply the US army on their various adventures. As controversies go, I think continuing to sponsor a doped cyclist is pretty small potatoes.0 -
I was the OP on the Armstrong/Trek thread.
The reason I asked the question about Trek because I personally suspect Trek helped Armstrong cover his tracks during the years he was dominating the sport while he was doping. If Trek were proven to have involvement in the doping circus, I feel they should be banned from competing in the same manner Armstrong was. Armstrong couldn't have kept his prolific cheating covered up without help - which is why I'm incredibly suspicious of Trek, Nike etc. I've read allegations of bribe money being transferred to senior UCI figures by Nike in relation to Armstrong's doping, so I don't think it's unreasonable to question Trek's legitimacy.
Will I be boycotting brands such Trek, Nike, Oakley or anyone linked to Armstrong? I doubt it. They all make decent, well designed products that will always edge into my buying shortlists by default.
But, if any of them were found out as cheats, I greatly hope they are punished for it.0 -
Not ditching my Factory Pilots that i bought in 1987 - Greg LeMond & Phil Anderson have a lot to answer for....maybe the retro look will come back 8)0
-
Sprool wrote:
Haa, me too, ridiculously overpriced specs considering they are plastic mouldings from China shipped to Luxottica's plant in Italy to screw polycarb lenses onto the front. Cant understand why people are getting so precious about the fact that Armstorng, amongst several milloin other sportsmen, happened to wear them a lot. Each to their own.ALIHISGREAT wrote:I'm looking forward to picking up some nice cheap oakleys.
Incidentally, the Luxotica factory also owns the other major sunglasses brands in the world like Rayban, D&G, chanel, etc. etc. but its all chinese made stuff. Amazes me that the whole 'brand' thing is still so bought-into so widely at crazy money.
I agree, I was given a pair of flackjackets as a reward at work. No different to my £36 sun dogs and whilst they are better finished not much better than my Bolle clear safety glasses from Screwfix which I prefer on dull days.0 -
slightly off topic but I wonder what that guy is thinking who had the livestrong logo tattoo'd onto his arm.0
-
Sprool wrote:
Haa, me too, ridiculously overpriced specs considering they are plastic mouldings from China shipped to Luxottica's plant in Italy to screw polycarb lenses onto the front. Cant understand why people are getting so precious about the fact that Armstorng, amongst several milloin other sportsmen, happened to wear them a lot. Each to their own.ALIHISGREAT wrote:I'm looking forward to picking up some nice cheap oakleys.
Incidentally, the Luxotica factory also owns the other major sunglasses brands in the world like Rayban, D&G, chanel, etc. etc. but its all chinese made stuff. Amazes me that the whole 'brand' thing is still so bought-into so widely at crazy money.
As I'm short sighted I'm used to choosing glasses.. and I buy glasses because they suit me.. not because of any branding. (it just so happens that the expensive ones suit me
). It really annoys me when I see non-glasses wearing friends falling into the trap of buying sunglasses for the brand and then looking like an idiot because they don't suit.
Its no good wearing Oakleys and looking like a tit *cough* chris froome *cough*
Wiggo on the other hand suits the radar shape.. but he still looks like a tit.. not the year to be wearing yellow oakleys :roll:
0 -
I'm sure wiggo wears his with pride ;-)
On the point of looking like a t#t anyone else ever notice how his head is completely the wrong shape for his helmet
One plays football, tennis or golf, one does not play at cycling0 -
grantsteve wrote: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?!
wear it0 -
Udder wrote:because I personally suspect Trek helped Armstrong cover his tracks during the years he was dominating the sport while he was doping.
At that point, all I could think was 'someone has a rather high opinion of his own opinions, which are not shared by others' and should stop drinking the cool aid.
Lets face it, you know about as much of the facts as the rest of us which is bugger all. Please don;t pretend your 'opinions' to which you are entitled, have any basis in fact.
faux moral outrage is more pathetic than an original crime. At least they believed in what they were doing, whereas you're just posturing, to justify buying more kit.0 -
Ok, well here's the latest information on Oakley's position:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oc ... am-sponsor
Quote:
"As guilty as the evidence shows, which we completely acknowledge, it is our promise and contractual obligation to stand by our athletes until proven guilty by the highest governing body of sport, or a court of law.
"We might be last off, but we are not going to jump on the bandwagon as it breaks our promise to all of our athletes. We will wait for the UCI's conclusion and act at that time"
I guess I can just about live with that, given the acknowledgement of LA's guilt, and assuming that they do dump him when the UCI (presumably) upholds USAD's findings in a couple of week's time.
I'm still not really comfortable with the brand any more, especially after finding out yesterday that they apparently forced one of their employees (on pain of dismissal) to lie under oath about Lance's admission to his doctor about having taken performance enhancing drugs.0 -
Was wearing Oakley's before i got into cycling, bought a new pair quite recently and WON'T be ditching them and that includes my pair of Livestrong's.0
-
I love oakley glasses, (Radar Path) the only glasses I have worn that fit well, dont steam up and provide decent vision on a ride.
Oh and they are so so comfortable. Dont get on with other brands, have bought most other and thrown them away.
I still would buy another pair, and probably another Trek MTB as well.. oh and maybe livestrong jersey, not because I support doping, just because it like wearing and buying what I want.0 -
Does this mean I have to ditch my VW?
0 -
greasedscotsman wrote:Does this mean I have to ditch my VW?
I think that some people think too much about things that don't require thinking about that much.0 -
If Volkswagen were still saying on their website that Hitler was a great bloke and did wonders for Germany... maybe?greasedscotsman wrote:Does this mean I have to ditch my VW?
And I could say the opposite, i.e. that not enough people think about things that should be thought about.Maverick54 wrote:I think that some people think too much about things that don't require thinking about that much.0 -
I think the riders of Bamboo Bikes use a massive amount of needles during accupuncture, the original doping, it is even named after the first cycling doctor; Dr Do Ping from ChinaBozman wrote:grantsteve wrote:Gaspode wrote:
+1Bozman 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.
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.0 -
neeb wrote:
If Volkswagen were still saying on their website that Hitler was a great bloke and did wonders for Germany... maybe?greasedscotsman wrote:Does this mean I have to ditch my VW?
And I could say the opposite, i.e. that not enough people think about things that should be thought about.greasedscotsman wrote:think that some people think too much about things that don't require thinking about that much.
Err, not sure you have that second quote quite right.
Anyway, I don't think that Oakley are saying that Armstrong is a great guy, are they?0 -
They are on their website!greasedscotsman wrote:Anyway, I don't think that Oakley are saying that Armstrong is a great guy, are they?
http://www.oakley.com/sports/performanc ... hletes/258
Anyway, this is bordering on academic now that Oakley have stated that the evidence shows that Lance doped and (effectively) that they will dump him after the UCI decision. Still, you would have thought they would have taken stuff like that off the website..0 -
neeb wrote:
They are on their website!greasedscotsman wrote:Anyway, I don't think that Oakley are saying that Armstrong is a great guy, are they?
http://www.oakley.com/sports/performanc ... hletes/258
Anyway, this is bordering on academic now that Oakley have stated that the evidence shows that Lance doped and (effectively) that they will dump him after the UCI decision. Still, you would have thought they would have taken stuff like that off the website..
Yeah, that does look a bit silly and very out of date.Today, as Armstrong begins his drive for an eighth Tour de France yellow jersey...
Seems that Oakley are a bit slow on updating their website.0 -
Oakley's stance on the situation will change, surely0
-
Never heard anything so ridiculous in all my wife!
Should all VW drivers be branded as facists and publically flogged for driving a car that has links to Hitler, who did a little more than increase red blood cell count to gain an advantage!???
If you bought Oakley simply because Lancey-poo's was an ambassador for them, then there is no hope.....0
