Bianchi or De Rosa?

2»

Comments

  • nochekmate
    nochekmate Posts: 3,460
    SmoggySteve wrote:
    And, as far as the Tour de France goes, That DATE was June 1965

    I think that that is probably a little naive but I can understand the frustration with LA (oh and I have a Trek 6.9 :lol: )
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    springtide9 wrote:
    Not sure why you singled out Trek. I guess because of LA... but in LA's reign, you'd be pushed to find any cyclist that finished in the top 20 at any prestigious event, that was riding clean.

    It would be because arguably no other manufacturer has hung it's colours quite so firmly to a drug ridden flag. Trek put all their eggs in Lances basket - he always rode their bikes whatever team he was in and Trek deliberately associated their brand with Armstrong in a way that I don't recall any other company has.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • inseine
    inseine Posts: 5,788
    I think it was some time in 1886, so to be on the safe side, we'll say any manufacturers around before that date are fine.

    You need to get yourself a Peugeot, around since 1882! Actually Bianchi just scrape in too.
    http://cyclinganddesign.blogspot.fr/
  • springtide9
    springtide9 Posts: 1,731
    Rolf F wrote:
    springtide9 wrote:
    Not sure why you singled out Trek. I guess because of LA... but in LA's reign, you'd be pushed to find any cyclist that finished in the top 20 at any prestigious event, that was riding clean.

    It would be because arguably no other manufacturer has hung it's colours quite so firmly to a drug ridden flag. Trek put all their eggs in Lances basket - he always rode their bikes whatever team he was in and Trek deliberately associated their brand with Armstrong in a way that I don't recall any other company has.

    It's very easy to look back on history with hindsight. I'm sure if Trek knew the future it wouldn't have acted as it did.

    Trek exists to sell bikes. The reason it sponsors teams and riders to get advertising from the sponsors to sell bikes. If Trek had to pay large sums of money to get exclusivity with the US Postal Team, why wouldn't they make the most of it? If Trek wasn't in the picture, there would well have been just other successful bike manufacturer in the picture.

    You have to remember that at the time, LA was a hero. In many people's eyes he still is. His fight with cancer is remarkable; and the fact he recovered to be able to race is even more amazing. He raced on a level playing field when drug use was mainstream, and won the tour multiple times.

    Look at the top riders of 2000: http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf2000.html
    Google : " <rider name> doping "
    Work your way down the list. This is why I guess no one else had been given "LA stripped" TDF titles.

    Sport personalities all over the world are being paid for advertising, just look a the Virgin Media campaign.
    If (god forbid) any of these athletes are found out to be "drug cheats", then I'm sure people will be very quick to forget how they were 'ecstatic' over the performance of some individuals during the 2012 Olympics, and will be very quick in criticising VM for their ad campaigns.
    Simon
  • springtide9
    springtide9 Posts: 1,731
    What about a HOY bike?

    http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/arti ... ate-36149/

    Keeping it clean but British(ish)
    Simon
  • lotus49
    lotus49 Posts: 763
    springtide9 wrote:
    It's very easy to look back on history with hindsight.
    Is there any other way :wink: .
    springtide9 wrote:
    I'm sure if Trek knew the future it wouldn't have acted as it did.
    I wonder about this. If, as expected, LA goes on Oprah and cries and says how sorry he is, there will be a queue of people and companies lining up to sue him. Where they will have a problem is proving they are actually out of pocket as a result of his being a cheat.

    Trek still sold all those bikes. There may be a slight dip in sales now but proving that is LA's fault will be next to impossible and they did get the benefit of the publicity at the time. Taking everything into account, I think Trek did all right out of its relationship with LA.
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    lotus49 wrote:
    springtide9 wrote:
    I'm sure if Trek knew the future it wouldn't have acted as it did.
    I wonder about this. If, as expected, LA goes on Oprah and cries and says how sorry he is, there will be a queue of people and companies lining up to sue him. Where they will have a problem is proving they are actually out of pocket as a result of his being a cheat.

    Trek still sold all those bikes. There may be a slight dip in sales now but proving that is LA's fault will be next to impossible and they did get the benefit of the publicity at the time. Taking everything into account, I think Trek did all right out of its relationship with LA.

    Exactly. It's a bit like the point about whether or not Lance has been a positive influence on the sport or negative. A decade of positives followed by a year or so of negative which the public will soon forget about (even if we don't) - and in the meantime, a vast increase in US interest and take up in cycling (at least that is the impression I get) because of Lance. As for Trek - I'm sure they've benefited greatly overall even if they are paying for it a little now.

    That said, I think with hindsight Trek definitely wouldn't have got involved in the way they did - if you knew how things would pan out you'd play it differently (even if that meant just making the relationship a little less cosy and tight).
    Faster than a tent.......
  • Careca
    Careca Posts: 95
    Whatever bike you go for it is really important to actually see one in the flesh, otherwise, when you actually see them in the flesh they can be a real disappointment.

    There's a nice Bottecchia Mille Athena size 48 available with decent discount at the moment.
  • nochekmate
    nochekmate Posts: 3,460
    No surprise that a size 48 has a decent discount.

Categories