British Cycling and Shell

imposter2.0

ugo.santalucia said:

Most of the Premier League clubs have strong connections with outfits that we would have a moral issue associating to... yet, nobody seems to have a problem with that

Again - you seem to be excusing it because 'everybody else does it'. Is that really the best argument you have?

DeVlaeminck

imposter2.0 said:

joeyhalloran said:

However, I do think BC straddles two very disparate targets, one sporting and one community, that I don't think any other sporting body either tries to or does.

Seriously..?

I think you'll find that practically every other sporting NGB has both sport and community outreach/engagement programs. The contention that only BC does this is unusual, to say the least.

Whether the MSA has some community engagement or not it's not tried to position itself as a non governmental body responsible for motoring to anything like the extent BC has for cycling. I think that is the point Joey was making - it seems a reasonable one.

ugo.santalucia

imposter2.0 said:

ugo.santalucia said:

Most of the Premier League clubs have strong connections with outfits that we would have a moral issue associating to... yet, nobody seems to have a problem with that

Again - you seem to be excusing it because 'everybody else does it'. Is that really the best argument you have?

Yes, but I really fail to see the issue. Maybe Shell want to invest more in clean energy and BC is a good way to bring some credibility to their commitment... and there is nothing wrong with that...
I think we have to draw a line... on one side you have a company selling oil and derivatives which we all use and need, on the other side you have people associated with illegal activities, money laundering, potentially in some cases even including murder...
Is not the same thing, is it?

imposter2.0

ugo.santalucia said:

imposter2.0 said:

ugo.santalucia said:

Most of the Premier League clubs have strong connections with outfits that we would have a moral issue associating to... yet, nobody seems to have a problem with that

Again - you seem to be excusing it because 'everybody else does it'. Is that really the best argument you have?

Yes, but I really fail to see the issue. Maybe Shell want to invest more in clean energy and BC is a good way to bring some credibility to their commitment... and there is nothing wrong with that...
I think we have to draw a line... on one side you have a company selling oil and derivatives which we all use and need, on the other side you have people associated with illegal activities, money laundering, potentially in some cases even including murder...
Is not the same thing, is it?

So now you've gone from "everybody else does it" to "well, at least they're not actually murdering people."

As for bringing credibility to their commitment - we can already see what their commitment is to clean energy, ie practically nothing. So your argument has now gone full circle.

imposter2.0

DeVlaeminck said:

imposter2.0 said:

joeyhalloran said:

However, I do think BC straddles two very disparate targets, one sporting and one community, that I don't think any other sporting body either tries to or does.

Seriously..?

I think you'll find that practically every other sporting NGB has both sport and community outreach/engagement programs. The contention that only BC does this is unusual, to say the least.

Whether the MSA has some community engagement or not it's not tried to position itself as a non governmental body responsible for motoring to anything like the extent BC has for cycling. I think that is the point Joey was making - it seems a reasonable one.

The MSA link was not in response to Joey - it was in response to your point that you didn't think a motorsport governing body would be getting involved in areas outside of motorsport. The link simply demonstrated that it was, that's all.

DeVlaeminck

imposter2.0 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

imposter2.0 said:

joeyhalloran said:

However, I do think BC straddles two very disparate targets, one sporting and one community, that I don't think any other sporting body either tries to or does.

Seriously..?

I think you'll find that practically every other sporting NGB has both sport and community outreach/engagement programs. The contention that only BC does this is unusual, to say the least.

Whether the MSA has some community engagement or not it's not tried to position itself as a non governmental body responsible for motoring to anything like the extent BC has for cycling. I think that is the point Joey was making - it seems a reasonable one.

The MSA link was not in response to Joey - it was in response to your point that you didn't think a motorsport governing body would be getting involved in areas outside of motorsport. The link simply demonstrated that it was, that's all.

Yes I quoted your original response to joey because that is what I was responding to - it's necessary context. You seemed to be incredulous at what was a very reasonable post he made.

I dont accept that the MSA does straddle two disparate audiences in the same way BC does.

imposter2.0

DeVlaeminck said:

I dont accept that the MSA does straddle two disparate audiences in the same way BC does.

I linked to their website earlier - which indicates that they literally do exactly that. You can argue about the extent of it - but you can't deny it happens.

It's probably better not to second guess what Joey was trying to say and let him speak for himself.

rick_chasey

imposter2.0 said:

rick_chasey said:

Be glad they’re putting money into cycling, surely.

Not sure you've fully grasped the point here Rick. If 'putting money into cycling' is the only consideration, presumably you'd be fine with whoever was doing it.

Maybe Imperial Tobacco, Union Carbide, Rosneft, Saudi Aramco - would they be ok too..??

The rest of your comments just double-down on your previous bullsht whataboutery.

OK maybe I don't understand the objection and you need to spell it out.

The problem is we spit out too much CO2 and other nasty emissions by burning fossil fuels for various things we do, right?

Shell gets it in the neck because they drill the oil & gas that's then burned for the various things we do - as well as of course, provide the raw materials for lots of things (including, of course, most of what's required in carbon fibre...).

Thing is, we keep buying the stuff they drill out of the ground, right?

So is it really Shell that's the problem?

If your beef with Shell is you think they do something unethical, fine, but that doesn't seem to be the beef.

If we stopped buying Shell's oil, shell would cease to exist.

They also know the oil drilling game won't last forever, so they're using the resources they have to transition. Maybe that works, maybe it doesn't.

But what's your beef precisely?

jimmythecuckoo

I am fine with the criticism as long as it matches that of the Belgian national teams partnership with Esso.

ugo.santalucia

The thing is, whatever you do, you can't win...
If Greenpeace was to sponsor BC, they would be criticised for wasting money... if Kellogg's was to sponsor BC, someone would argue that their products are full of sugar and contribute to the obesity epidemic.
If Tesla came forward, some will argue that the way they treat their employees is scandalous.
If Specialized decided to sponsor BC, some would complain there is a conflict of interest.
If Pfizer was to sponsor BC, some would be suspicious of their motifs...

Large corporations are inherently evil, but they are very much part of the way we live... Shell is no worse than Unilever, Amazon or Apple... they sell a product, they turn a profit. They operate in a business which is not very popular at the moment, but still very much indispensable.

imposter2.0

rick_chasey said:

But what's your beef precisely?

I'm surprised I have to spell this out, but it's really quite simple. The national governing body of cycling and cycle sport in the UK has climbed into bed with one of the world's largest fossil fuel producers. That should not need any further explanation.

Obviously beggars can't be choosers - and BC has clearly struggled to find an organisation capable of replacing HSBC. But to me, it smacks of desperation rather than sound business. It looks bad, because it is bad.

imposter2.0

ugo.santalucia said:

If Specialized decided to sponsor BC, some would complain there is a conflict of interest.

Cervelo already supplies bikes to BC. I don't think anyone has complained about a conflict of interest.

DeVlaeminck

imposter2.0 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

I dont accept that the MSA does straddle two disparate audiences in the same way BC does.

I linked to their website earlier - which indicates that they literally do exactly that. You can argue about the extent of it - but you can't deny it happens.

It's probably better not to second guess what Joey was trying to say and let him speak for himself.

I'm not "second guessing" him I'm reading what he wrote and taking the most obvious meaning from it - that's how written language works.

I've just looked at the MotorsportUK website (formerly MSA) and there really is nothing immediately visible there remotely comparable to British Cycling's promotion of non sport cycling. Yes they do a little bit about how Motorsport contributes to road safety - it's basically PR for the sport so still within the remit of a sporting body. Anyway even if they did (they don't) it doesn't alter the point does it it would just mean there is another NGB that has diversified away from their original role.

You only have to look at the BC website to see they involve themselves in cycling well beyond cycle sport. They are involved in campaigning for sustainable transport - this is where the conflict with the Shell sponsorship arises. That is what any native English speaker would take from Joey's post - which is where I came in.

rick_chasey

imposter2.0 said:

rick_chasey said:

But what's your beef precisely?

I'm surprised I have to spell this out, but it's really quite simple. The national governing body of cycling and cycle sport in the UK has climbed into bed with one of the world's largest fossil fuel producers. That should not need any further explanation.

Obviously beggars can't be choosers - and BC has clearly struggled to find an organisation capable of replacing HSBC. But to me, it smacks of desperation rather than sound business. It looks bad, because it is bad.

Right. But we’re all still using fossil fuels and oil based products, right?

I’m not joking when I say there’s a 20% chance you’d carbon bike has stuff in it that was drilled out of the ground by Shell.

MidlandsGrimpeur2

I can understand the arguments in support that are being put forward but I am with Imposter on this one.

It doesn't matter about other organisations, this is specifically about British Cycling and the ethics of their decision.

For the obvious reasons, it is a bad one. It gives Shell legitimacy and (as is their intention), attempts to revise their green credentials and confers the 'badge' of sustainability through a partnership with one of the world largest cycling bodies.

It looks bad, it is bad and I suspect a lot of BC staff and members will take issue with it.

ugo.santalucia

I bet HSBC were investing heavily in oil, I wonder how much of Shell they own

imposter2.0

ugo.santalucia said:

I bet HSBC were investing heavily in oil, I wonder how much of Shell they own

I bet your bikes all have rubber tyres too (although I'm beginning to wonder). What's your point..?

imposter2.0

rick_chasey said:

imposter2.0 said:

rick_chasey said:

But what's your beef precisely?

I'm surprised I have to spell this out, but it's really quite simple. The national governing body of cycling and cycle sport in the UK has climbed into bed with one of the world's largest fossil fuel producers. That should not need any further explanation.

Obviously beggars can't be choosers - and BC has clearly struggled to find an organisation capable of replacing HSBC. But to me, it smacks of desperation rather than sound business. It looks bad, because it is bad.

Right. But we’re all still using fossil fuels and oil based products, right?

I’m not joking when I say there’s a 20% chance you’d carbon bike has stuff in it that was drilled out of the ground by Shell.

Are you sure you've been following this thread..?

wallace_and_gromit

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

I can understand the arguments in support that are being put forward but I am with Imposter on this one.

It doesn't matter about other organisations, this is specifically about British Cycling and the ethics of their decision.

For the obvious reasons, it is a bad one. It gives Shell legitimacy and (as is their intention), attempts to revise their green credentials and confers the 'badge' of sustainability through a partnership with one of the world largest cycling bodies.

It looks bad, it is bad and I suspect a lot of BC staff and members will take issue with it.

Re “legitimacy” for Shell, are they particularly bad amongst oil giants? Google suggests that amongst oil companies its reputation for ethics is good.

As others have said, we collectively have the power to cut off Shell and BP etc at the knees. But life would be very dull for us if we did that.

ugo.santalucia

I still fail to see how HSBC was fine but Shell is not... I am confident the former have invested in stuff like derivatives over the years and bet on things like the price of grains, probably making money out of famine in the horn of Africa and very likely profiteered of people's misery around the world... but we do need banks, just as we do need oil.

davebradswmb

The issue as I see it is that BC are not just a governing body for the sport any longer, as a response to pressure from Sport England they have expanded their remit into recreational cycling and campaigning, and it is this that it totally at odds with the Shell sponsorship. Unfortunately the money generated by the competitive side overrides any considerations of the recreational side of the sport. I moved from BC to Cycling UK a couple of years ago because of this contradiction.

I used to be a competitive kayaker for many years, the governing body, British Canoeing, started out as a recreational body which gradually morphed into the competitive governing body. The contradictions this created seriously undermines their credibility as a representative body for recreational canoeing with the result that few recreational canoeists consider that their interests are adequately represented and many refuse to join unless they have to.

webboo

Don’t you only join British Cycling because you need a race license?

kingstongraham

When I need petrol I'm going to esso because of this.

ugo.santalucia

webboo said:

Don’t you only join British Cycling because you need a race license?

Some do to get liability insurance as well... others simply because they want to be a member of something and they are probably the ones moaning about the association with Shell

rick_chasey

Yeah I have it for the 3rd party insurance and the legal advice.

imposter2.0

webboo said:

Don’t you only join British Cycling because you need a race license?

I suspect most club-level competitors fit into this category. I think it's still possible to ride local/regional crits or CX leagues on a day licence, but if you're doing it regularly, it's probably more cost-effective to buy membership and a licence. Without it, you won't get a ranking. So yes, a lot of people are members through necessity, rather than affinity.

gethinceri

I'm a BC member for the legal support, and have made use of it when involved in a particularly nasty accident. I will not be renewing my membership when it's due in July and will look for an alternative with equivalent, or superior, benefits.

pblakeney

gethinceri said:

I'm a BC member for the legal support, and have made use of it when involved in a particularly nasty accident. I will not be renewing my membership when it's due in July and will look for an alternative with equivalent, or superior, benefits.

Your choice, and fair enough but I don't follow the logic. Are you boycotting everything with ties to the petrochemical industry? Seems petty to target a single organisation.

ugo.santalucia

So, if I understand correctly, all those deniers would not take a better paid job, if the offer came from Shell then?
I would... I would even work for Philip Morris if it was not about finding new ways to get people into tobacco products

imposter2.0

ugo.santalucia said:

So, if I understand correctly, all those deniers would not take a better paid job, if the offer came from Shell then?
I would... I would even work for Philip Morris if it was not about finding new ways to get people into tobacco products

That probably says more about you than it does about the argument in question, to be fair.

If you would like me to take this particular argument to it's inevitable nadir on your behalf, then just let me know.