Lance Armstrong appears finally to have run out of rope. (Read 2696 times)

    ... and now Nike have terminated his contract and he's stepped down as chairman of Livestrong.

     

    The way things are going I wouldn't be surprised if he's prosecuted for perjury, and maybe more...


    Feeling the growl again

      ... and now Nike have terminated his contract and he's stepped down as chairman of Livestrong.

       

      The way things are going I wouldn't be surprised if he's prosecuted for perjury, and maybe more...

       

       

      Wow....now this is surprising because Nike just days ago stated that they would continue to stand behind him because he continued to profess his innocence (read it, sorry no link handy).  I was in a sporting goods store last weekend and I mentioned to my wife that it was unfortunate that I could no longer buy Nike because they had chosen to stand behind a doper.  I am glad they elected to terminate his contract, but I have to wonder what made them change their mind....being in corporate America myself perhaps the bureacracy just took some time to get to the right decision.

      "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

       

        What concerns me is that other active riders will know that coming clean and outing a corrupt system will come at a significant cost.  

         

        true.  a good point.  an athlete near the end can risk the end.  a guy just getting into his prime may have future $ and dreams still ahead of conscience.  I can't really blame them as I don't know what I'd do in that situation. 

         

        post-career I think the pecking order of sympathy is:

         

        1. athletes never connected to whispers

        2. athletes who made some dramatic improvements/body changes but never test positive as far as we know

        3. athletes who say they were using for an injury and then stopping and admitting to it during their career at some risk to their career

        4. athletes who admit to drug use after their career is over and detail most or everything they know

        5. athletes who fess up to cheating but make excuses or are proven to have cheated but never say anything about it

        6. athletes who are caught and deny, fight, deny/cover-up and in the end are proven to have cheated

         

        Guys like Barry Bonds and Gary Sheffield tumbled from #2 to #5.  Lance is tumbling from #2 to #6.  The anger at guys in #3 (Alex Rodriguez, Andy Pettit, Jason Giambi) is less.  Lance could have taken the route of Ben Johnson and kept himself in #4. 

         

        There is no category for athletes widely assumed to have cheated but never fully proven.  Ryan Braun, Roger Clemens... we don't know the reality so we have to just accept it's an unknown with them. 

        In an infinite universe, the one thing sentient life cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion

        http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white&fb_source=message

         

         

         

          I was in a sporting goods store last weekend and I mentioned to my wife that it was unfortunate that I could no longer buy Nike because they had chosen to stand behind a doper

           

          Serious? There's got to be many retailers that still endorse these dopers. Did you throw away all your nike gear too, or was it only to include future purchases? Only Nike? Garmin? Remington? Air Tran airways? (Quick google search of known dopers who still have endorsement deals). Your comment doesn't make sense to me, and I've never considered buying or not buying based on advertisement support for people.

          2014 Goals:

          #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

          #2: 365 Hours training <NOPE, INJURED>

           

            true.  a good point.  an athlete near the end can risk the end.  a guy just getting into his prime may have future $ and dreams still ahead of conscience.  I can't really blame them as I don't know what I'd do in that situation. 

             

            Here's an article from velonews that puts better words to what I was getting at: Tygart: Code of silence claimed Leipheimer

             

            In the end there isn't really a difference between Hamilton/Landis and Leipheimer/Hincapie. They all cheated for the results we'll remember them by. The only real difference I see between Hamilton/Landis and Leipheimer/Hincapie is that the later two learned from the former two that denial and fighting the truth will only lead to financial and emotional ruin.

              Here's an article from velonews that puts better words to what I was getting at: Tygart: Code of silence claimed Leipheimer

               

              In the end there isn't really a difference between Hamilton/Landis and Leipheimer/Hincapie. They all cheated for the results we'll remember them by. The only real difference I see between Hamilton/Landis and Leipheimer/Hincapie is that the later two learned from the former two that denial and fighting the truth will only lead to financial and emotional ruin.

               

              Got it. Clearly the Omega Pharma team are continuing to be part of the problem and being blatantly hypocritical.

              Runners run.

                Got it. Clearly the Omega Pharma team are continuing to be part of the problem and being blatantly hypocritical.

                 

                Well, the team manager who fired him is also an admitted cheat. They are probably just happy to clear some payroll to pay for the Cavendish hire. It's just business.

                 

                I'm pretty much hypocritical too for standing around splitting hairs while watching this train wreck. The doping culture appears wounded but surviving. I have a choice to look away.


                Feeling the growl again

                  Serious? There's got to be many retailers that still endorse these dopers. Did you throw away all your nike gear too, or was it only to include future purchases? Only Nike? Garmin? Remington? Air Tran airways? (Quick google search of known dopers who still have endorsement deals). Your comment doesn't make sense to me, and I've never considered buying or not buying based on advertisement support for people.

                   

                   

                  Brian, you continued to passionately cling to LA's innocence long after the truth was obvious...I recall trying to explain the evidence to you, but I don't recall mocking you about it.  So I will admit this post disappoints me.

                   

                  The idea of throwing away already-purchased gear is simply absurd; that would have no impact on the company financially, unless you believe someone is going to go purchase new Nike gear because they catch me wearing my decade-old Zoom Kennedy spikes once every three years.  Honestly I have not liked Nike's designs or quality since about the time I bought those spikes so boycotting them would not take much effort.

                   

                  And, absolutely.  If I feel a company is supporting a bad position I will do my small part to hit them in the pocketbook if I have the choice to do so, especially when their action is somewhat prominent.  If you've been following multiple sources you would know that there are other recent examples of Nike appearing to be less-than-serious about opposing those connected with doping.  I don't pretend to keep up with each and every company's promotional deals, nor do I feel it is my responsibilty to do so, however.

                   

                  As for not having considered buying because the athletes sign an endorsement deal...you may not have consciously, but why do you think companies pay these athletes so much money?  It certainly isn't charity.  It's to influence people, and having your name attached to an athlete can cut both ways.

                  "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                   

                    I will reluctantly admit that I had a pair of Nike Livestrong Air Pegasus shoes. I retired them early last year but still have them for lawn mowing and what not. I didn't buy them because of Livestrong or Lance, but because I got them really cheap on ebay.

                     

                    The pain that hurts the worse is the imagined pain. One of the most difficult arts of racing is learning to ignore the imagined pain and just live with the present pain (which is always bearable.) - Jeff

                     

                    2014 Goals:

                     

                    Stay healthy

                    Enjoy life

                     

                      My consumer decisions take into account the business practices and ethical, moral, or political stances of companies when I am aware of them, and can sway me toward or against a particular product.  There is more to it than just the price tag.

                      Well at least someone here is making relevance to the subject.

                        I will reluctantly admit that I had a pair of Nike Livestrong Air Pegasus shoes. I retired them early last year but still have them for lawn mowing and what not. I didn't buy them because of Livestrong or Lance, but because I got them really cheap on ebay.

                         

                        Not everyone is influenced by marketing, but A LOT of people are. When I put on my Asics, I feel like Ryan Hall... and I envision being coached by Nobby. 

                          Spaniel,

                          I wasn't mocking you. I was simply trying to understand your consumer consumption behavior. I find it interesting and somewhat different from a normal consumer, even a normal amateur athlete consumer.

                          Regarding my former 'neutral' stance on LA (ok, maybe it wasn't neutral, but I certainly wasn't in his fan club), the evidence is Greek to me. I have a 12th grade biology and chemistry background, and chose to career in business rather than chemistry. I truly thank you for slowly guiding me, and being patient with me as I processed this story.

                          I guess I don't understand the anger toward people (or companies) based on this subject. I understand disappointment and frustration, but I don't understand the anger. (I recognize that anger may not be the proper word to describe your reaction / response to the Nike / LA issue).

                          Cheers, Brian.

                          2014 Goals:

                          #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

                          #2: 365 Hours training <NOPE, INJURED>

                           


                          Feeling the growl again

                            Spaniel,

                            I wasn't mocking you. I was simply trying to understand your consumer consumption behavior. I find it interesting and somewhat different from a normal consumer, even a normal amateur athlete consumer.

                             

                            I am glad I misunderstood then.

                             

                            I don't think such consumer behavior is so unusual.  Sweatshops and child labor in textiles, working conditions in Foxcomm's Chinese Apple factories....there is a long history of companies being pressured or boycotted by consumers for the business practices they choose to use...or seeming blind eye they turn to certain issues if doing so keeps the money rolling in.

                             

                            I mean heck.  Look at the whole recent Chik-Fil-A fiasco.

                            "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                             

                              Most "normal consumers" may not take into account a company's moral or ethical business practices in the world or its position on a devisive issue, but doing so is hardly so unusual as to warrant mock surprise.

                               

                              I find your passive-aggressive posture on these threads tiring after a while, Brian.

                              Runners run.

                                I am glad I misunderstood then.

                                 

                                I don't think such consumer behavior is so unusual.  Sweatshops and child labor in textiles, working conditions in Foxcomm's Chinese Apple factories....there is a long history of companies being pressured or boycotted by consumers for the business practices they choose to use...or seeming blind eye they turn to certain issues if doing so keeps the money rolling in.

                                 

                                I mean heck.  Look at the whole recent Chik-Fil-A fiasco.

                                 

                                the examples you provide are all good and appropriate examples of an 'anger' response to a service / merchandise provider. I can understand those responses.

                                I (personally) think that the LA / Nike issue is different. For me, Nike may currently endorse 5000 athletes (give or take 4,000), and there's 1 athlete (in particular) that has changed your consumer behavior. Fascinating / interesting.

                                Similar, but different... I have a colleague who's daughter finished high school this past year, and chose to go to Penn State. The mother (colleague) and her daughter loves football, but does not equate Penn State as evil, although I'm sure many people around believe that going to Penn State for academics should be equated to sending your teenage son to live with Jerry Sandusky for the next 4 years.

                                Yes, overall, I recognize that people buy products because of those that endorse the products.

                                Brian

                                2014 Goals:

                                #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

                                #2: 365 Hours training <NOPE, INJURED>