Armstrong Acolytes...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
O

oldroadman

Veteran
Location
Ubique
Question. Why is any of the (legal) equipment used by LA "bad"?
It's just a bike and kit. The engine powering the bike and wearing the kit you may suspect.
Are Trek just a brand of a much bigger group anyway?
Please name a (credibly decent) bike brand used in competition which someone who may have once used PEDs has not used? Delete all references to BSOs distributed by chain retailers and the choice is suddenly close to zero.
Move on!
 
  • Like
Reactions: GBC
martint235

martint235

Dog on a bike
Location
Welling
mickle said:
No confusion at all. Read this from the USADA:

The anti-doping rule violations for which Mr. Armstrong is being sanctioned are:

(1) Use and/or attempted use of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.

(2) Possession of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions and related equipment (such as needles, blood bags, storage containers and other transfusion equipment and blood parameters measuring devices), testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.

(3) Trafficking of EPO, testosterone, and corticosteroids.

(4) Administration and/or attempted administration to others of EPO, testosterone, and cortisone.

(5) Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity involving one or more anti-doping rule violations and/or attempted anti-doping rule violations.

These activities are defined as anti-doping rule violations under the USADA Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing, the United States Olympic Committee National Anti-Doping Policies, USA Cycling rules and the International Cycling Union (UCI) Anti-Doping Rules (UCI ADR), all of which have adopted the World Anti-Doping Code (Code) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List.

In accordance with the Code, aggravating circumstances including involvement in multiple anti-doping rule violations and participation in a sophisticated doping scheme and conspiracy as well as trafficking, administration and/or attempted administration of a prohibited substance or method, justify a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction. Accordingly, Mr. Armstrong has received a lifetime period of ineligibility for his numerous anti-doping rule violations, including his involvement in trafficking and administering doping products to others. A lifetime period of ineligibility as described in the Code prevents Mr. Armstrong from participating in any activity or competition organized by any signatory to the Code or any member of any signatory."

You will soon discover that you were wrong to believe Armstrong's feeble line.
Click to expand...
Sorry Mickle but all that says is he's been banned which USADA do have the authority to do. The question is whether or not he's been stripped of his TdF titles which USADA doesn't have the authority to do.

I'm not defending LA at all but I think the more USADA go on about stripping the titles, the more stubborn the UCI will become, possibly to the point of letting him retain some of the titles because they are essentially a French organisation and there's nothing the French hate more than being told what to do by the Americans (ok they hate being told what to do by the British more)
 
thom

thom

____
Location
The Borough
martint235 said:
I'm not defending LA at all but I think the more USADA go on about stripping the titles, the more stubborn the UCI will become, possibly to the point of letting him retain some of the titles because they are essentially a French organisation and there's nothing the French hate more than being told what to do by the Americans (ok they hate being told what to do by the British more)
Click to expand...

You're only saying that because you're a stubborn northern g*t with little recollection of how the French deal with substance abuse :laugh:
 
Chuffy

Chuffy

Veteran
Location
On the banks of the Exe
oldroadman said:
Question. Why is any of the (legal) equipment used by LA "bad"?
It's just a bike and kit. The engine powering the bike and wearing the kit you may suspect.
Are Trek just a brand of a much bigger group anyway?
Please name a (credibly decent) bike brand used in competition which someone who may have once used PEDs has not used? Delete all references to BSOs distributed by chain retailers and the choice is suddenly close to zero.
Move on!
Click to expand...
None of the kit is 'bad', but the associations it has are. All of those brands (Trek, Bontrager, Nike, Oakley) have an extremely strong association with Lance/USPS, developed since 1999. I can't think of another cyclist with such strong brand associations. There will be plenty of people who buy kit and bikes in a state of blissful ignorance but if you are a fan it's almost impossible to avoid, whether you chose to buy the kit because you like/support the cyclist/team in question or avoid buying it because you loathe them. By all means pretend otherwise, but the fanboys in USPS kit on Treks would suggest otherwise.
 
thom

thom

____
Location
The Borough
mickle said:
If the association of an athlete with a product had no influence on people's buying decisions no one would ever get sponsored.
Click to expand...
Indeed. "We are what we are, susceptible to persuasion" (read it backwards).
Advertisers are clever people - personal brand association is just one of many ad strategies employed upon us.
A lot of that kit is high quality, expensive and the spectrum of engagement with Pro-cycling of typical consumers is wide. I'd think it a bit tasteless to judge someone for continued use because of the financial side.
 
festival

festival

Über Member
The associated brands have invested a huge amount of time and money in marketing their goods with LA and probably like a super tanker will take a lot of work and time to change course.
I wouldn't expect them to come out with any profound statements right now but once the dust has settled I expect them to back away from the cheat.
I have mainly used Giro and Oakley for years (never LA stuff) and will continue to, as they are quality and they do the job, I have never used Nike as I don't like their kit.
I raced on Treks in the early days of carbon frames and they were great, but only due to a contact who provided them as part of a (small) sponsorship. Up until now if i had to go and buy a bike from a shop I would have seriously considered a Trek.
I understand the reasoning about how far do you go in being ethical and how unreasonable it would be to always hold the moral high ground on every issue in life etc but personally if these massive companies don't make some effort to distance themselves from being associated with LA I will seriously think about spending my money elsewhere in future and i don't think I will be alone.
 
GrumpyGregry

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
montage said:
walk from chesire to inverness. Thats a trek
Click to expand...
Not much of one though.
 
martint235

martint235

Dog on a bike
Location
Welling
thom said:
Indeed. "We are what we are, susceptible to persuasion" (read it backwards).
Advertisers are clever people - personal brand association is just one of many ad strategies employed upon us.
A lot of that kit is high quality, expensive and the spectrum of engagement with Pro-cycling of typical consumers is wide. I'd think it a bit tasteless to judge someone for continued use because of the financial side.
Click to expand...
"Noisausrep ot elbitpecsus, era ew tahw era ew"???

Still no clear Thom.
 
Hip Priest

Hip Priest

Veteran
If you don't want to use a cycling brand that has an association with a drug-user, you're not leaving yourself a lot of choice. I'm still getting a Bianchi next year, even though Pantani was stuffed with drugs from bandana to cleats.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom