Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Make America grope again
Joined
·
4,754 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Guess the title says it all.

I believe the NYTimes predicted this sort of thing in the article about Livestrong. Basically that sponsors would stand by the charity in the aftermath of Lance's doping scandal. Then, when the spotlight was gone, quietly let their commitments expire.

Whatever you think of Lance, or of Livestrong, you have to look at their fundraising approach in a cold, intellectual kind of way. They relied on the marketability of Lance's image. They turned this into commercial sucess for the 'Livestrong Brand.' Now that Lance is no longer marketable, the brand has lost a lot (though not all) of its earning power.

Livestrong has other fundraising avenues - charity rides, big dollar donors. But their failure to diversify their image and marketing has cost them dearly.

Live by the Lance, err...I mean, sword, die by the sword, I guess.

Nike cutting ties to Livestrong | www.statesman.com
 

·
Make America grope again
Joined
·
4,754 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 · (Edited)

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
Nike couldn't care less about charity.

The purpose of their support was to make a profit through their Livestrong line of apparel when Lance was the man. At the end of the day everything they do is about the bottom dollar, they'll drop anyone or anything like a rock in the ocean if there's a hint of negative impact.

As soon as Lance left cycling the first time around they pulled their involvement in the sport altogether too... which was a little more confusing. You'd think in America where the sport is growing they'd be the go to brand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,411 Posts
They paid lance, and dropped him, for the same reasons.

For years Livestrong's primary driver was to promote Lance. Nike realized this and paid millions to be associated with him and the foundation as they made even more millions

Now that the foundation is a real charity that no longer spends millions of funds promoting Lance Nike sees little value
 

·
You Phillip mah census
Joined
·
4,665 Posts
I agree with above. It was about bottom line dollars, not a philanthropical decision based on Lance's past.
Yep, they just did it. Not a whole lot of hand-wringing about it.
 

·
Not Banned
Joined
·
49,013 Posts
when the brand is driven by a figure and the figure falls from popularity, so goes the brand
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
484 Posts
Kind of off topic, but still slightly on topic, I wonder if Trek will start manufacturing Lemond frames again after all the Lance crap.

I'll admit it, I don't necessarily hate Lance. Just believe he was trying to play the game, just like every other cyclist.
 

·
Make America grope again
Joined
·
4,754 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Kind of off topic, but still slightly on topic, I wonder if Trek will start manufacturing Lemond frames again after all the Lance crap.

I'll admit it, I don't necessarily hate Lance. Just believe he was trying to play the game, just like every other cyclist.
Why would Lemond ever go back to them?
 

·
Make America grope again
Joined
·
4,754 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Yes! I'd love to see the revival of a bike brand from another doper who was 5 times the sadistic liar Lance was.
How was he a sadistic liar?

How was he 5 times the liar Lance was?

By my count, Lance's lies cost the Times about a million, SCA many million, Betsy her reputation, Frankie his job, Emma O'Reily a big pain in the ass, sent Mike Anderson in exile to New Zealand and David Walsh wider publication of his book.

Specifically, what lies did Lemond tell and how did they hurt others?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
LeMond 1986 - Maybe, hopefully clean along with Hinault.
LeMond 1989 - Definitely not clean

From zero to hero in the space of a couple of months. EPO was around. Transfusions were around. Fignon was doping. Set the fastest time trial ever on the last day of the Tour - that's after 3 weeks of racing at the top of the GC. Strange none of the confirmed dopers or a Wiggins or Cancellara with modern equipment could beat it.

Yes, if you thought Lance was bitter, conniving and hypocritical - LeMond is from another planet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,906 Posts
LeMond 1986 - Maybe, hopefully clean along with Hinault.
LeMond 1989 - Definitely not clean

From zero to hero in the space of a couple of months. EPO was around. Transfusions were around. Fignon was doping. Set the fastest time trial ever on the last day of the Tour - that's after 3 weeks of racing at the top of the GC. Strange none of the confirmed dopers or a Wiggins or Cancellara with modern equipment could beat it.

Yes, if you thought Lance was bitter, conniving and hypocritical - LeMond is from another planet.
I hope you enjoy the red chiclet I gave you, Lance.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top