# Rabobank Pulls Out of Pro-Cycling



## eriku16 (Jul 27, 2011)

DutchNews.nl - Rabobank to stop sponsoring professional cycling after doping scandal


----------



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

And they didn't do this when "The Chicken" was busted?


----------



## Ride-Fly (Mar 27, 2002)

il sogno said:


> And they didn't do this when "The Chicken" was busted?


So true! They should have pulled out then. But good that they are doing it now. I think most all of the pro team sponsors should pull out. Talk about poisoning the well that you drink from- this would be classic. I really think this would help pro cycling become clean. Gone would be incentive to cheat- the 6 figure salaries for most of the average pros and millions for the capos.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

eriku16 said:


> DutchNews.nl - Rabobank to stop sponsoring professional cycling after doping scandal



Wow; After 17 years of sponsorship!


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

I guess they'll throw in some survival money while the organisation looks for a new sponsor. Think T-Mobile/Highroad.
But Rabobank was big with Pro, Continental, Womens, and CX teams. A big loss for competitive cycling.

Rabobank will continue to sponsor Marianne Vos, I read.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

This is good for the sport. If team directors know their sponsorship is at risk over doping, that's huge.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Fireform said:


> This is good for the sport. If team directors know their sponsorship is at risk over doping, that's huge.



Yep; Money talks.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

Rabobank (the sponsor) will honor contracts. 
Anybody have an Idea for en new jersey design and team name?

Wow about "Thank You Hein"?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

I'm not terribly sure I feel so bad about it.

Team had an organized doping system in place, they've had numerous riders under suspicion, they had a rider pulled from le Tour in the leader's jersey (sure to win mind you) and they just NOW figure it out?

Save face, maybe? Or were they looking for an out?


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

robdamanii said:


> I'm not terribly sure I feel so bad about it.
> 
> Team had an organized doping system in place, they've had numerous riders under suspicion, they had a rider pulled from le Tour in the leader's jersey (sure to win mind you) and they just NOW figure it out?
> 
> Save face, maybe? Or were they looking for an out?


I find the race to the door by Lance Armstrong's sponsors and Rabobank's to be beyond disingenuous. Other sponsors, such as Liberty Seguros and T Mobile saw the light years ago and pulled their sponsorships. The Armstrong sponsors and team sponsors such as Rabobank had to know or should have known that there was rampant doping in the sport. Their reactions this week remind me of Captain Renault's memorable exclamation in Casablanca: "I am shocked, shocked to find gambling is going on in here."


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Fireform said:


> This is good for the sport. If team directors know their sponsorship is at risk over doping, that's huge.


Except, it's mostly punishing current riders who haven't even been around long enough to be involved in the pharmastrong BS. This is HORRIBLE for the sport. I have a gut feeling that this won't be the only team that folds.


----------



## mariomal99 (Mar 4, 2012)

All team sponsors should pull out........and point to Travis


----------



## cq20 (Mar 24, 2007)

robdamanii said:


> Or were they looking for an out?


I suspect that this is a major element. Many banks are looking to reduce sport (and other) sponsorship costs. They can now try to claim the moral high ground (not that I believe this to be the case) and make a clean exit.

(If they had been serious about cleaning things up in the past, they certainly didn't lack for opportunities within their own team)


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

The seemingly well informed inrng blog had this entry a month ago:
inrng : rabobank's revolution
And this was just published:
inrng : rabobank close their account


> Finally Rabobank are not the only major sponsor to be driven out of the sport. I understand another high profile sponsor is reviewing its contract with a view to quitting the sport.


Skoda, it seems.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

cq20 said:


> I suspect that this is a major element. Many banks are looking to reduce sport (and other) sponsorship costs. They can now try to claim the moral high ground (not that I believe this to be the case) and make a clean exit.
> 
> (If they had been serious about cleaning things up in the past, they certainly didn't lack for opportunities within their own team)


they just recently renewed so I doubt it's for financial reasons.


----------



## superjesus (Jul 26, 2010)

Fireform said:


> This is good for the sport. If team directors know their sponsorship is at risk over doping, that's huge.


Agreed 100%. Money is the only thing the UCI will listen to.




spade2you said:


> Except, it's mostly punishing current riders who haven't even been around long enough to be involved in the pharmastrong BS. This is HORRIBLE for the sport. I have a gut feeling that this won't be the only team that folds.


Rabobank is honoring all current contracts but will pull its name from the team. Sure current middle-of-the-road riders may not be able to find a home, but I think the bigger message is sent to the UCI.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

spade2you said:


> Except, it's mostly punishing current riders who haven't even been around long enough to be involved in the pharmastrong BS. This is HORRIBLE for the sport. I have a gut feeling that this won't be the only team that folds.


Like Gesink? 

It's very naive to think these practices are gone--they've just gotten more refines. The Italian investigation that just broke shows that it hardly ended with Pharmstrong.


----------



## Lazy Spinner (Aug 30, 2009)

Barredo under suspicion and Menchov (during his Rabo years) being associated with the developing Ferrari case was the last straw for Rabobank. Combine those with flaming shrapnel from the Lance Bomb and professional cycling is burning right now.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

Ferrari is still at it.


----------



## Ride-Fly (Mar 27, 2002)

MarkS said:


> I find the race to the door by Lance Armstrong's sponsors and Rabobank's to be beyond disingenuous. Other sponsors, such as Liberty Seguros and T Mobile saw the light years ago and pulled their sponsorships. The Armstrong sponsors and team sponsors such as Rabobank had to know or should have known that there was rampant doping in the sport. Their reactions this week remind me of Captain Renault's memorable exclamation in Casablanca: "I am shocked, shocked to find gambling is going on in here."


My guess is that those higher brass that held the purse strings for the sponsorship money were not that well-informed on the extent of drugs in the peleton. Sure, they had to know it was going on, but maybe not the extent that the USADA case brought to light. I'm sure that those middle-level and maybe slightly higher execs that were heavily involved with the team sponsorship had to know but are they kill their own goose that lays the golden egg? I think this decision to pull their sponsorship came from C-suite level execs that finally got the full picture of pro cycling. 

IMHO, more companies should pull their support of pro cycling. The entire industry had to be cleansed. Riders that are clean will get hurt, but they'll move on and find something new, whether it be a re-vamped cycling scene or a new line of work altogether.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

mariomal99 said:


> All team sponsors should pull out........and point to Travis


NO... point to the dopers and the cheats!



Also, read up below.. Rabobank is one of the teams listed in this mess.. 

Gazzetta Reveals Scale Of Doping And Money Laundering Under Dr. Ferrari | Cyclingnews.com

Much more here than just the LA revalations.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

At the end of his book, Tyler is asked whether blood doping is still going on. He said yes, but probably with smaller blood bags. I think that's right, and also newer generations of blood boosting drugs. I've read rumors of teams giving transfusions immediately before events and drawing immediately after to avoid hct checks, riding the actual events at very high hct levels. Just rumors, of course, but a lot of previous rumors have turned out to be based in fact. Certain things we've seen lately might tend to support such blood manipulation.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

mariomal99 said:


> all team sponsors should pull out........and point to <S>Travis</S> Pat.


fify. Which is pretty much exactly what Rabobank and the Skinz guy did. UCI needs to clean it's own house.


----------



## CoffeeBean2 (Aug 6, 2005)

spade2you said:


> Except, it's mostly punishing current riders who haven't even been around long enough to be involved in the pharmastrong BS. This is HORRIBLE for the sport. I have a gut feeling that this won't be the only team that folds.


Exactly. More and more sponsors will pull out or not renew their contracts with teams. Races like the Tour of California and the USAPCC will be gone in a year or 2. We'll have nothing left except office park crits.


----------



## hipo_p51 (Jul 6, 2012)

mariomal99 said:


> All team sponsors should pull out........and point to Travis


100%!!!

Say what you want, but this self serving, over righteous travis has turned the cycling world upside down. I believe time would have cleaned up the sport and left everyones lives a little more intact. Sure they ALL doped, I mean every team has current or ex-dopers, team sky for example. The only reason Lance was the main target, beause EVERYONE knew the name. How would have this witch hunt turned out if travis was after George? The news and everyone else would be going, who the hell is George anyways and who cares.

This travis has changed the sport I love, and I hate everything that is the usada. They did this to validate their existence, to insure more tax payer funding.

I am sure I will get a lot negative feedback, but this is how I feel. And I am sure others see it the same way.

[email protected]#%! travis and the usada.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

It is a bummer, but good for them. Maybe a little late, but at least they are putting financial pressure on the UCI to clean up their act sorta thing.

My guess is the Rabo will be back in cycling when they feel it has changed enough to not be seen a HUGE dopefest..


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

Lance homers are like "but he made the sport! He put it out there! DAT INFLUENCE"
Watch him as he's now putting it at risk. 

But then again Saxo Bank is not going to leave when they've got who is probably best GT rider still, BMC is front run by themselves with a team of WC's, Omega-Parma QS has the best sprinter, and Liquigas has Peter ****ing Sagan.


----------



## culdeus (May 5, 2005)

Fireform said:


> At the end of his book, Tyler is asked whether blood doping is still going on. He said yes, but probably with smaller blood bags. I think that's right, and also newer generations of blood boosting drugs. I've read rumors of teams giving transfusions immediately before events and drawing immediately after to avoid hct checks, riding the actual events at very high hct levels. Just rumors, of course, but a lot of previous rumors have turned out to be based in fact. Certain things we've seen lately might tend to support such blood manipulation.


How would this avoid bio passport? I could see it working for a classics rider, but what good would it do for a tour?


----------



## trhoppe (Dec 21, 2009)

hipo_p51 said:


> 100%!!!
> 
> Say what you want, but this self serving, over righteous travis has turned the cycling world upside down. I believe time would have cleaned up the sport and left everyones lives a little more intact. Sure they ALL doped, I mean every team has current or ex-dopers, team sky for example. The only reason Lance was the main target, beause EVERYONE knew the name. How would have this witch hunt turned out if travis was after George? The news and everyone else would be going, who the hell is George anyways and who cares.
> 
> ...


Are you still mad at your parents for telling you that Santa Claus actually doesn't exist?


----------



## BGEPizza (Sep 28, 2009)

"Dear Rabobank, you were part of the problem. How dare you walk away from your young clean guys who are part of the solution. Sickening." D. Millar

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/19/us/lance-armstrong/index.html?hpt=hp_c1


----------



## phoehn9111 (May 11, 2005)

spade2you said:


> Except, it's mostly punishing current riders who haven't even been around long enough to be involved in the pharmastrong BS. This is HORRIBLE for the sport. I have a gut feeling that this won't be the only team that folds.


This is the correct take on this, more sponsors to follow, and I think it is possible that
everyone is "Forest from the Trees" on the nature and extent of the fallout. In the US
where cycling is only barely emerged from a curiousity piece, the reprecussions
will devastate the team and rider development funding and interest right on down
the line through the amateur levels. Even in Europe, there will be significant longterm
damage to cycling. The sport may have needed this, but there is a nuclear winter coming.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Rabobank will continue to support their amateur and continental teams.


----------



## g29er (Mar 28, 2009)

How ironic considering Rabobank is also under scrutiny because the Libor scandal and has alot on the line along with other banks.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Rabo pulling out of procycling & Rabo shocked at the doping going on over the years.... is like Nike's stand on LA until the USADA report.

Rabo is just like Nike, they have an image to protect.

All these sponsors pulling out of cycling mean short term pain, but IMO this will be good for the sport in the longer term. When you have a house infected with rats, coach roaches, and termites, sometimes it's better to level the whole thing and build from scratch again.

Hopefully as more major sponsors bail, McQuaid and et. al. will be purged from the UCI.


----------



## rufus (Feb 3, 2004)

hipo_p51 said:


> 100%!!!
> 
> Say what you want, but this self serving, over righteous travis has turned the cycling world upside down. I believe time would have cleaned up the sport and left everyones lives a little more intact. Sure they ALL doped, I mean every team has current or ex-dopers, team sky for example. The only reason Lance was the main target, beause EVERYONE knew the name. How would have this witch hunt turned out if travis was after George? The news and everyone else would be going, who the hell is George anyways and who cares.
> 
> ...


It's been 14 years since the Festina affair. How much time do you want?


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

den bakker said:


> they just recently renewed so I doubt it's for financial reasons.



Yep.


Rabobank team will race next year with a blank jersey (No 'Rabobank') !


----------



## CoffeeBean2 (Aug 6, 2005)

aclinjury said:


> When you have a house infected with rats, coach roaches, and termites, sometimes it's better to level the whole thing and build from scratch again.


What happens when you level the whole house, but have no funding to rebuild? Are you better or worse off?


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

CoffeeBean2 said:


> What happens when you level the whole house, but have no funding to rebuild? Are you better or worse off?



Catch 22?


----------



## King Arthur (Nov 13, 2009)

spade2you said:


> Except, it's mostly punishing current riders who haven't even been around long enough to be involved in the pharmastrong BS. This is HORRIBLE for the sport. I have a gut feeling that this won't be the only team that folds.


They are a bank, and make a decision based on the interest of the bank and their investors. Seems as though the investors and bank officials have spoken.
Yes it is bad for the current employees of the team, but this is a known consequence in cycling. Teams fold, or get new sponsors. Pack up the things, bicycle and find new employment.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

I can't be too sad about it. They were into cycling in a huge way for 17 years. It's amazing they stuck around that long. Has any primary sponsor ever gone longer?


----------



## rufus (Feb 3, 2004)

I think Lampre.


----------



## hipo_p51 (Jul 6, 2012)

rufus said:


> It's been 14 years since the Festina affair. How much time do you want?


I think that was the height of the doping in cycling. Since that time I believe it has slowed. It will never go away completely. I personally believe this latest batch was driven by an organization that wanted to make a name for itself. They went after the biggest fish they could find. I personally dont believe that is right. But of course its just my opinion.
As far as how much time I need? It can take forever for all I care.
I love the sport. The way things are going now, It may not last.


----------



## rufus (Feb 3, 2004)

So, you don't care if they ever clean up the sport. Forever is a long, long time.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

hipo_p51 said:


> 100%!!!
> 
> Say what you want, but this self serving, over righteous travis has turned the cycling world upside down. I believe time would have cleaned up the sport and left everyones lives a little more intact. Sure they ALL doped, I mean every team has current or ex-dopers, team sky for example. The only reason Lance was the main target, beause EVERYONE knew the name. How would have this witch hunt turned out if travis was after George? The news and everyone else would be going, who the hell is George anyways and who cares.
> 
> ...


Lance! Is that you?!


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

The EU is imploding economically and this may be the last straw for many companies. The benefit of sponsorship is hard to quantify in the best of times, and very hard to justify in the worst.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

CoffeeBean2 said:


> What happens when you level the whole house, but have no funding to rebuild? Are you better or worse off?


Adopt the Formula 1 model. Form a real Pro Tour League. Abandon the UCI and leave Olympics to amateurs. Have competent professionals run the league. The UCI and just about every national cycling organisation is a pigsty of cronyism. How did Fat Pat get into his position...by working the old boy's network, not by managerial expertise. 
Strict REAL doping control. 
Strict uniformly enforced rules on equipment. 
Deal with issues promptly. Don't drag things out like the Contador case, that should have been resolved in weeks. No banning a racer in one country but not another-either they are banned or not banned.
Every rider follows the League rules, no endless appeals. If an NFL player gets a suspension it doesn't go to the CAS in Switzerland. It's immediate.
I'm sure there would be sponsors. Get the ASO and RAI, maybe a few others together and they could do this. Right now the biggest obstacle for sponsors is the byzantine plutocracy behind the UCI itself.


----------



## NextTime (Oct 13, 2007)

If I sat on the board of a company that sponsored a team I'd move to terminate the sponsorship. I see lots of downside and little upside in sponsoring a team in this climate.

Pro cycling is viewed by most people as a fringe sport - ride the wave during the peak of cycling's popularity as a sponsor? Yeah, perhaps. Stick with cycling when the sport is mired in doping and dissension and angry finger pointing? Why bother?

I wish it were otherwise.


----------



## LuckyB (Sep 9, 2012)

NextTime said:


> If I sat on the board of a company that sponsored a team I'd move to terminate the sponsorship. I see lots of downside and little upside in sponsoring a team in this climate.
> 
> Pro cycling is viewed by most people as a fringe sport - ride the wave during the peak of cycling's popularity as a sponsor? Yeah, perhaps. Stick with cycling when the sport is mired in doping and dissension and angry finger pointing? Why bother?
> 
> I wish it were otherwise.


Nicely said. I agree. I doubt that Rabobank other than the name on the jersey's had anything to do with hands on and in the know of everyday running of the team.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

terzo rene said:


> The EU is imploding economically and this may be the last straw for many companies. The benefit of sponsorship is hard to quantify in the best of times, and very hard to justify in the worst.


Good points.


From what I've Googled; Rabobank netted $1.7 Billion in the first two quarters of this year, down _*29%*_ from the same period last year. 

Although they're still making billions, that's a huge hit on profits.



Annual sponsorship budget for Rabobank's pro team: $20 million??? 

From one sponsor???


----------



## rifreede (Jun 3, 2011)

This is a disaster for cycling...worst than Tiger Woods. I wonder what the future will be like.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

MarkS said:


> I find the race to the door by Lance Armstrong's sponsors and Rabobank's to be beyond disingenuous. Other sponsors, such as Liberty Seguros and T Mobile saw the light years ago and pulled their sponsorships. The Armstrong sponsors and team sponsors such as Rabobank had to know or should have known that there was rampant doping in the sport. Their reactions this week remind me of Captain Renault's memorable exclamation in Casablanca: "I am shocked, shocked to find gambling is going on in here."


If I was Radioshack, Liqui/Cannondale, BMC, Garmin, I would pull out as well. The sport needs to be shown that it must be responsible to it current riders and staff by the $ setting the example not by anti-doping agencies busting riders who had in all parts left pro cycling or corrected their illegal activity. Sponsors spend $ to make money hopefully attracting spectators in new markets like the North and South America. USADA is tasked with protecting sport in the US. Sometimes protecting sport means understanding the troubles of the past can be learned from without cutting open old wounds but by ensuring those troubles do not continue forward through targeted testing, new testing tech, etc. Things which attract sponsorship $. USADA has cost the cycling community in the US most of the hope for new companies to sponsor the future of the sport. IMO. When current sponsorship contracts come up, we'll see if that harsh reality comes to light or not. Hopefully I'm just seeing the half empty side of this one.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

SicBith said:


> If I was Radioshack, Liqui/Cannondale, BMC, Garmin, I would pull out as well. The sport needs to be shown that it must be responsible to it current riders and staff by the $ setting the example not by anti-doping agencies busting riders who had in all parts left pro cycling or corrected their illegal activity. Sponsors spend $ to make money hopefully attracting spectators in new markets like the North and South America. USADA is tasked with protecting sport in the US. Sometimes protecting sport means understanding the troubles of the past can be learned from without cutting open old wounds but by ensuring those troubles do not continue forward through targeted testing, new testing tech, etc. Things which attract sponsorship $. USADA has cost the cycling community in the US most of the hope for new companies to sponsor the future of the sport. IMO. When current sponsorship contracts come up, we'll see if that harsh reality comes to light or not. Hopefully I'm just seeing the half empty side of this one.


So what you and many others are saying is that sponsors of teams and races should quit the sport. How do you propose the sport would continue with all of the staff fired and races gone?


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

As long as people are continuing to test positive it should come as no surprise that boardrooms are going to be uneasy about sponsoring teams. Sponsorship is advertising, and associating your brand with cheating and corruption is not the idea. The sport is in transition. 

I don't like the Sky approach because it forces riders back to omertà and gives them incentive to lie. But it's not a bad thing to recognize that doping is still ongoing (Ashenden says about 30% of the peloton is still blood doping, and that evidently includes Contador). Or for riders and DS to know that the penalties for doping are severe.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

hipo_p51 said:


> I think that was the height of the doping in cycling. Since that time I believe it has slowed. It will never go away completely. I personally believe this latest batch was driven by an organization that wanted to make a name for itself. They went after the biggest fish they could find. I personally dont believe that is right. But of course its just my opinion.
> As far as how much time I need? It can take forever for all I care.
> I love the sport. The way things are going now, It may not last.


Your opinion is wrong in plenty of ways....


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> Your opinion is wrong in plenty of ways....


in my opinion your statement is wrong in plenty of ways.....


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

spade2you said:


> So what you and many others are saying is that sponsors of teams and races should quit the sport. How do you propose the sport would continue with all of the staff fired and races gone?


That is exactly my point, how does the sport police itself in order to be attractive for sponsors, or professionally it will see the race calendar shrink. I don't believe USADA handled the information it has on the violations Postal, JB, LA. etc well. I would think there could have been a less public way to ensure those Postal employees which are responsible for enabling systematic doping and are still hold service or management roles with other team are excused from the sport. It is unfortunate for the riders who had to compete against Postal/Disco, but those races are in the past and many of the riders who have continued racing with other teams have changed their "training & racing" habits as it seems to be more difficult to get away with shady practices. It is also clear those athletes who raced clean through 2006 would have won a GT regardless of their honest work.

Rules enforcement and protecting sponsor money go hand in hand. Focusing on how to solve the current problems in cycling should be more important than parading the past in the public's eye.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

SicBith said:


> in my opinion your statement is wrong in plenty of ways.....


Says the guy who worries about defending Pharmstrong...

Let's pick this apart:



> I think that was the height of the doping in cycling. Since that time I believe it has slowed.


Nope. It was rampant and unchecked for sure, but the methods now are FAR more advanced. Add to the fact that the UCI has covered up positive tests (Pharmstrong and attempted with Contador) and I'd say the height of doping culture is still here.



> It will never go away completely.


Correct. The only correct thing the apologist has said.



> I personally believe this latest batch was driven by an organization that wanted to make a name for itself. They went after the biggest fish they could find. I personally dont believe that is right. But of course its just my opinion.


If you want to cure the cancer, you have to remove the tumor. That would be Pharmstrong and his cabal. So how would going after the biggest fish be inappropriate if they wanted big returns throughout the sport? Would going after Marion Jones not be a "big fish?" 



> As far as how much time I need? It can take forever for all I care.


I thought he said it will never go away completely. Make up your mind.



> I love the sport. The way things are going now, It may not last.


They said the same thing after Festina. Same old song and dance. 

There's still no reasoning for "let's not open up old wounds" and let Pharmstrong hide behind his stupid foundation. USADA cut the cancer out of the body, now things can heal.


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

Fireform said:


> This is good for the sport. If team directors know their sponsorship is at risk over doping, that's huge.


This.


----------



## mariomal99 (Mar 4, 2012)

SicBith said:


> If I was Radioshack, Liqui/Cannondale, BMC, Garmin, I would pull out as well. The sport needs to be shown that it must be responsible to it current riders and staff by the $ setting the example not by anti-doping agencies busting riders who had in all parts left pro cycling or corrected their illegal activity. Sponsors spend $ to make money hopefully attracting spectators in new markets like the North and South America. USADA is tasked with protecting sport in the US. Sometimes protecting sport means understanding the troubles of the past can be learned from without cutting open old wounds but by ensuring those troubles do not continue forward through targeted testing, new testing tech, etc. Things which attract sponsorship $. USADA has cost the cycling community in the US most of the hope for new companies to sponsor the future of the sport. IMO. When current sponsorship contracts come up, we'll see if that harsh reality comes to light or not. Hopefully I'm just seeing the half empty side of this one.


Agree 150%

If I was a sponsor I would want my funds earn results.....win races and earn profits.

All these allegations are just allegations.................


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

SicBith said:


> That is exactly my point, how does the sport police itself in order to be attractive for sponsors, or professionally it will see the race calendar shrink. I don't believe USADA handled the information it has on the violations Postal, JB, LA. etc well. I would think there could have been a less public way to ensure those Postal employees which are responsible for enabling systematic doping and are still hold service or management roles with other team are excused from the sport. It is unfortunate for the riders who had to compete against Postal/Disco, but those races are in the past and many of the riders who have continued racing with other teams have changed their "training & racing" habits as it seems to be more difficult to get away with shady practices. It is also clear those athletes who raced clean through 2006 would have won a GT regardless of their honest work.
> 
> Rules enforcement and protecting sponsor money go hand in hand. Focusing on how to solve the current problems in cycling should be more important than parading the past in the public's eye.


Enlighten us peasants to how you could improve things if you and all the workers in your respective field of employment were suddenly out of the job.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> Says the guy who worries about defending Pharmstrong...
> 
> Let's pick this apart:
> 
> ...


I was acutally defending the poster as someone's opinion isn't wrong or right. It is simply an opinion. opps.... i defended someone i must be a "pharmstrong" fanboy Ahh shizz


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

mariomal99 said:


> Agree 150%
> 
> If I was a sponsor I would want my funds earn results.....win races and earn profits.
> 
> All these allegations are just allegations.................


settle down. It's not about win races at any cost so us sponsors can get paid. It's about anti-doping being repsonsible for races which are happening now and in the future to be won fair and level playing ground. My opinion is anti-doping agencies will cost the sport $ by persuing doping violations of the past. We all believe a very small % of riders in LA's era were clean. To go after riders from that era is low hanging fruit.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

spade2you said:


> Enlighten us peasants to how you could improve things if you and all the workers in your respective field of employment were suddenly out of the job.


Since you have all the posts and cred. Why don't you enlighten us peasants on your opinion of that question, but stick to the cycling industry. 
For my field of employment, the companies I work with learned a while ago that while sponsoring events and athletes is good for the sport, but reducing those sponsorships and putting those monies into retail shop sales incentives is good for the overall health of our industry. I'm going to ride and buy a bike no matter what a professional team is doing. I'll most likly take the advice of a shop salesperson over what a sponsored athlete is using.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

SicBith said:


> Since you have all the posts and cred. Why don't you enlighten us peasants on your opinion of that question, but stick to the cycling industry.


Because it's easy to say that this is a good thing that races get canceled and sponsors pull out when it's not *your* livelihood.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

spade2you said:


> Because it's easy to say that this is a good thing that races get canceled and sponsors pull out when it's not *your* livelihood.


read my post. The bike industry pays my mortgage.


----------

