# And now.....Nike.



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

Nike may have had impact on Lance Armstrong scandal, possibly involved in what USADA called 'most sophisticated' doping program ever - NY Daily News

_During a 2006 deposition related to the suit, Kathy Lemond testified that Julian Devries, a mechanic for Armstrong’s team who was once close to her husband, had told her and others that Nike and Thom Weisel, a Bay Area banker who sponsored Armstrong’s team, had wired $500,000 to a Swiss bank account that belonged to Verbruggen._

Ohhhhhhhh boy!


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

If Nike did do a payoff, this scandal is going to get CRAZIER! Nike will loose a lot of credibility. But will consumers really care? Athletes?


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

Geezues Chroist!


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

Crazy, if true.... Cyclingnews is reporting the same thing:

Report: Did Nike Pay $500,000 To Verbruggen To Cover Up Armstrong Positive? | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Yes. This was predicted. NO WAY the sponsors and owners were not involved in this train wreck.

NO way.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

Holy moley!


----------



## BlackIce619 (Sep 14, 2012)




----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

A Swiss bank account? This is so James Bond.


----------



## gh1 (Jun 7, 2008)

Maybe it should be, JUST DOPE IT.


----------



## early one (Jul 20, 2010)

Now Nike can unleash their lawyers.


----------



## BlackIce619 (Sep 14, 2012)

gh1 said:


> Maybe it should be, JUST DOPE IT.


Wish granted....


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

rydbyk said:


> Yes. This was predicted. NO WAY the sponsors and owners were not involved in this train wreck.
> 
> NO way.


If this plays out, I'll be proven wrong in that other thread - and really, shocked. Not because I believe Nike to be either ethical or particularly smart - but simply because putting bribes on the books is so monumentally stupid. 

The evidence here is hearsay / circumstantial. I don't mean that in the sense of discrediting those raising it, but simply to say that it's possible they got some of the details wrong as the story passed hand to hand. For example, I'd be less surprised to learn that the Weisel guy (I admit I don't know his backstory) did it personally, and the Nike connection got added to the story by someone connecting the dots (that might or might not have existed.)

Then again, Nike might have used him as a cutaway. That, I'd buy.


----------



## fuzz-tone (Sep 29, 2008)

“We have absolutely no idea what Mrs. LeMond, a long-time Lance-hater, was talking about when she gave her deposition,” the NY Daily Post quote Fabiani as saying.

"Lance-hater"... is that some sort of legal term? Is this seriously the best his lawyers can do?


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Drawing inferences from what Tyler had to say in his book about Weisel (that he's a wealthy, win-at-any-cost cycling-fanatic team owner), it's entirely plausible he would do such a deal. The amount of it raises my eyebrows, but not that it could have occurred.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

I'm surprised that you guys who are longtime hangers-out here in the doping forum don't already know the Thom Weisel backstory. 

Simply, Lance wouldn't be Lance without Weisel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thom_Weisel

You might also look into the relationships of Ochowicz, Weisel, and the USAC and how that might influence the USADA. Travis Tygart did not simply crawl out from under some rock, there's a long backstory there starting with the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

early one said:


> Now Nike can unleash their lawyers.


Why? How? Testimony given under oath in a legal proceeding is privileged and, thus, immune from a defamation claim.


----------



## svrider (Jan 14, 2009)

fuzz-tone said:


> "Lance-hater"... is that some sort of legal term? Is this seriously the best his lawyers can do?


He's using the "haters gonna hate" defense.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

svrider said:


> He's using the "haters gonna hate" defense.


Yes, this strategy is not typically revealed until the second year of law school. It is tough to master, but if executed properly, it is very effective.

Harvard Law is the only school to reveal this strategy of "Haters gonna Hate" or "HGH" in the first year.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

Fireform said:


> Drawing inferences from what Tyler had to say in his book about Weisel (that he's a wealthy, win-at-any-cost cycling-fanatic team owner), it's entirely plausible he would do such a deal. The amount of it raises my eyebrows, but not that it could have occurred.


Meh. Think of the container loads of cash Larry Ellison has tossed after sailboat racing. $500k is pocket change for the uber-fanboy wanting to be part of a winning team.

It's plausible that Nike isn't implicated on that basis. Note: I'm not defending them, beyond my own wanting to be correct that such a successful company can't be quite so mind-numbingly idiotic as to leave a trail on this.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Creakyknees said:


> I'm surprised that you guys who are longtime hangers-out here in the doping forum don't already know the Thom Weisel backstory.
> 
> Simply, Lance wouldn't be Lance without Weisel.
> 
> ...


I've been around rbr for some time, but I'm a relative noob in this forum. It's interesting. I'm looking forward to the day it is less interesting.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

danl1 said:


> ...but simply because putting bribes on the books is so monumentally stupid.


That's why you book it as a marketing and promotion expense, paid to a shell company which then pays the recipient's shell company.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

rydbyk said:


> Yes. This was predicted. NO WAY the sponsors and owners were not involved in this train wreck.
> 
> NO way.


No way the sponsors weren't involved? You mean the US Postal Service wasn't the innocent victim of theft or misuse of taxpayer dollars???

Hmm. Maybe that's why the Feds dropped their investigation!


----------



## brentley (Jul 20, 2008)

*Nike cancels Armstrong contract*

Breaking news on CNN live.

Nike dumps Armstrong.

holy crap.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

*Nike and Livestrong fire Armstrong*

NIKE ENDS CONTRACT WITH LANCE ARMSTRONG - Business Insider



> Due to the seemingly insurmountable evidence that Lance Armstrong participated in doping and misled Nike for more than a decade


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

The clock just struck midnight.


----------



## Chris Oz (Oct 8, 2005)

Had to happen, the evidence is too damming. I wonder if Oakley wants to start making shoes.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

*NIKE terminates contract with LA!*

Nike says it has ended its contract with Lance #Armstrong on.cnn.com/T05BmW


----------



## Skinner222 (Aug 31, 2012)

The time seems right for a little bit of John Cougar Mellencamp:

"When the walls come tumblin' down; 
When the walls come crumblin', crumblin'; 
When the walls come tumblin', tumblin' down."


----------



## pete2528ca (Jun 17, 2011)

It's about time.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

huh? I've read in here that all this did not matter, no one cared any more.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Fired by Nike, but I take it more as him distancing himself from Livestrong (or Livestrong distancing itself from him) in a effort to maintain some credibility, as opposed to firing him..... In a sense it may be good for Livestrong to begin to stand on its own merits away from LA.

More info:
Lance Armstrong stepping down as chairman of Livestrong

Armstrong stepping down as Livestrong chairman | Sympatico.ca Sports


----------



## cmdrpiffle (Mar 28, 2006)

This from CNN:

[Updated at 8:22 a.m. ET] Nike has just released a statement saying they have terminated their contract with Lance Armstrong for misleading them for more than a decade.

"Due to the seemingly insurmountable evidence that Lance Armstrong participated in doping and misled Nike for more than a decade, it is with great sadness that we have terminated our contract with him. Nike does not condone the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs in any manner," the statement on Nike's website reads. "Nike plans to continue support of the Livestrong initiatives created to unite, inspire and empower people affected by cancer.


----------



## Retro Grouch (Apr 30, 2002)

Skinner222 said:


> The time seems right for a little bit of John Cougar Mellencamp:
> 
> "When the walls come tumblin' down;
> When the walls come crumblin', crumblin';
> When the walls come tumblin', tumblin' down."


Or this:


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

I wonder if Nike was in on the Pharmstrong scandal?


There is questions involving payment(s) to UCI in the amount of $500,000. Apparently Nike may have made that payment.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Retro Grouch said:


> Or this:



Yep!

I love that song :thumbsup: !


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

This is fun to watch!!!


----------



## Skinner222 (Aug 31, 2012)

Retro Grouch said:


> Or this:


Good "Call" ;-)


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

terzo rene said:


> That's why you book it as a marketing and promotion expense, paid to a shell company which then pays the recipient's shell company.


Of course, but those sorts of cutaways are so monumentally easy to follow. In this sort of instance, Nike would have just funded Tailwind, not funded Weisel to fund tailwind. Paying Weisel would have flagged it higher than paying Tailwind and simply playiung dumb on what they used the money for.

The big question: Assuming there's fact here, the 'important' part is less whether it's Weisel or Nike, but that Verbruggen was dirty. So the question: Who investigates this? How does the UCI house get cleaned? Who sanctions the sanctioning body?


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

You know things are bad when a company that does not mind using child slaves to make its product decides being associated with you is bad for its reputation.

Armstrong is boned. Americans are dumb as rocks. They won't read the reasoned decision. They do not trust the news. They can be led around by the nose with a good PR campaign. They easily buy into the Big Lie if it is repeated often enough. But when an iconic company like Nike says something is true then it might as well be Jesus himself who said it. Armstrong's attempt to hold onto his place in popular opinion is over.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

Where is that guy who kept posting about how nobody would care?


----------



## Solopc (Sep 9, 2008)

cmdrpiffle said:


> This from CNN:
> 
> [Updated at 8:22 a.m. ET] Nike has just released a statement saying they have terminated their contract with Lance Armstrong for misleading them for more than a decade.
> 
> "Due to the seemingly insurmountable evidence that Lance Armstrong participated in doping and misled Nike for more than a decade, it is with great sadness that we have terminated our contract with him. Nike does not condone the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs in any manner," the statement on Nike's website reads. "Nike plans to continue support of the Livestrong initiatives created to unite, inspire and empower people affected by cancer.


I take this to imply that Nike will still happily manufacture, sell, and profit from Livestrong merchandise in their stores and online. I mean that is still a good cause, so they're only being a great corporate citizen if they continue with that, no?


----------



## iamnotfilip (Jul 9, 2007)

trailrunner68 said:


> You know things are bad when a company that does not mind using child slaves to make its product decides being associated with you is bad for its reputation.
> 
> Armstrong is boned. Americans are dumb as rocks. They won't read the reasoned decision. They do not trust the news. They can be led around by the nose with a good PR campaign. They easily buy into the Big Lie if it is repeated often enough. But when an iconic company like Nike says something is true then it might as well be Jesus himself who said it. Armstrong's attempt to hold onto his place in popular opinion is over.


Absolutely agree. Yet Nike is still trying to find the best exit strategy where they can still profit from Livestrong yet distance themselves from Lance. I am sure Lance stepping down from his main role at Livestrong was related to this strategy. Probably was instigated by a deal he made with Nike. I wouldn't be surprised if they paid him off nicely to just exit graciously and not implicate them any more for stuff they knew and participated in.

But today, this about as much accountability we can expect from corporate America.


----------



## OldEndicottHiway (Jul 16, 2007)

Ooooh_wee_. That's gotta hurt. 

I figured Lance was going to suffer some, but it gets uglier and uglier for him. Holy shunning!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Radioshack also dropped him a while back but never made it public. RSNT is seperate, Armstrong has no interest in it. Beer company also dropped him


----------



## pulser955 (Apr 18, 2009)

Solopc said:


> I take this to imply that Nike will still happily manufacture, sell, and profit from Livestrong merchandise in their stores and online. I mean that is still a good cause, so they're only being a great corporate citizen if they continue with that, no?


I'm guessing that has allot to do with contract obligations. If Nike tried to drop Livestrong they would probably get the pants sued off.


----------



## Addict07 (Jun 23, 2011)

roddjbrown said:


> Where is that guy who kept posting about how nobody would care?


Mowing Dr. Falsetti's lawn.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

cda 455 said:


> I wonder if Nike was in on the Pharmstrong scandal?
> 
> 
> There is questions involving payment(s) to UCI in the amount of $500,000. Apparently Nike may have made that payment.


To me, that seems like it's going to be a dead end. Rumors about payment to Verbruggen's Swiss bank account? All my life, I've been led to believe that you have a better chance of prying the nuclear launch codes from the guy following the President carrying them, than you do of getting the Swiss to give up any information about a numbered account.


----------



## little_shoe (Apr 18, 2008)

cmdrpiffle said:


> This from CNN:
> 
> [Updated at 8:22 a.m. ET] Nike has just released a statement saying they have terminated their contract with Lance Armstrong for misleading them for more than a decade.
> 
> "Due to the seemingly insurmountable evidence that Lance Armstrong participated in doping and misled Nike for more than a decade, it is with great sadness that we have terminated our contract with him. Nike does not condone the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs in any manner," the statement on Nike's website reads. "


Ironic... In the only loss by USADA it was Nike which pressured La Tasha Jenkins to switch coaches as a part of her contract and when popped positive she was dropped by them immediately.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

mpre53 said:


> To me, that seems like it's going to be a dead end. Rumors about payment to Verbruggen's Swiss bank account? All my life, I've been led to believe that you have a better chance of prying the nuclear launch codes from the guy following the President carrying them, than you do of getting the Swiss to give up any information about a numbered account.


That was the old Switzerland. The new Switzerland has huge banks that do business internationally. The banks cannot afford the revenue loss from not doing business in the U.S.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

trailrunner68 said:


> That was the old Switzerland. The new Switzerland has huge banks that do business internationally. The banks cannot afford the revenue loss from not doing business in the U.S.


Oh well, looks like I'll have to find another country to establish my offshore accout. :lol:

Can I at least still trust the Cayman Islands?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

mpre53 said:


> To me, that seems like it's going to be a dead end. Rumors about payment to Verbruggen's Swiss bank account? All my life, I've been led to believe that you have a better chance of prying the nuclear launch codes from the guy following the President carrying them, than you do of getting the Swiss to give up any information about a numbered account.


I do not think it went to a Swiss bank account.

Verbuggen is a marketing guy. He has always had several companies that promote, produce, and televise events (He broadcast the Olympic bike race). The story I heard for years that the payment went to one of his production companies, hidden as a sponsorship.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Chris-X said:


> How many years until he is bankrupt?


It is a very good possibility. 

Nike, Giro, Radioshack, Crap Beer, all gone. Soon Oakley will drop him as well. No more speaking fees. Huge exposure to SCA, Times of London, and the Qui Tam case. 

Anyone who feels bad for Lance today should remember, this is a guy who took great pleasure destroying people's careers.


----------



## nOOky (Mar 20, 2009)

If Nike dropped it's sponsorship of all doping athletes across all competitive sports they sponsor, the list or pros they would now sponsor would read something like this:


----------



## zerog_85 (May 30, 2009)

I find it surprising that Nike dropped Armstrong so quickly. Nike has a history of standing behind their athletes (Kobe -Rape; Tiger - Banging hookers)

I'm glad that Nike did but I wonder what their motive was.


----------

