# So Why did Nike drop LA and not Kobe Bryant or Tiger Woods?



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Would like to hear all points of views regarding this comparison.

Was it because Kobe and Tiger were just womenizers/adulterers (same for Bill Clinton), and men in the US in general are ok with womenizers and adulterers? I wonder if Nike's action mirror that of the sentiments of men in general? i.e., we men don't like no "athletic cheat" but ok with cheating on the wives??

or maybe Nike is distancing itself due to potential legal problem?

I have to think Nike is dropping LA due mainly to an image thing and not a legal thing.


----------



## burgrat (Nov 18, 2005)

He cheated at sport. Kobe and Tiger cheated on their wives.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

burgrat said:


> He cheated at sport. Kobe and Tiger cheated on their wives.


Now, if they were sponsored by Trojan... 


But yeah - a sporting goods company is going to balk at cheating at sport. Or, at least at getting caught after all the money spent to ensure that they weren't.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Who here thinks that Kobe is clean?


----------



## shoegazer (Nov 2, 2007)

burgrat said:


> He cheated at sport. Kobe and Tiger cheated on their wives.


Agreed. 
I don't recall if Nike had a stance on M. Jordan for his gambling.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

Local Hero said:


> Who here thinks that Kobe is clean?


Safe to say that as regards spokesmanships, "guilty" isn't the criteria, "caught" is.


----------



## LookDave (Sep 29, 2007)

Would be germane to know (and I don't know) what happened with Pete Rose's endorsements when he was caught gambling on baseball games in which his team was playing, resulting in lifetime ban from baseball. Sports specific rules violation as opposed to broader morality rules, to be perhaps cynically reductionistic...


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

burgrat said:


> He cheated at sport. Kobe and Tiger cheated on their wives.


Um...Kobe raped a girl and was rich enough to buy his way out of it. Not exactly cheating on his wife.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

spookyload said:


> Um...Kobe raped a girl and was rich enough to buy his way out of it. Not exactly cheating on his wife.


Kobe didn't rape that girl. He had sex with her. No girl who got raped would later in the same night would go out and have sex with another guy and bragged about being "raped" by Kobe. DNA evidence showed the girl didn't change her undies as Kobe's and another guy's sperm were all over her panties. Yuck! It doesn't sound like a rape victim to me. But money sure shut her off quick, isn't it? She gives rape victim a bad name since there are actual raped victims who do not have nearly the kind of glamourous coverage she did.

I'm not defending Kobe, but I'm saying that calling her a rape victim does injustice to the term.


----------



## PatheticHack (Oct 24, 2010)

From Nike's point of view, LA has continually failed to 'fess-up in the wake of overwhelming evidence that he was a sport cheat throughout his career. Both Kobe & Tiger "came clean" when evidence of their guilt was revealed. As was mentioned before, Nike is a sports company. Had Kobe & TIger been Redbook endorsers, I'm sure they would have been dropped.

I still believe that the higher-ups at Nike "knew" LA probably doped despite his adamant denials. Nike punked-out too. They knew they could no longer pretend that he didn't dope. USADA removed their cover.


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

Adidas dropped Kobe, and Nike picked him up after that 2003 Colorado incident. They know Kobe still sells everywhere despite his recent near-divorce.


----------



## philoanna (Dec 2, 2007)

I would reckon that Nike makes far more $$$$$ off of Kobe sneakers and jersey sales and Tiger Woods polo shirts and golf crap than cycling shoes and jerseys.
I have a belief that when ever you ask the question "why?", the answer is usually $$$$$$.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

philoanna said:


> I would reckon that Nike makes far more $$$$$ off of Kobe sneakers and jersey sales and Tiger Woods polo shirts and golf crap than cycling shoes and jerseys.
> I have a belief that when ever you ask the question "why?", the answer is usually $$$$$$.


true. all hail the mighty $$$


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> Who here thinks that Kobe is clean?


in regards to doping?

He actually regressed from being buff because he thought it compromised his quickness as a player, which he valued more than strength. He was never even all that muscular compared to the leagues more ripped players.

Pretty sure it takes a whole lot more than pain killers and drugs to play through bone-on-bone knees (before PRP surgery), broken ankle, finger, and nose.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

aclinjury said:


> ..... I have to think Nike is dropping LA due mainly to an image thing and not a legal thing.


I think that hits the nail on the head. Nike is joining the bandwagon against the Armstrong brand... to protect the Nike brand image.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Ventruck said:


> in regards to doping?
> 
> He actually regressed from being buff because he thought it compromised his quickness as a player, which he valued more than strength. He was never even all that muscular compared to the leagues more ripped players.
> 
> Pretty sure it takes a whole lot more than pain killers and drugs to play through bone-on-bone knees (before PRP surgery), broken ankle, finger, and nose.


How can anyone jump and run on bone-on-bone??? That's either crazy or stupid.


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

aclinjury said:


> How can anyone jump and run on bone-on-bone??? That's either crazy or stupid.


There supposedly are/were a good share of athletes who are bone-on-bone, although most of them will retire before totally realizing it. Kobe reflected on the season before his PRP treatment. He really thought he was about to be over, but didn't want to give up the post-season run the Lakers already had. 

Had a ridiculous dunk over Emeka Okafor while also coping with a sprained ankle. Tried to force the issue his teammates weren't putting work in, especially when being threatened by a mediocre New Orleans Hornets team.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Because Nike may have paid Verbruggen $500k to quash one of LAs drug tests, and is running for the hills?

http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/news/40221/verbruggen-uci-under-fire-for-turning-a-blind-eye


----------



## Bullvine (Sep 9, 2009)

Dave Cutter said:


> I think that hits the nail on the head. Nike is joining the bandwagon against the Armstrong brand... to protect the Nike brand image.


Nike is bad poo, It's not like Armstrong tied children up in a hot dungeon and forced them to make shoes 16 hours a day for 2 dollars a week. :thumbsup:

If I were Armstrong I'd be like F-Nike they have nerve and there shoes sux.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

aclinjury said:


> I have to think Nike is dropping LA due mainly to an image thing and not a legal thing.


Not even so noble as an image thing. It's strictly a money thing.

They didn't dump him because they didn't want to be associated with him - they dumped him because we didn't want to be associated with him. Fans aren't going to buy his merchandise any more, so he's just a liability. 

They didn't cut A-Rod after he doped and confessed.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

aclinjury said:


> Would like to hear all points of views regarding this comparison.
> 
> Was it because Kobe and Tiger were just womenizers/adulterers (same for Bill Clinton), and men in the US in general are ok with womenizers and adulterers? I wonder if Nike's action mirror that of the sentiments of men in general? i.e., we men don't like no "athletic cheat" but ok with cheating on the wives??
> 
> ...


Don't forget Michael Vick, who abused and tortured dogs who were part of a dog fighting ring. Many dogs lived such an abused life with him, that when they were finally rescued ti took years to get them to trust a human again. Some would shake of fear so bad or try to hide to make themselves invisible when a human came up to them. 

THAT to me is worse than any cheating or lying, it shows a lack of humanity and empathy.


----------



## Bullvine (Sep 9, 2009)

love4himies said:


> Don't forget Michael Vick, who abused and tortured dogs who were part of a dog fighting ring. Many dogs lived such an abused life with him, that when they were finally rescued ti took years to get them to trust a human again. Some would shake of fear so bad or try to hide to make themselves invisible when a human came up to them.
> 
> THAT to me is worse than any cheating or lying, it shows a lack of humanity and empathy.


Agree!


----------



## jwl325 (Feb 3, 2010)

Just a wag on my part, but I'm guessing the reason is:


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

I think you guys might be over-thinking this. These other athletes made there mistakes outside of sports. Women, dog fighting, doesn't have much to do with their own sport. 

Cheating in a sport... _for a company that makes and sells sporting equipment_... could reflect poorly on the brand.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

Dave Cutter said:


> I think you guys might be over-thinking this. These other athletes made there mistakes outside of sports. Women, dog fighting, doesn't have much to do with their own sport.
> 
> Cheating in a sport... _for a company that makes and sells sporting equipment_... could reflect poorly on the brand.


A-rod? Clearly cheating in sport isn't the razor they use.

Reflect poorly on the brand - they all have that in common. But us consumers, we'll buy from the disgraced sports star, if he's still in the sport and has come clean, so we can give him a second chance.

Lance can't sell the sport, and won't let the suckers give him a second chance. He's just sitting there, insulting everyone by implying we're all stupid and so believe his BS. That's not going to sell an overpriced yellow T-shirt, though, so out he goes. 

I believe that if he took any earlier opportunity to come clean, he'd still be somewhat saleable, and so still on the Nike payroll.


----------



## natedg200202 (Sep 2, 2008)

I have heard this both here and in mainstream media and its quite upsetting how anyone could miss the difference. Domestic troubles vs. being the center of one of the largest deceptions in sports history. On field vs. off.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Ruthless, vindictive pricks aren't marketable. That's his biggest problem---not the doping.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Dave Cutter said:


> I think you guys might be over-thinking this. These other athletes made there mistakes outside of sports. Women, dog fighting, doesn't have much to do with their own sport.
> 
> Cheating in a sport... _for a company that makes and sells sporting equipment_... could reflect poorly on the brand.


No, but it has a lot to do with how moral the company is. There are a lot of great, clean athletes that Nike could choose to support.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

danl1 said:


> A-rod?
> 
> I believe that if he took any earlier opportunity to come clean, he'd still be somewhat saleable, and so still on the Nike payroll.


Oops... forgot about A-rod's steroid use.I guess your right. 

Lances real crime against his fans (and Nike) is arrogance. Confession and contrition could have done his soul (and bankroll) some good. It's a damn shame... it had to be my sport to suffer discredit as it's best know star deflates.


----------



## Chonut (Mar 29, 2005)

Its also easier to cut LA loose because he's retired from the sport. The other players that were mentioned are all active in their sports (e.g. still selling stuff).


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

love4himies said:


> ... it has a lot to do with how moral the company is.


Not sure how a corporate entity could have morals. I assume you mean the morals of the leadership within Nike. And not some established mission statement. 

I know nothing about who runs or has run Nike. But the direction of any corporation can change on a dime... under good leadership. Or... maybe Lance stopped returning the wrong persons phone calls!


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Dave Cutter said:


> Not sure how a corporate entity could have morals. I assume you mean the morals of the leadership within Nike. And not some established mission statement.


Yes, that is what I mean.


----------



## suvacrew (Feb 27, 2008)

*Kobe and Tiger used their dick$, Armstrong was a dick*



aclinjury said:


> Would like to hear all points of views regarding this comparison.
> 
> Was it because Kobe and Tiger were just womenizers/adulterers (same for Bill Clinton), and men in the US in general are ok with womenizers and adulterers? I wonder if Nike's action mirror that of the sentiments of men in general? i.e., we men don't like no "athletic cheat" but ok with cheating on the wives??
> 
> ...


Nike is a huge multinational who sells mainly to "macho" males. We have all either cheated on our wives or have considered it. Most of us have never considered cheating in our respective sports though. 

Nike isnt a good moral compass by any means.


----------



## De36 (Oct 16, 2012)

Its ok to cheat on your wifes, but Nike wont stand for cheating in a sport!


----------



## suvacrew (Feb 27, 2008)

And I thought "Just do it" was an endorsement of adultery and the use of PEDs. 
Geez, time to drop that one.


----------



## De36 (Oct 16, 2012)

suvacrew said:


> We have all either cheated on our wives or have considered it.


No "we all" haven't.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*



suvacrew said:


> I anticipated the response of a non masturbating purist who has NEVER looked at another woman in our prime and wondered.....just wondered.
> You know how the saying goes....
> 
> Forgive me father for I have sinned.


Enjoy the posting vacation.


----------



## wldct69 (Apr 6, 2011)

LA cheated at his sport which is why they sponsored Lance. They wouldn't sponsor him just for surviving cancer. It's all about the sport.


----------



## HolyBull (Nov 27, 2008)

I became a Tiger fan after his scandal, it revealed that he was human. Before that he just came off as a robot, nothing interesting about him.

I was a Kobe fan before his scandal, but buying his way out of it makes me angry, and i hate his ass now.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

HolyBull said:


> I became a Tiger fan after his scandal, it revealed that he was human. Before that he just came off as a robot, nothing interesting about him.
> 
> I was a Kobe fan before his scandal, but buying his way out of it makes me angry, and i hate his ass now.


you have shifting principles. They both are cut out of the same cloth. How exactly did Kobe buy his way out of his mess any more or less than Tiger did? So you be content with Kobe going to jail and Tiger walking while both did the same thing, having sex with skanks? I'm not here to really defend one guy or the other, but more curious about the logics underlying your principles. And how many skanks did Tiger played with again? Oh yeah, he's human alright, dude was lusting human flesh.


----------



## HolyBull (Nov 27, 2008)

aclinjury said:


> you have shifting principles. They both are cut out of the same cloth. How exactly did Kobe buy his way out of his mess any more or less than Tiger did? So you be content with Kobe going to jail and Tiger walking while both did the same thing, having sex with skanks? I'm not here to really defend one guy or the other, but more curious about the logics underlying your principles.



I don't know the details, because I don't have a subscription to People or US Weekly, but Tiger got caught, his wife rightfully divorced him, and now he's alone. Tiger never said he didn't do it. He didn't do anything criminal that we know of.

Kobe on the other hand, paid the girl who knows how much to keep her mouth shut once things got serious with a criminal proceedings, who knows how much, might have been 1, 5, 20, 30 million for all we know.

I think once Lance confesses, people will forgive him, we've all made mistakes and know what that's like. Now Lances situation is magnified a great deal, but he's done a lot for cancer victims so i think people will look at him for that if he ever fesses up.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

and anyone who thinks neither Kobe nor Tiger have not used PEDs is higher than a kite


----------



## tnvol123 (Sep 11, 2012)

I think Nike dropped him because he will cease to make money for them. If Nike didn't see any way Tiger and Kobe would continue to make them cash, they would have dropped them. As it stands, Tiger's less than stellar play on the golf course is what people think about more than his marital issues.


----------



## HolyBull (Nov 27, 2008)

atpjunkie said:


> and anyone who thinks neither Kobe nor Tiger have not used PEDs is higher than a kite


Definitely Kobe, the guy went from 180 to like 230 in 2 years. 

I don't want to hear that he started working out, the guy was a privileged son of a pro basketball player, Joe Bryant had that kid working out since he was 13 years old.


----------



## Rokh On (Oct 30, 2011)

If you want to use a more apples to apples comparison then try using Alex Rodriguez, Marion Jones, or Justin Gatlin. All used PEDs and they all stayed on Nike's books until their contracts expired.

The Business Insider | Daily Ticker – Wed, Oct 17, 2012


----------



## HolyBull (Nov 27, 2008)

Rokh On said:


> If you want to use a more apples to apples comparison then try using Alex Rodriguez, Marion Jones, or Justin Gatlin. All used PEDs and they all stayed on Nike's books until their contracts expired.
> 
> The Business Insider | Daily Ticker – Wed, Oct 17, 2012


Its not a fair comparison. Those guys once caught didn't put up a fight. The only one of those you named that even had anything to say was A-Rod who came clean and said he felt pressure to live up to his contract. Lance is on another planet


----------



## Rokh On (Oct 30, 2011)

I respectfully disagree. Please go back to 2003/2004 and read or watch the stuff A Rod said on "60 Minutes - Katie Couric". Then skip a few years to 2009 and listen to his press conference. After listening to his sob story then you could also research who his traveling companion(s) were in 2007 and 2008 and see if you still believe him. 

For me it's a very fair comparison.

But even if it's not for you, back to the orignal point. Nike kept him on the books.


----------

