icyclist 

BengeBoy wrote:

"Sponsors want to be associated with winners, but only winners who "play fair" by the rules of the sport that they are in. No big brand wants to give money to a team that wins but then is subsequently found to have cheated."

A good point. But then, the people in charge of the companies that are sponsors of people like Lance Armstrong knew - just as you did - that people like Lance Armstrong doped. These sponsors were more than happy to turn a blind eye to situation, and keep on with their sponsorships, even as rider after rider after rider was caught doping or admitted to having doped.

Admittedly, I dropped out of law school after just one semester, but it doesn't take a Philadelphia lawyer to figure out that the only people who are going to feel defrauded out of something are U.S. attorneys, should they ever bring a prosecution and lose.

While sponsors (who could just as well be called investors) might be saddened to learn that the potential gravy train is over when it's discovered that an athlete doped, don't imagine they feel defrauded. No, the sponsors feel enriched.

Sponsors invest in an athlete to earn a return. Therefore, the CEO of Nike won't thump his forehead, shout out "Doh! I was SO stupid" and sue Lance Armstrong, if he's ever found guilty of a crime, demanding his company's money back, anymore than the sponsors of Tiger Woods have felt cheated because Woods cheated on his wife.

Frankly, Nike didn't care if Armstrong used steroids, EPO, or black magic to win bike races. Nike and the other sponsors only cared that he win his races....and didn't get caught doping. Therefore, while the sponsors are sick that the gravy train might be over, they are not sick that Lance Armstrong doped. It's not the doping that bothers sponsors, it's that the law is sticking its nose in a place the sponsors don't want it. They'd like to chop off that nose.

And that is why the sponsors of Lance Armstrong were not defrauded. They got exactly what they wanted, a good return on their investment, even as they knew the risks involved.

As for Trek, the company has admitted having suspicions about the inappropriate sale of their bikes. Is Trek sorry NOW? You bet. Was Trek worried enough BEFORE to drop its sponsorship? Absolutely not. Trek admitted it knew what was happening with its bikes, but it turned a blind eye.

So Trek didn't feel defrauded BEFORE an investigation began, even though it was aware of shenanigans. Trek was very happy with the arrangement. It's only NOW that Trek is worried, but not about the return on their investment. They ARE worried because it's been revealed that higher-ups in the company had some direct knowledge of what was going on.

If Lance were to be convicted of something, Nike and Trek, etc., aren't going to come out with commercials apologizing for their association with him, anymore than Tiger Woods' sponsors have released mea culpas for erroneously believing in the integrity of the world's number one golfer.

To sum up: sponsors knew what they were getting into, and in the case of Armstrong, have made huge returns on their investment that cannot be negated by anything that happens in the future. That is why no fraud took place.

However, if Armstrong had consistently been a poor performer after garnering contracts from sponsors like Nike and Trek, and had those sponsors learned that Armstrong was earning less "monies and prizes" because he hadn't been doping, THEN those sponsors would believe they had been defrauded.