Originally Posted by b2dajizzle
It's all politics because one could argue that Nike played a part in covering up Armstrong's drug use so they can continue to use him as a face of the sport to drive money into their pockets. With Lance nobody would have cared about cycling.
Well "one" did argue that - that "one" being somebody extremely close to one of the most prominent cyclists in the world. It was specifically alleged that Nike put up $500K to suppress a failed test. ...Wouldn't be unprecedented, they essentially bribed Bo Jackson to play football back in the day.
So, yes, Nike is dirty too. I don't know how anybody would believe otherwise.
That said, what else are they supposed to do? Keep him on and embrace the bad PR? Confess their own sins - that would also further implicate Armstrong, hurting him worse than the already did?...
Nike is a company, their MO is to make money for shareholders. A company isn't a person - despite corporate personhood. It's a problem socially for sure, but a corporation isn't supposed/can't have a conscience for matters like this, it must just move on and continue achieving its goals - revenue generation - as best it can. Covering up the test was a means to that end. And, now dropping Lance is a means to that same end. Loyalty doesn't exist in plutocracy. By the rules under which it plays, Nike acted rationally, if immorally, both times.
Don't blame the symptom, fight the disease.