Michael Ball: Asshole Putz

wrote:
On Jan 14, 4:51 pm, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 14, 3:57 pm, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
If the sponsors bear no risk (and we are in agreement that they
don't, yes?) then why would sponsors be reticent about cycling?
We're not in agreement. If you're looking for me to provide
spreadsheets of financial data to prove "damages", then **** you.
What are you, a personal injury attorney?
I'm looking for you to back up your arguments with something
other than horse****. If this is so plain and obvious, why
is it so hard for you to do?

What sponsor has lost business because of a doping scandal?
Not Festina. Not T-Mobile. Not Sunny D. Not Liberty Seguros.

Have you let a business decision be affected by a doping
scandal? Did you cut your T-Mobile service because of their
doping scandal? Were you going to buy a Festina watch but
decide against it because of their doping scandal?

No one does. Stop being such a pussy.



Sort of like Sunny D--American Beef, or Liberty Seguros--Astana.
The economy is a much bigger issue for these guys. The reason
Ball can't find a co-sponsor is because no one wants to buy into
an enterprise run by a whack job. Much easier to wait 6 months
for him to pack up his baggage and leave.
You mean an organization run by a whack job and filled with current,
past and probably soon-to-be dopers.
You're seeing this the way you really, really, really, really
want to see it. But you can't back it up with anything other
than THE WAY YOU SEE IT HAS TO BE THE WAY IT IS.
All I'm asking is that you back up your opinions with something
more than your opinions. Stop being such a pussy. Show me a
sponsor that has been damaged by a doping scandal and I will
believe that doping scandals chase sponsors away. Until then I
think you're a pussy.
Bob Schwartz
CSC got out, and it was all due to the negative press fallout. That's
a fact. You see, rather than allow Riis to further DAMAGE their
brand, they chose to abandon their continued sponsorship (something
they'd intended to continue for a very long time). You see, the CEO
got sick of people sending him emails. You DO remember team CSC don't
you? Bjarne Riis? Former winner (doped to the gills) of the TDF?
Try following this link:
http://www.teamcsc-saxobank.com/ny_index.asp?404
Oh, I'm sorry, is that a 404 error? Try clicking the other links on
this website:
http://www.csc.com/cycling/
I never claimed that sponsors do not pull out due to doping
scandals. What I claim is that they face no risk due to
doping scandals. And because there is no risk new sponsors
aren't afraid to enter the sport.

CSC's business was not damaged by their doping scandal. They
always had the option to wipe their hands if things got messy,
things did and they did. No one canceled a contract for IT
services with them because of any doping scandal, no matter how
much hand wringers such as yourself may not want to believe it.

Here, try this link:

http://www.riis-cycling.com/

That makes my point, not yours. We are in complete agreement.
You are too stupid to realize it. Saxo Bank weighed the risks
and came to a different conclusion than you do. Just like
American Beef. Just like Astana Group. Imagine that.

Back up your argument. Stop being such a pussy. And stop supporting
my argument, that's creepy.

Bob Schwartz

Dickhead,

Which is it? Lost business? Affected? Damaged? You're trying to
invent some kind of (non-existent) common standard (done via mind
reading) to determine WHY sponsors cut and run due to doping
publicity. Stick to the argument you're currently engaged in.

Dude, I have never stated that sponsors do not leave the sport
over doping scandals. They do. I have consistently stated that
doping scandals provide no risk to sponsors, and because of that
new sponsors are not dissuaded from entering.

I have repeatedly asked you to provide some sort of justification
for your views. I'm not picky. Businesses comment all the time
on external forces that affect their results. I'll accept something
like that. I'll accept personal anecdote, which is certainly the
lowest standard. You have nothing other than an emotional
attachment to your position that keeps you from thinking clearly
about it.

Now stop being a pussy and back up your argument.

The fact is that sponsors cut and run due to doping scandals. I
already know you think I'M a pussy, but you seem to think sponsors are
pussies too. Well, it's their ****ing money, and if they wish to
behave like pussies with it, there is not one damn thing you can do
about it. The ball is not only in their court, it's their ball to
begin with.

And I can promise you that any sponsors that have re-upped in the last
18 months have done so for significantly less money.

I've never maintained that a sponsors customers have abandoned them
over doping sponsorship. That's a premise you seem to wish I'd
somehow made, and you've crafted your entire anger management issue
around it. Now hurry up. Your next door neighbor needs help wiping
his ass. Go rescue him from himself.


Dumbass,

You have repeatedly stated that sponsors are leaving the
sport. I have never disputed that. We are in agreement. That
doesn't contradict my argument. It also doesn't confirm yours.

Now make your case. My standards are exceptionally low. Get to
it.

Bob Schwartz

wrote:
On Jan 14, 4:51 pm, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
And because there is no risk new sponsors aren't afraid to enter the sport.

Bob Schwartz

So before "the economy" imploded, how do you account for the large
number of teams that have folded? Why do you think the contracts are
now structured to give them doping-related mid-season bailouts?

Dumbass, because the few remaining sponsors are doing so with crossed
fingers.

Holy smokin' ****!

Dude, those contracts are structured that way so that sponsors
are not at risk of doping scandals. That's my point, not yours.
Sponsors face no risk from doping scandals, so they are not
dissuaded from entering the sport by that possibility.

And it has always been that way.

Once again we are in agreement. Jeez you're creepy. I'm still
waiting for you to back up your assertion. My standards are really,
really, really low.

Bob Schwartz

Bob Schwartz

On Jan 15, 8:41 am, wrote:
On Jan 14, 4:51 pm, Bob Schwartz
wrote:

And because there is no risk new sponsors aren't afraid to enter the sport.
Bob Schwartz

So before "the economy" imploded, how do you account for the large
number of teams that have folded? Why do you think the contracts are
now structured to give them doping-related mid-season bailouts?

Dumbass, because the few remaining sponsors are doing so with crossed
fingers.



Because of doping, dumbass. Pro cycling's popularity had been
GROWING. Now the major press hits for pro cycling are filled with
doping investigations and suspensions. Sponsors would rather see
headlines like:
"CSC wins team time trial"

Not:
"Riis Defends Internal Anti-Doping Program"
or:
"B-SampleTo Be Tested"

wrote:
Sponsors would rather see headlines like:
"CSC wins team time trial"

Not:
"Riis Defends Internal Anti-Doping Program"
or:
"B-SampleTo Be Tested"

So the problem is not doping but anti-doping. Doping gives wins,
anti-doping gives negative headlines.

On Jan 15, 12:12*pm, Susan Walker

So the problem is not doping but anti-doping. Doping gives wins,
anti-doping gives negative headlines.

dumbass,

absolutely.

but doping headlines are unavoidable when it's the police making drug
busts (festina, puerto, oil for drugs, moose, bruylandts now, millar,
rumsas, gaumont gang), not the gov. body or ADAs.

wrote:
Because of doping, dumbass. Pro cycling's popularity had been
GROWING. Now the major press hits for pro cycling are filled with
doping investigations and suspensions. Sponsors would rather see
headlines like:
"CSC wins team time trial"

Not:
"Riis Defends Internal Anti-Doping Program"
or:
"B-SampleTo Be Tested"

Has doping hurt baseball's popularity? Are fewer fans attending
games? The answer is 'no' isn't it?

You keep going back to emotion to support your argument. Sponsors
have many choices for product promotion. If one gets messy they
cut and move along. This is not the painful process that you are
making it out to be.

As I have repeatedly stated, over and over, again and again, it
is exactly that fact that allows sponsors to churn. You keep
pointing to sponsor churn to back up your assertion. It does no
such thing. Doping scandals increase sponsor churn. That fact
supports my point that sponsors are not afraid of doing scandals.
It does not support your assertion that doping is killing the
sport.

Support your own points. Leave mine alone.

Bob Schwartz

On Jan 15, 10:35 am, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
wrote:
Because of doping, dumbass. Pro cycling's popularity had been
GROWING. Now the major press hits for pro cycling are filled with
doping investigations and suspensions. Sponsors would rather see
headlines like:
"CSC wins team time trial"

Not:
"Riis Defends Internal Anti-Doping Program"
or:
"B-SampleTo Be Tested"

Has doping hurt baseball's popularity? Are fewer fans attending
games? The answer is 'no' isn't it?

You keep going back to emotion to support your argument. Sponsors
have many choices for product promotion. If one gets messy they
cut and move along. This is not the painful process that you are
making it out to be.

As I have repeatedly stated, over and over, again and again, it
is exactly that fact that allows sponsors to churn. You keep
pointing to sponsor churn to back up your assertion. It does no
such thing. Doping scandals increase sponsor churn. That fact
supports my point that sponsors are not afraid of doing scandals.
It does not support your assertion that doping is killing the
sport.

Support your own points. Leave mine alone.

Bob Schwartz


OK, so doping is not killing the sport. It's making it harder to see
(like in Germany) and harder to get paid (Michael Ball). There, you
win the argument. Doping has merely brought cycling back to it's
position of decades ago. A bunch of broke masochists doing superhuman
things on bikes with shaved legs.

wrote:
and harder to get paid (Michael Ball).

We'll see how that goes in 6 months.

Ball is erratic as hell. That works when you own the show.
It isn't a good way to attract partners. NFW would I write
a big check to a team that that guy was running. If you
wait 6 months and let it collapse you can bid on the remains
without dealing with the goofball that led the descent.

My money is on the team failing in 6 months. If no one picks
up the wreckage and riders disperse into retirement or crap
contracts with 12K dreamer pro teams then I will accept your
premise that doping is damaging the sport.

But I don't think that'll happen. I think someone will step
in with new money and new kit. Just like Saxo Bank did with
CSC.

Note that doping scandals absolutely harm the riders. One
result of Ball's fetish for bad boys is that he's got a lot
of high profile riders that don't cost so much. The
publicity/cost ratio is very favorable, someone will buy in.
You just have to get rid of the retard running the show first.

Bob Schwartz

Bob Schwartz wrote:
Now stop being a pussy and back up your argument.

What you got against pussies ? I'm a nature lover; I love
pussies and beavers.

wrote:

OK, so doping is not killing the sport. It's making it harder to see
(like in Germany) and harder to get paid (Michael Ball).

It's no harder to see in Germany now than it was 5 years ago. ARD/ZDF
may make noises over pulling the plug on coverage (which isn't legal,
btw) but I always watched cycling on Eurosport anyway.

I don't give a **** about those ARD hypocrites, who still show football
without a peep. After all, football players are as clean as the driven
snow, right?