Surfer ‘not pretty enough to sponsor’


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35663889/embed

Despite being the best female surfer in Brazil, Silvana Lima was refused sponsorship deals because she wasn’t considered sufficiently good-looking.

Interesting video – and the one quote in heading … ‘… if i was a man this wouldn’t happen’ scarily true perhaps.

From road.cc – pharmstrong sponsors say goodbye


A number of companies that sponsored Lance Armstrong have moved to distance themselves from him today. The most prominent are sportswear giant Nike, which announced that it has ended its association with him due to “seemingly insurmountable evidence” that he doped during his career and “misled” the company “for more than a decade,” and Trek Bicycles, whose recent history is inextricably linked with Armstrong’s now-nullified Tour wins.

The news came shortly after Armstrong himself said he is stepping down as chairman of Livestrong, the charity also known as the Lance Armstrong Foundation, which he founded after in 1997 after surviving cancer.

Electronics retailer RadioShack has confirmed it has no current sponsorship deals with Armstrong, without confirming when the last one finished, and said it has ended his relationship with him, and Anheuser-Busch, which owns the Michelob Ultra brand of beer he endorses, has said it will not be renewing his current three-year deal when it expires at the end of the year.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Easton Bell, owner of Giro whose helmets Armstrong uses and endorses, has also dropped him today, although like Nike, it will continue its asociation with Livestrong. Eyewear firm Oakley is said to be reviewing the situation.

According to research cited by the Wall Street Journal, Armstrong’s pulling power as a celebrity spokesman – and consumers’ trust in him – has plummeted in recent years. Quoting data from a specialist firm that tracks that data through consumer surveys, it says he was ranked 60th in June 2008 but had fallen to 1,410th by September 2012.

That was after USADA said it was banning him for life, but it’s the subsequent publication of its reasoned decision, and the detailed evidence it contains, that appears to have irreperably damaged the Armstrong brand.

In a statement published on its website, Nike said: “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.

It added: “Nike plans to continue support of the Livestrong initiatives created to unite, inspire and empower people affected by cancer.”

Nike, which yesterday was awarded the high-profile contract to supply the International Olympic Committee until 2016, replacing its bitter rival Adidas, has come under pressure over the past week to affirmin its commitment to clean sport by distancing itself from Armstrong following publication by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) of its Reasoned Decision against the man who won the Tour de France seven times.

A number of media outlets reported testimony yeterday from Greg Lemond’s wife Kathy given during a deposition in the SCA Promotions case in 2006 that Nike had paid former UCI President Hein Verbruggen $500,000 to cover up a positive test by Armstrong in 1999, a payment she said she had heard about from his former mechanic.

Nike strongly refuted the claim that any such payment had ever been made, saying in a statement yesterday: “Nike vehemently denies that it paid former UCI president Hein Verbruggen $500,000 to cover up a positive drug test. Nike does not condone the use of illegal performance-enhancing drugs.”

Yesterday also saw a protest outside Nike’s headquarters in Oregon led by former pro cyclist Paul Willerton, who raced alongside Armstrong for the US national team in the 1992 world championships, the year before Armstrong won the rainbow jersey in Oslo.

Willerton, who left the sport due to his disillusionment with doping, joined fellow protestors in urging Nike to reconsider its decision to stand by Armstrond despite the evidence published by USADA.

Another major sponsor of Armstrong, Trek, said in a release today, “Trek is disappointed by the findings and conclusions in the USADA report regarding Lance Armstrong. Given the determinations of the report, Trek today is terminating our longterm relationship with Lance Armstrong. Trek will continue to support the Livestrong Foundation and its efforts to combat cancer.” Armstrong is believed to be a Trek shareholder, and many believe that it was pressure from the Texan that led in part to Trek dropping the Lemond brand; indeed, Betsy Andreu’s affidavit recalls a conversation with Armstrong: “Lance said: ‘I’m going to make one call to John Burke and fucking shut him up.’ I asked who John Burke was and was told he owned Trek, the bike company that sponsored Lance as well as made Greg LeMond’s bikes.”

Oakley is another company associated with Armstrong that has faced calls to clarify its position.

Regarding Armstrong’s decision to step down from his role with his charity, according to a statement from him obtained by Associated Press, he made his decision so that the charity can focus on its work with cancer victims, rather than it being overshadowed by the continuing fallout from the United State Anti Doping Agency’s investigation which resulted in him being banned for sport for life.

“This organization, its mission and its supporters are incredibly dear to my heart,” said Armstrong in his statement, quoted in the New York Post. “Today therefore, to spare the foundation any negative effects as a result of controversy surrounding my cycling career, I will conclude my chairmanship.”

According to spokeswoman Katherine McLane, vice-chairman Jeff Garvey, who was chairman of the charity when it was founded 15 years ago this week, will take over responsibility for the organisation’s strategic planning. Armstrong will remain on the Livestrong board.

LIvestrong’s 15th aniversary is due to be celebrated by a series of events in the coming days in Armstong’s home city of Austin, Texas, including a gala event on Friday evening that is scheduled to include appearances by long-time supporters Robin Williams and Ben Stiller.

Women cyclists – the raw deal


From the guardian

What was depressing about Lizzie Armitstead’s comments about sexism within cycling after she won her silver medal in the road race was not so much what she said, which was basically that women get a raw deal, but the tone of resignation with which she said it.
She did not, she said delicately, wish to be seen to be moaning. I disagree. She should be less inhibited about raising her voice. Grumble away please. Grouch and complain. You have every right. It’s time you were heard.
The thing is, it wouldn’t just be Lizzie Armitstead making the point. I have heard the same from both Emma Pooley and Nicole Cooke, and I have also heard this from one senior international who said she was contemplating quitting because the sport could offer her no kind of a living that rewarded the pain and the sacrifice.
Pooley summed it up earlier this year in the Guardian: “Women’s cycling really does have a problem. It’s not a lack of enthusiasm or willingness, it’s just the races aren’t televised for the most part so for sponsors it’s like night and day compared with men’s cycling. There is a lot of uncertainty every year over teams. You think you’ve got a contract then the team decide women’s racing is not of interest to main sponsors because it’s not visible.
“[In] A lot of women’s teams you’re lucky if they buy you a sandwich at the race… sponsors keep pulling out of races so they get cancelled… the calendar has been more than decimated. I get enough to live off, better than most women in the sport. The depressing thing is that there is so much money in cycling but it all stays in one bit of the sport, not much of it trickles down.”
It is not only Pat McQuaid and the UCI who need to listen to Armitstead and her peers. Currently, if my local budding junior women’s international is to be believed, there is no obvious pathway for her within the British Cycling system once she or her contemporaries turn 18 because the women’s academy was abandoned a few years back. The prize money is, at times, derisory in a women’s race. The only option is to up sticks and race abroad, as Armitstead does. There is no round of the UCI women’s World Cup in Britain. Not surprisingly, the pool of British women internationals is currently relatively small compared to the situation among the men.
A first step, and a good example to set, would be the formation of a women’s arm of Team Sky. Armitstead said that the media company is “missing an opportunity” by not doing just that, but there is more. It would give British Cycling’s managers the same control over their women’s squad’s racing programmes that it was so important to exercise over the men’s. It would avoid the situation that occurred over this winter, where, for a while, Armitstead, Pooley, Lucy Martin and Sharon Laws had no idea whether they would have a sponsor to race with in Olympic year.
The irony is that British Cycling has done it before. At the start of 2008 they formed the Halfords “national trade team” to enable Nicole Cooke to enjoy the perfect buildup to Beijing, and that in turn contributed to her winning the gold medal. Halfords pretty much formed the model for Team Sky, in marrying national team needs and those of a commercial sponsor: among the beneficiaries was Joanna Rowsell, who will be a favourite for a gold medal later this week in the team pursuit.
For both the UCI and British Cycling, the incentives should be clear. The economic possibilities are blindingly obvious. Already, the likes of Cooke, Pooley and Victoria Pendleton have had a big effect: women’s racing, in Britain at least, is growing rapidly, at grassroots level; leisure riding is blossoming too. But there is vast potential for growth in Europe and elsewhere.
Equality is one thing. It is blatantly unfair that women racers should earn proportionately so much less than their male counterparts and face instability that they don’t. But if that is not an argument that carries enough weight, the prospect of a massive untapped market should have the cycle industry beating the UCI’s door down.