Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
Sponsorships are all about image:
"Hey those athletes use these products so they must be good."
So when an athlete gives the appearance that they are doing something that isn't above board, it reflects badly on the sponsor, and they have every right (and probably contractual loopholes), to dump that athlete.
The athletes job is pretty simple: Make the sponsor look good, and follow the rules. When they're is the posibility that they intentionally flouted the rules, it certainly doesn't make the sponsor look good, and is most certainly grounds for getting canned.
|
Agreed. However, personally (and thereby agreeing with Dekker, Menchov, Boogerd (Rasmussen's teammates) and presumably a whole bunch of other people) I don't think by firing the leader of the Tour saved face at all. My opinion is, it did the exact opposite.
The only reason he was fired was because alot of people did alot of work in order to get him fired. Of all the cyclists that competed, I bet half (which also have be repremanded for being AWOL) lied about their wherebouts the past year as well.
The Rabobank showed their colors by caving into what the French media wanted, which will only spread their power on the Tour, and thus increase turmoil. Moreover, considering brand imaging, the old saying 'there's no such thing as bad publicity' is true; it would have been a historical event if for the Netherlands
and for Denmark if Rabobank/Denmark would have won. Although a slight majority agreed with his sacking, a heavier majority had no interest in the Tour anymore after Rasmussen's exit here. Including myself.
And something I'll continue to repeat, it's an issue of consistency. When you dig deep enough, most cyclists wold be fired for equally 'heavy' diffractions, but the French were out to get Rasmussen fired, and the Rabobank gave in; in my eyes, that makes the Rabobank the French's b!tch.