You are reading a single comment by @andyp and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
You're right that pro cycling has always been nakedly commercial, but it's not unreasonable to question the suitability of sponsors.
If it can only survive through the patronage of ethically dodgy entities, should it still exist?
-
Divesting from, or controlling the ads of companies that directly harm and kill people is common. We got cigarettes out of formula 1. Betting sites in football are being ( slowly) brought under control. Using public pressure to stop the promotion of these deadly vehicles has precedent.
fizzy.bleach
William.
@andyp
I do find it interesting that there are some people who see professional cycling as some kind of active campaigning arm of prioritising investment in cycling infrastructure and who should be promoting cycling as a form of active travel.
Since its inception, professional cycling has been about promoting sponsors, nothing else. You could argue that should change, but the professional teams are primarily focused on getting sponsorship to pay their costs.