-
Well maybe I'm a bit thick, but if it was out of protest, it would be slightly hypocrit right? Even though you rightfully pointed out the nuance, he still works for a (be it partly) owl company. cough oil company.
damskodonny-
Better to be a hypocrite and make a stand about one thing than do nothing.
-
I don't think so personally because the two things are very different to me.
Trade teams have always existed to promote the sponsor. That's their sole purpose really, the cycling is a pleasant by product.
BC is the national body for cycling in this country. It's in a unique position to help combat the climate crisis by encouraging uptake and modal shift away from unsustainable transport modes to the bike. But accepting sponsorship from an oil company with a history of delay and misinformation on the issue is a pretty irreconcilable conflict of interest.
Also, find me an ethical trade team. Ok, you might find one or two, but as a pro cyclist limiting yourself to just those ones would be very limiting - they may not be suitable for you, they may not be interested in signing you as a rider...
E.g. I could argue that EF is an ethical sponsor, but they're not that interested in winning races. Or at least they're not so interested in riders who are more focused on performance than anything else, they want some sort of backstory or alternative race calendar and Hayter is too baby faced to grow a moustache.
Flooring is better than petrochemicals, sure, but then you'd have to ride for Patrick Lefevere, who's a twat. Etc etc.
leggy_blonde
Fox
Oh right, sorry. I believe BC kit is treated separately to team kit, I've never heard of sponsor 'clashes' between trade and national teams being an issue.
So I'd presume the former not the latter but I don't think anyone knows for sure.