Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Moral maze: Lance Armstrong’s bike shop drops cycling brands owned by gun firm

Mellow Johnny's in Austin, Texas will no longer stock brands including Bell, Giro and Camelbak after Florida school shootong...

The Austin, Texas bike shop Mellow Johnny’s owned by disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong has dropped cycling brands owned by one of the biggest firearms manufacturers in the United States.

As we reported on road.cc last month, a boycott was launched by cyclists in the US of brands including Bell, Giro and Camelbak that are owned by Vista Outdoors in the wake of the Parkland, Florida mass shooting last month.

The group’s main business is making and selling firearms and ammunition, including assault rifles that are legal in a number of states.

In a statement on its website, Mellow Johnny’s Austin branch said:

Our Appeal to Vista Outdoor

Shortly after the Parkland, Florida tragedy, we made some difficult decisions and sent a letter to Vista Outdoor, the parent company of Bell Sport, Giro, Camelbak, Blackburn, and other outdoors manufacturers, with an appeal regarding their NRA relationship.

Our decision was to join others like Dick's Sporting Goods, REI, and Mountain Equipment Co-op in ceasing to carry products under the Vista umbrella.

These brands have long been staples of our business, and rightfully so. We have always enjoyed stellar relationships with our sales reps—the hard-working people on the ground—and it is not without regret and sadness that we must suspend these relationships.

We understand that all of you may not agree. We ask that you consider our position objectively, as we also respect your view and reach a compromise.

These are the views of Mellow Johnny's in Austin, Texas. They do not necessarily represent the views of any other Mellow Johnny's location.

The shop also said that it had sent a letter to Vista Outdoor at the end of February, but has not received a reply to date. Here is the text.

February 28, 2018

To the Stakeholders and Leadership of Vista Outdoor,

In light of the recent tragedy in Parkland, Florida, we cannot ignore the fact that Vista Outdoor is a longtime supporter of the NRA. While historically it has made sense to support an organization that—at one time—advocated for sport shooting, hunting, and general outdoor preservation, it has become clear that the NRA has become deaf to the public safety issue that mass casualty weapons present. We continue see these weapons used for the sole purpose of mass murder, and we continue to see inaction and staunch resistance to management of these weapons by the NRA. The NRA’s focus has become tragically single-minded in its defense of all weapons, regardless of the imbalance between usefulness and lethality.

We ask that Vista Outdoor stop funding the NRA. Supporting the organization is misdirected and outdated, and there are many other ways to advocate for outdoors initiatives—including hunting and shooting—in the modern world. Meanwhile, we admire the courage and action that fellow retailers Dick’s Sporting Goods and REI, among others, have taken toward safety and reason.

We appreciate the many noble associations you have with youth sports and shooting organizations like Boy Scouts, 4H, QDMA, mentorship programs and many others. These champion youth shooting safety, wildlife appreciation, and outdoor advocacy in a positive an impactful way that appear at odds with the NRA’s current path.

At this time, we are prepared to cease business with Vista brands Giro, Bell, Blackburn, and Camelbak, with whom we’ve spent a significant number of dollars over a decade. Although we enjoy the quality of the products and the relationship with our sales channels, we cannot in good conscience perpetuate the support of the NRA.

We look forward to hearing that Vista Outdoor takes a positive step toward public safety and withdraws NRA support.

Sincerely,

The Stakeholders and Management of Mell Johnny’s Bike Shop, Austin, Texas

Armstrong was formerly sponsored by Easton-Bell Sports, owners of the Giro cycle helmet brand.

They were among the companies to sever ties with him after he was banned from cycling for life and stripped of his seven Tour de Fance victories.

At the time, they said they "would not be continuing sponsorship of Lance Armstrong going forward."

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

38 comments

Avatar
sq225917 | 5 years ago
1 like

GODDAM, wouldn't it be great if auto correct on every digital device automatically changed "Lance Armstrong" to "disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong".

 

Never forget, never forgive.

Avatar
SingleSpeed replied to sq225917 | 5 years ago
1 like

sq225917 wrote:

GODDAM, wouldn't it be great if auto correct on every digital device automatically changed "Lance Armstrong" to "disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong".

 

Never forget, never forgive.

 

I have alway assumed so called  'Journalists' spell checkers had been doing this for years, Hopefully when the next OS updates they will add Mr Bradley Wiggins to this list. 

Avatar
sbranfman | 5 years ago
1 like

This is great news and a noble initiative by Mello Johnny's.

On another important note, it's time that Lance was no longer referred to as  ..."disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong." He's worked hard to repent and make amends. Yes. he will always be remembered as a cheater, liar and bully, but he must also be honored as one of the single  most generous donors and influential leaders in the fight to rid the world of cancer. This he has always done and continues to do without expectation of recompence. 

Avatar
sbranfman | 5 years ago
2 likes

This is great news and a noble initiative by Mello Johnny's.

On another important note, it's time that Lance was no longer referred to as  ..."disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong." He's worked hard to repent and make amends. Yes. he will always be remembered as a cheater, liar and bully, but he must also be honored as one of the single  most generous donors and influential leaders in the fight to rid the world of cancer. This he has always done and continues to do without expectation of recompence. 

Avatar
Yorkshie Whippet | 5 years ago
3 likes

Oh for pity’s sake.

Inaminate, unthinking and unfeeling objects don’t kill people. People kill people. For anything to be dangerous it requires the most sophisticated species to be in the vicinity. 

Conclusion

Ban Homo sapiens. Job done.

Avatar
700c | 6 years ago
4 likes

I don't see the conflict here, assuming that's the point of the article.
Cheating and bullying in sport is in no way morally equivalent to supporting the means by which people commit mass murder.

If LA or his company has a view on children and adults being killed by nutters with guns in his state/ country then I'm not surprised.

Avatar
barbarus | 6 years ago
3 likes

Guns don't kill people, rappers do!

Avatar
Squire142 replied to barbarus | 6 years ago
1 like
barbarus wrote:

Guns don't kill people, rappers do!

Summon the Police woo woo woo

Avatar
Jamminatrix | 6 years ago
3 likes

So is Road.cc going to drop any brand of Vista Outdoors who either currently sponsors, or wants to sponsor, Road.cc? 

 

My guess is no....

Avatar
velo-nh | 6 years ago
3 likes

Will they also drop any company's products if they have any relation to the AAA?  Automobiles kill far more people, and the AAA defends all motor vehicles, no matter how large and dangerous.

 

Avatar
kevvjj replied to velo-nh | 6 years ago
4 likes

velo-nh wrote:

Will they also drop any company's products if they have any relation to the AAA?  Automobiles kill far more people, and the AAA defends all motor vehicles, no matter how large and dangerous.

Automobiles don't kill people. People kill people.

Avatar
Grahamd replied to kevvjj | 6 years ago
2 likes

kevvjj wrote:

velo-nh wrote:

Will they also drop any company's products if they have any relation to the AAA?  Automobiles kill far more people, and the AAA defends all motor vehicles, no matter how large and dangerous.

Automobiles don't kill people. People kill people.

Unless it’s a self driving Uber taxi!

 

Avatar
John Smith replied to velo-nh | 6 years ago
0 likes

velo-nh wrote:

Will they also drop any company's products if they have any relation to the AAA?  Automobiles kill far more people, and the AAA defends all motor vehicles, no matter how large and dangerous.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Also untrue. How often do you hear of motoring groups pressuring the government to not make any changes to road safety laws.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to John Smith | 6 years ago
4 likes

John Smith wrote:

velo-nh wrote:

Will they also drop any company's products if they have any relation to the AAA?  Automobiles kill far more people, and the AAA defends all motor vehicles, no matter how large and dangerous.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Also untrue. How often do you hear of motoring groups pressuring the government to not make any changes to road safety laws.

 

I suspect it happens all the time.  I'm pretty sure the car manufacturers lobby against stronger emissions limits or rigorous tests, or increases in fuel tax.  They also created much of the pressure that created jaywalking laws in the US.  And hgv manufacturers have pushed back against EU attempts to legislate for safer lorries.   Oh, and did the road haulage people not object to all attempts to restrict when lorries can use London roads?  Not to mention the LTDA's attitude to cycle infrastructure.

 

The difference is more to do with tactics and pragmatism, surely?  i.e. which sort of campaign is more likely to have an effect?  The motor lobby involves far more of the population and is stronger than even the gun-lobby (the number of gun-owners in the US has been declining for along time, even if they are individually hoarding larger-and-larger collections of guns- they are, like angry white men, very slowly becoming a marginal group)

 

So maybe a boycott of gun manufacturers might have some effect?  I don't feel inclined to join in myself - I personally care about cars more than I do about guns, cos we don't have a gun problem here anyway - but in fairness it seems a bit more likely to have an effect than a boycott of car manufacturers.

Avatar
The_Vermonter replied to John Smith | 6 years ago
2 likes

John Smith wrote:

velo-nh wrote:

Will they also drop any company's products if they have any relation to the AAA?  Automobiles kill far more people, and the AAA defends all motor vehicles, no matter how large and dangerous.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Also untrue. How often do you hear of motoring groups pressuring the government to not make any changes to road safety laws.

 

Here in the USA, there is a great deal of opposition to "road diets" and putting in roundabouts despite the overwhelming data that suggests they do not deleteriously harm traffic flow or make roads less-safe. 

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to velo-nh | 6 years ago
3 likes

velo-nh wrote:

Will they also drop any company's products if they have any relation to the AAA?  Automobiles kill far more people, and the AAA defends all motor vehicles, no matter how large and dangerous.

 

And there's the solution, as we have helmets to protct us and save our lives when run over by automobiles, we should all now wear body armour. That'll learn the gun toting murderers!

Back on topic, Lance who?

Avatar
The_Vermonter replied to velo-nh | 6 years ago
5 likes

velo-nh wrote:

Will they also drop any company's products if they have any relation to the AAA?  Automobiles kill far more people, and the AAA defends all motor vehicles, no matter how large and dangerous.

 

 

The purpose of an automobile is not to kill when operated correctly. A gun is. An honest conversation about guns and their place in society can only be had when both sides are willing to talk without deliberately muddying the waters as you have here. 

Avatar
velo-nh replied to The_Vermonter | 6 years ago
1 like

The_Vermonter wrote:

The purpose of an automobile is not to kill when operated correctly. A gun is. An honest conversation about guns and their place in society can only be had when both sides are willing to talk without deliberately muddying the waters as you have here. 

 

You're not ready for that honest conversation yet because what you just said is completely dishonest.  Firearms are for hunting, target shooting, self defense, collecting, etc.  They have completely valid uses all the way to competition in the Olympics.  Yet you would muddy the conversation by saying the purpose is to kill.  They may be used that way, they may not.  There are very similar to automobiles in that way.

 

Avatar
davel replied to velo-nh | 6 years ago
8 likes
velo-nh wrote:

The_Vermonter wrote:

The purpose of an automobile is not to kill when operated correctly. A gun is. An honest conversation about guns and their place in society can only be had when both sides are willing to talk without deliberately muddying the waters as you have here. 

 

You're not ready for that honest conversation yet because what you just said is completely dishonest.  Firearms are for hunting, target shooting, self defense, collecting, etc.  They have completely valid uses all the way to competition in the Olympics.  Yet you would muddy the conversation by saying the purpose is to kill.  They may be used that way, they may not.  There are very similar to automobiles in that way.

 

You need your head checked and to hand in your guns if you think that the gun came about as anything other than a WEAPON.

All of those uses you mention - you're describing a WEAPON.

As for 'collecting': fucking grow up.

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet replied to davel | 6 years ago
3 likes

//img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2015-01/8/11/enhanced/webdr12/anigif_original-grid-image-30653-1420733697-25.gif)

 

Avatar
velo-nh replied to davel | 5 years ago
1 like

davel wrote:

You need your head checked and to hand in your guns if you think that the gun came about as anything other than a WEAPON. All of those uses you mention - you're describing a WEAPON. As for 'collecting': fucking grow up.

It's a tool.  Almost anything can be a weapon, primary use or not.  For the average American, a firearm is used for target practice, or hunting, or self defense.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  And yes, they are collectable.  Firearms existed throughout the lifespan of our nation and had a very big hand in the US becoming it's own nation.  Are you going to suggest that no one on this site collects bicycles?  That's not what they're meant for either.  You've been brainwashed into thinking a useful tool is the absolute implement of evil, it's not.

 

Avatar
davel replied to velo-nh | 5 years ago
4 likes
velo-nh wrote:

davel wrote:

You need your head checked and to hand in your guns if you think that the gun came about as anything other than a WEAPON. All of those uses you mention - you're describing a WEAPON. As for 'collecting': fucking grow up.

It's a tool.  Almost anything can be a weapon, primary use or not.  For the average American, a firearm is used for target practice, or hunting, or self defense.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  And yes, they are collectable.  Firearms existed throughout the lifespan of our nation and had a very big hand in the US becoming it's own nation.  Are you going to suggest that no one on this site collects bicycles?  That's not what they're meant for either.  You've been brainwashed into thinking a useful tool is the absolute implement of evil, it's not.

 

All of the tools you're using as comparisons have a primary purpose that ISN'T shredding a being, which is the primary purpose of the assault rifle used in Florida.

It's a mechanised weapon of war, and made it possible for a lad with no military training to kill 17 people in 6 minutes AND ESCAPE! I'd like to see Rambo manage that with a hammer.

One of us is brainwashed, undoubtedly.

Avatar
brooksby replied to velo-nh | 5 years ago
1 like

velo-nh wrote:

davel wrote:

You need your head checked and to hand in your guns if you think that the gun came about as anything other than a WEAPON. All of those uses you mention - you're describing a WEAPON. As for 'collecting': fucking grow up.

It's a tool.  Almost anything can be a weapon, primary use or not.  For the average American, a firearm is used for target practice, or hunting, or self defense.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  And yes, they are collectable.  Firearms existed throughout the lifespan of our nation and had a very big hand in the US becoming it's own nation.  Are you going to suggest that no one on this site collects bicycles?  That's not what they're meant for either.  You've been brainwashed into thinking a useful tool is the absolute implement of evil, it's not.

 

"A useful tool" - erm, you do understand we are talking about *guns* here, not about a Swiss Army knife or a f-ing flathead screwdriver...?

Avatar
SNS1938 replied to velo-nh | 5 years ago
1 like

velo-nh wrote:

davel wrote:

You need your head checked and to hand in your guns if you think that the gun came about as anything other than a WEAPON. All of those uses you mention - you're describing a WEAPON. As for 'collecting': fucking grow up.

...For the average American, a firearm is used for target practice, or hunting, or self defense.  ...

 

 

1) Hunting in USA is down to only 5% of population

2) Target practice ... they can rent a gun at the range. When a Brit wants to fire an AK47, they go on holiday to Eastern Europe and fire one at a gun range in Bratislava or similar. They don't have to own one and take it on walks to the shopping mall.

3) Average American's don't actually own guns. 3% of Americans (i.e. 10million people) own half the guns ... i.e. 10 million people own 150 million guns. Fewer American's own guns than those that don't own guns. 

 

The fact that the 10 million American's cannot see what utter bull they're spouting, that shows the underlying issue. Education is crap for all but the elite in America, and there are some seriously paranoid people that think them owning lots of guns is the solution to the dystopian world they think they live in. We need:

1) fewer guns

2) better education

3) mental health

4) ban cable news that just has extremists spouting opionions like they're facts. 

 

 

Avatar
brooksby replied to velo-nh | 6 years ago
7 likes

velo-nh wrote:

The_Vermonter wrote:

The purpose of an automobile is not to kill when operated correctly. A gun is. An honest conversation about guns and their place in society can only be had when both sides are willing to talk without deliberately muddying the waters as you have here. 

You're not ready for that honest conversation yet because what you just said is completely dishonest.  Firearms are for hunting, target shooting, self defense, collecting, etc.  They have completely valid uses all the way to competition in the Olympics.  Yet you would muddy the conversation by saying the purpose is to kill.  They may be used that way, they may not.  There are very similar to automobiles in that way.

You can kill someone with a hammer, but we don’t ban hammers because their primary purpose is not as a weapon.

Javelins have a legitimate use in the Olympics etc, but walking down the street while carrying one is frowned upon in most societies.

Firearms are are a particular class of tools created and intended to kill, but skill at using them has been adopted or explained away as a type of sport. That doesn’t change the fact that their primary purpose is to kill (either animals or other humans).

Avatar
velo-nh replied to brooksby | 5 years ago
0 likes

brooksby wrote:

You can kill someone with a hammer, but we don’t ban hammers because their primary purpose is not as a weapon.

Yet you can go to prison for using a weapon if the hammer was the tool of your choice in a crime.

Quote:

Javelins have a legitimate use in the Olympics etc, but walking down the street while carrying one is frowned upon in most societies.

Not illegal, even if unusual.

Quote:

Firearms are are a particular class of tools created and intended to kill, but skill at using them has been adopted or explained away as a type of sport. That doesn’t change the fact that their primary purpose is to kill (either animals or other humans).

Won't someone think of the paper targets and clay disks?  So many lost before their time.  

Avatar
felixcat replied to velo-nh | 5 years ago
2 likes

velo-nh wrote:

 

Won't someone think of the paper targets and clay disks?  So many lost before their time.  

 

It must take a peculiar callous nature to be flippant so soon after the Parkland school massacre.

This is just the latest in a series.

It would take a very determined killer to murder seventeen children with a hammer.

Avatar
The_Vermonter | 6 years ago
1 like

Crazy how many saints are in this forum. The fear is that if more shops and individuals boycott brands like Giro, because they make up less than 20% of Vista's portfolio, they'll be sold or they'll fold. 

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
0 likes

I thought Lance was into shooting stuff?

Oh, that was his veins. 

Avatar
2old2mould | 6 years ago
5 likes

While I applaud this decision I also can't help chuckling at the irony of Lance Armstrong taking the moral high ground. Still, well done that man.

Pages

Latest Comments