Blackballed from Road Runner Sports

TROLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!

Why even start this thread? You admit you took advantage of a program by abusing it - you wore the shoes for the maximum period of time you could to fit under the return guidelines and then returned them. Being conservative at $80 per shoe and multiplying that by 40 is $3200 that RRS lost because they could not resell the shoe you returned. They ate that, but not really since it is shared by the rest of us (at least those who shop at RRS)in higher costs for goods.

I could care less what your PR is, that you ran at DIII, or that you are poor. The point of the policy is not for purchasers to wear a pair of shoes and then for no other reason such as defect or ill-fitting, return them to RRS. You are stupid and if this is how you believe consumerism works you will have a hard time in the real world. You are not being cheap, you are being stupid. Obviously going to a DIII school did nothing to educate you nor apparently did your parents do a particularly good job of teaching you ethics when you were growing up. I can imagine you and dad sitting there eating your pizza and then getting halfway done and taking it back saying it "tasted funny" or I'll bet you purchase a latte at Starbucks, drink it or hand it to a friend and come back saying you dropped it - outside so they would give you a new one.

You truly are pathetic.

Don't they sell these at their outlet in Carlsbad?

Didn't someone post the exact same thread a couple of months ago?

No, that thread was about how his roommates' habit of returning shoes got him blacklisted.

I applaud Ruby for his efforts and success for the last four years and 40 pairs of running shoes. I know some of you runners are suedo-hippies out there and this guy stuck it to the man! you should be hoisting him up on your shoulders and following his example! What's with the 45 day return policy? seriously, who needs 45 days to figure out their shoes don't fit? Does anybody really know what they do with the shoes that get returned?? I don't. But if I was in charge I would at least donate those shoes and get a huge tax write-off! so in a sense, everybody is a winner: Ruby, Road Runner, and the dude who gets donated shoes! Obviously, Road Runner wouldn't have this policy if it didn't benefit them somehow. they know people will take advantage of it, that's why they have safe guards in place. Oh, and Ruby? kudos on requesting your 10$ membership fee back!

Very decent of the rep. What I question is, did RRS give you any sort of warning beforehand? The way I figure it, you were only sending back 7 or 8 pairs per year. I assume you were buying the same number. If you weren't, then you deserved to get the axe.

No it's not, and if it is, then I say the hell with it. Many retailers (Nordstrom most notably) have built up goodwill by offering this liberal return policy, and RRS was following suit. But there microscopic fine-print to this policy, viz., you will not make an ass of yourself and play the retailer for a fool.

They sold you a used pair of Elites? Or you mean you did a few strides in 'em, now they're used? Perhaps you can sell them on eBay!

Boy Wonder, why reply to a thread like this if you find it so ridiculous? Probably because you DO care, you want your voice (or your rantings) to be heard, but the entire premise of your diatribe is based on conjecture and emotion…is this how arguments are won in the‘real world’, or your version of it? How does consumerism work? There is nothing inherently unethical about taking advantage of a weak policy… (that being said, I doubt the ageless argument over right and wrong is gonna get solved on letsrun). But legally I didn’t do anything wrong. No government watchdog agency is gonna be busting down my door anytime soon. The reason I posted was because I thought it was a funny story and slightly running related.

You attack my intelligence and my DIII education and I admit, I’m no Rhodes Scholar, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you aren’t either if you actually think that Road Runner is out 3200$. One can easily assume that they are getting their shoes at cost…so now we’re down to 1600$. And how about that membership fee that went from 20$ to 50$? If there return policy was truly based on good-will…then (a) don’t charge me money to participate and (b) don’t advertise it like a selling point. Maybe I do have a bad case of ‘stick-it-to-the-man-it is’ but I’m not alone. Check out sites like Fatwallet.com and slickdeals.net, but be warned…your head might explode with all that pent-up rage towards those unethical, pathetic-latte-sippin, stupid-pizza stealin mofos.

Basically, the second a company charges money (esp. for a membership fee), the sense of entitlement for the consumer goes through the roof. Or is that not how consumerism works? It's just so damn confusing.

On an interesting side-note, Road Runner Sports opened up a chain store 1 block away from Super Jock n Jill’s 30 year old running store. The 80 million dollar catalog giant is trying to take down one of Seattle’s greatest runner friendly establishments…in my mind, all the more reason to take RRS for every penny I can.

A college teammate of mine had a habit of paying for one pair of Nike Structures (no idea why he went for such clodhoppers) at Footlocker (back when they used to stock a decent selection of running shoes) and then parlay that into several more free pairs by returning them after he'd worn them out, claiming that they were defective or something. I guess Footlocker had some kind of guarantee on the shoes they sold. More power to him, I didn't have the nads to try to pull that off.

I agree with the person who said that a 45-day no-questions-asked return policy is way too liberal, RRS is stupid for letting people do that just by paying the VIP membership fee. This shows their greed, though, because they're obviously not losing money through the VIP club offers, they know that 99% of users aren't smart enough or are too loyal or Flandersesque to figure out how to abuse it and they know that <50% will use it enough to really save much in their purchases. 10-20 days max is all that should be needed and that would cut out almost all potential abuse. Ruby's smart for exploiting this loophole, most decent distance runners can completely wear down a good pair of trainers in six weeks or less, just like you can bet that RRS is smart enough to exploit loopholes in tax law if they can. Too bad he got caught at it, RRS deserves to have it stuck to them for their ethically questionable business practices and besides they can pretty easily absorb the loss.

Maybe this is a dumb question, but why do any of buy shoes online? Wouldn't our money be better spent at the brick-and-mortar, mom-a-pop neighborhood running stores with knowledgeable and helpful customer service? Assuming such places still exist, why aren't we spending a little more money for shoes there?

It wasn't long ago Runner's World got some angry mail from independent running store owners after the mag suggested trying on shoes at an indie retailer but buying them online. Of course, RW could afford to piss off those folks. They are too small and local to advertise in the mag. RRS and Zappos advertise in RW.

The indies, which sponsor local races and running clubs, and can afford to advertise -- the ones struggling to stay in business despite the predatory online Walmart-like shoe shillers of the world -- advertise in local and regional running magazines. You know, the ones that actually publish local race results; results that might include your name, Ruby. They are also the only mags that will ever be interested in printing your ugly DIII mug mid stride.

Ruby, you just said you there was a good, 30-year-old local running store near you. I don't care how cheap you are, you should be ashamed of yourself, not for ripping off RRS, but for failing to support your own running community.

Nobody put a gun to your head and made you buy shoes with a credit card dickhead.

rubyinflames wrote:

But you did try to save a couple of bucks wherever you could. The 'screwing other people' part is a matter of interpretation...I don't think what I did was wrong. The policy was there to lure people into buying their shoes...just like credit cards lure people in to use their services...so they can screw you on other side of the transaction.

I'm not super surprised they banned me...I'm just surprised that after 4.5 years my gravy train has come to an end.

I also buy children's tickets when I go to the movie theatre. I guess I am just a poor bastard. But I'm not a cyclist or a triathageek...i'm a runner...and proud of it's low cost participation fee

I don't like RRS, I quit buying from them a long time ago and now I buy only stuff online (at Zappos, Eastbay, or eBay) that I can't find at my preferred local running store. I haven' bought from RRS in years, but their dang catalogs just keep on coming. However, where I used to live (BFE), there was NO running store (only Just For Feet and Footlocker and Champs and etc.) within a 4-hour drive, and I wasn't about to burn through a tank of gas just to go give some business to a "neighborhood running store", so I shopped Holabird, RRS, Eastbay, etc. If I'd known back then about a way to do something like Ruby did, I might've. However, I don't think I ever paid much more than $40 for a pair of shoes, just by shopping around looking for closeouts on shoes I liked.

[quote]rubyisaflamer wrote:

Nobody put a gun to your head and made you buy shoes with a credit card dickhead.[quote]rubyinflames wrote:

Huh? It was an analogy that I was using in order to...nevermind

I love all of the hypocrites on this thread. Ever heard of cast the first stone fellas? Dont try to tell me you've never connected to a wireless inernet conection that wasnt yours or taken an extra soap/shampoo from a a hotel or written something off on your taxes that wasnt TRULY buisness related or how bout lived in a country that exploits much of the rest of the world? Its SO easy to sit back and rag on Ruby, but really the guy is just tryin to get his like everyone else. What he did was certainly legal and ethical if you ask me. Way to ride that gravy wave Ruby. Good luck with the running.

Ruby, you're the bomb diggity man. Though I'm nervous now because I'm afraid I'm going to receive that call. And for all you posters, I sure hope you've never downloaded any music off limewire, napster or kazaa because you're not supporting the artist! Or, for you college students, you better pay full price at your bookstore because if you order off of half.com or buy them used, you're not supporting your college AND you're screwing the writer of the book. So suck it up, and spend all that money that college students have.

You are an absolute loser and your logic is terrible. Just because someone may have also done something unethical in no way has any effect on the actions of Ruby the Tool. What he did is the same as stealing in my book.

I don't.

Captain Positive wrote:

You are an absolute loser and your logic is terrible. Just because someone may have also done something unethical in no way has any effect on the actions of Ruby the Tool. What he did is the same as stealing in my book.

Ah, but your book isn't the law book. So it doesn't matter what he did in your book. Other than to you.