Gravyyy wrote:
Nike should be able to do whatever they want considering their contributions to the sport.
Their contributions to sports consist of primarily drugs, cheating, and controversy.
Drugs: with one exception (Ben Johnson) and (according to a total of one person who lost to him in a big race) possibly Waldemar Cierpinski, PEDs=Nike. Have you ever seen a picture of Barry Bonds or Lance Armstrong when they were active in sports wearing anythin else? No, you haven't.
Cheating: Who won a WC Gold Medal in London by stepping on the inside of the track on a curve? Was he trying to take a shortcut, or was it accidental? Who cares, he broke a rule, although I prefer the blunt and succinct term 'cheated'. Funny that another shortcutter (American, also Nike-shod) got DQd during the same program, but not Mo, one of Nike's biggest poster boys. USATF letting in Nike athletes who hadn't met 10km standard (but not Diego Estrada, I know some of you remember that) and Salazar ducking into the official's tent at Indoor Nationals confirms that those who cheat prefer Nike. Or more significantly, Nike prefers those who cheat.
Controversy: Name anyone with a Y chromosome competing in a women's event. Name the shoe they wore. Breaking 2. Controversial, check. Nike, check.
What do you mean 'should be able to do whatever they want'? They already do whatever they want, the law (such as IP law in the case in question) notwithstanding.