| Change is needed when current measures are no | | | | event. This shows that sponsorship is not without |
| more showing affect. Change is also needed when | | | | risks: publicity around Michael lately was bad publicity |
| there is a continuous unsatisfying situation. Change | | | | for the sponsor. |
| also requires a first step. The first step is often set | | | | Last years' tour - "trivial pursuit - who won the tour |
| by a leader. A leader who is willing to change the | | | | the france in 2006," (1) -- has still no official winner. |
| situation, or at least who is willing to set a first step. | | | | And that is probably what the Rabobank wanted to |
| In this case the step is to dismiss a participant even | | | | avoid. |
| before he is found guilty of doping. | | | | By taking this decision the sponsor influences very |
| In case of the Tour it is the team (and the sponsor) | | | | much the tour as an important stakeholder. All the |
| who took a leadership decision. The Rabobank team | | | | more reasons that they shouldn't stop sponsoring the |
| decided to dismiss Michael Rasmussen, the so-far | | | | tour, especially after such a tough measure. It |
| tour-leader who didn't show up for random doping | | | | expresses another message to future team |
| controls and didn't tell the truth about his | | | | members: "this is a team effort and we don't want |
| whereabouts. It is against the rules. But that has not | | | | individuals spoil this." |
| influenced too much the decision of the Sponsor. | | | | The signal of the dismissal needs no interpretation: |
| A bank must show integrity, but in this case the | | | | "we want you to follow the rules," and this still |
| decision is more about influencing the tour-culture by | | | | includes no doping or not showing up when asked. |
| a sponsor. The tour-culture is hard heading to | | | | Only such measures will help survive a sporting event |
| become a doping theatre rather than a sporting | | | | with this proportions. |