Indeed, two prominent sponsors, Phonak and Liberty Mutual, are cutting their cycling ties, and the Tour’s German TV carrier, ZDF, has threatened to yank the race.

But perhaps more damaging to the sport is not losing sponsors already in place but rather failing to attract new ones not usually associated with cycling, such as new media companies or toothpaste makers.

With Landis’ unlikely victory two weeks ago, cycling, a sport with few mainstream sponsors, seemed poised for an infusion of new sponsors, much like NASCAR saw a few years back. Now many of those brands likely will put their dollars elsewhere.

“I think for a sport like cycling that really hangs out on the edges of mainstream sponsorship, the bigger losses are those non-endemic sponsors to the sport that will choose not to enter at all,” says Paul Swangard, managing director of the James H. Warsaw Sports Marketing Center at the University of Oregon. “When those brands come in, it shows how healthy the sport is.”

Those already involved with the sport may be inclined to ride out the latest furor. After all, cycling has faced doping problems before.

But when the CEO of a company that had been considering aligning itself for the first time with the Tour sees the recent headlines, he may call off the buy. As a new venture, cycling just doesn’t make sense when other small-sports sponsorships like the X Games, minor league soccer or lacrosse are available without the taint of doping.

“The Tour will survive. Other races will go on. The sport won’t come to a screeching halt. But I don’t know how it’s going to bring in new sponsors,” OLN cycling commentator Frankie Andreu told The Oregonian newspaper.

At the same time, it’s hard to imagine many more of the current sponsors defecting, even as new ones become wary.

Even Phonak did not cite doping when it rode away. Instead, the hearing aid company said earlier this year that it was dropping its team because the sponsorship was not delivering good returns. People erroneously assumed that Phonak was a bike company, and it decided branding efforts would be better concentrated elsewhere.

Current cycling sponsors know quite well that the sport is inextricably entwined with doping. Some are smaller companies that can’t afford the bigger sponsorships of the NFL or NBA, which are dominated by Nike, Coca-Cola or Adidas. Others are cycling-specific brands, such as Mavic, which makes bike components, that would not benefit from leaving the sport even if it is tainted.

Rather than leave, several sponsors, including T-Mobile, Gerolsteiner and Team Milram, have agreed to help fund stricter dope testing to actively fight the problem.

“When it happens once, it’s an anomaly. When it happens every year, it becomes your identity, and that’s not good,” says Scott Becher, president of Sports & Sponsorships, a Hollywood, Fla.-based sports marketing agency. “[But] in terms of quantifying [how many sponsors will be lost], that’s just hyperbole. Nobody knows.”

Finally, while Landis’ case is certainly the highest-profile doping case in recent years, it’s hardly the only one. The U.S. media has jumped on it because he is an American, but the reaction in the rest of the world, notably France, has been more muted.

Though Swangard and Becher point out that sponsors don’t want their names associated with dirty sports, the public’s reaction to such scandals is not always strong. In 1998, when the Festina Tour team endured its worst-ever doping scandal, the watch company earned its highest revenues ever. And baseball is thriving despite its steroid problem.

“I think when you’re dealing with issues like this, some sponsors see it as the sport’s issue. It’s not close enough to have an impact on them,” says Chris Caldwell, vice president of Velocity Sports and Entertainment. "Others look at it negatively."