Lew Buchanan Banned from UCI Racing Because of OnlyFans Sponsorship

jeff.brines wrote:

This thread is funny.  1) Anyone pretending a grom ripper would not otherwise discover porn if it weren't for Lewis and his OnlyFans sponsorship is lying...

This thread is funny. 

1) Anyone pretending a grom ripper would not otherwise discover porn if it weren't for Lewis and his OnlyFans sponsorship is lying to themselves or is a time traveler from 1981. The real threat to little Johnny discovering porn at too early of an age is...(checks notes)...The Internet. Everyone here can query more porn than mankind ever thought would be avalaible before you read the next sentence of this post and we all know OnlyFans is not the culprit of this. We need to stop pretending that a logo on a jersey is somehow the tipping point for children. 

2) I get the rule the UCI is enforcing, and I see it both ways. Ultimately, I feel the UCI wants to portray cycling in the same vein as polo, golf, tennis, and other forms of 'gentlemanly competition'. If Rolex is your aim, then OF might be the antithesis to this aim. I'm not saying I agree with this direction nor do I think it makes the most sense, but I am saying this is my feeling based on twenty five years scratching my head over "what kind of entity is the UCI"? 

3) IPO - Anyone saying the only way they can IPO is if they are more than just a porn platform has no idea what they are talking about. Playboy was public. Rick's Cabaret is still public. There are plenty of "vice" stocks that are public, in fact there are even vice ETFs (that do well in recessionary environments...though I'm not sure OF is recession proof) To add, the CEO has long stated he has no desire to go public, which I understand. Its a PITA to be public and they need no capital to continue on their trajectory. I imagine they will go public if rates fall significantly and valuations of this sort of cash flow creep up, but the aim to get Lew a sponsorship and growing "beyond porn" has nothing to do with IPO plans. 

4) Marketing of OF - I was still working in financial news when OF came out and said "no more porn". I called a spade a spade when this happened and guessed it was a publicity stunt. Turned out, I was right. Whoever the marketing person knows what they are doing. I'd wager sponsoring Lew has less to do with exposure the athlete is going to get "in the arena" and a lot more to do with the conversation they may evoke like this one. 

5) As someone else stated, we are a funny group here in the US of A. We will let big pharma advertise to children as soon as they can turn on the TV (Hmmm...maybe I am depressed! Lexapro here I come!), have next to no say in the political temperament of our educators, are totally fine with whatever sponsors end up on the side of a NASCAR stock car but then throw a fit if we hear about porn and a bike rider? Its so weird. 

My own opinion here is we should let riders attract whatever sponsors they want. Let it be a marketplace and let the riders decide who they do/don't want to represent. I am not convinced any of these sponsorships do a whole lot in the first place (unless its controversial or similar) so yeah..send it. Idiocracy is now and I'm here for it

veefour wrote:

As to point 2; are the UCI enforcing any rules pertaining to this? My understanding is that Stephan Garlicki signed a similar sponsorship deal with OnlyFans...

As to point 2; are the UCI enforcing any rules pertaining to this? My understanding is that Stephan Garlicki signed a similar sponsorship deal with OnlyFans, but is competing at WC races without issue.

Call me cynical, but I'd say Buchanan saying he's not allowed to race is probably more about his love of clickbait than anything else.

jeff.brines wrote:

This thread is funny.  1) Anyone pretending a grom ripper would not otherwise discover porn if it weren't for Lewis and his OnlyFans sponsorship is lying...

This thread is funny. 

1) Anyone pretending a grom ripper would not otherwise discover porn if it weren't for Lewis and his OnlyFans sponsorship is lying to themselves or is a time traveler from 1981. The real threat to little Johnny discovering porn at too early of an age is...(checks notes)...The Internet. Everyone here can query more porn than mankind ever thought would be avalaible before you read the next sentence of this post and we all know OnlyFans is not the culprit of this. We need to stop pretending that a logo on a jersey is somehow the tipping point for children. 

2) I get the rule the UCI is enforcing, and I see it both ways. Ultimately, I feel the UCI wants to portray cycling in the same vein as polo, golf, tennis, and other forms of 'gentlemanly competition'. If Rolex is your aim, then OF might be the antithesis to this aim. I'm not saying I agree with this direction nor do I think it makes the most sense, but I am saying this is my feeling based on twenty five years scratching my head over "what kind of entity is the UCI"? 

3) IPO - Anyone saying the only way they can IPO is if they are more than just a porn platform has no idea what they are talking about. Playboy was public. Rick's Cabaret is still public. There are plenty of "vice" stocks that are public, in fact there are even vice ETFs (that do well in recessionary environments...though I'm not sure OF is recession proof) To add, the CEO has long stated he has no desire to go public, which I understand. Its a PITA to be public and they need no capital to continue on their trajectory. I imagine they will go public if rates fall significantly and valuations of this sort of cash flow creep up, but the aim to get Lew a sponsorship and growing "beyond porn" has nothing to do with IPO plans. 

4) Marketing of OF - I was still working in financial news when OF came out and said "no more porn". I called a spade a spade when this happened and guessed it was a publicity stunt. Turned out, I was right. Whoever the marketing person knows what they are doing. I'd wager sponsoring Lew has less to do with exposure the athlete is going to get "in the arena" and a lot more to do with the conversation they may evoke like this one. 

5) As someone else stated, we are a funny group here in the US of A. We will let big pharma advertise to children as soon as they can turn on the TV (Hmmm...maybe I am depressed! Lexapro here I come!), have next to no say in the political temperament of our educators, are totally fine with whatever sponsors end up on the side of a NASCAR stock car but then throw a fit if we hear about porn and a bike rider? Its so weird. 

My own opinion here is we should let riders attract whatever sponsors they want. Let it be a marketplace and let the riders decide who they do/don't want to represent. I am not convinced any of these sponsorships do a whole lot in the first place (unless its controversial or similar) so yeah..send it. Idiocracy is now and I'm here for it

veefour wrote:

As to point 2; are the UCI enforcing any rules pertaining to this? My understanding is that Stephan Garlicki signed a similar sponsorship deal with OnlyFans...

As to point 2; are the UCI enforcing any rules pertaining to this? My understanding is that Stephan Garlicki signed a similar sponsorship deal with OnlyFans, but is competing at WC races without issue.

Call me cynical, but I'd say Buchanan saying he's not allowed to race is probably more about his love of clickbait than anything else.

veefour wrote:

As to point 2; are the UCI enforcing any rules pertaining to this? My understanding is that Stephan Garlicki signed a similar sponsorship deal with OnlyFans...

As to point 2; are the UCI enforcing any rules pertaining to this? My understanding is that Stephan Garlicki signed a similar sponsorship deal with OnlyFans, but is competing at WC races without issue.

Call me cynical, but I'd say Buchanan saying he's not allowed to race is probably more about his love of clickbait than anything else.