Lew Buchanan Banned from UCI Racing Because of OnlyFans Sponsorship

He has a point, technically his sponsor here is merely a platform for users to share whatever they like. It is strongly associated with the kinds of products and services the UCI doesn't allow, but itself is essentially just social media. I think the UCI should reverse this decision, it sets a precedent that will make a lot of large companies wary of investing in riders as advertising space (think TikTok, Twitter, YouTube, etc.).

Imagine this with his face.

I think the biggest issue is due to OnlyFans being primarily a porn website. At least initially. Now they're trying to just turn it into a video/media platform like Youtube. The porn stigma is still there and that's the root of the problem. I can't imagine he wasn't aware of the potential controversy when he decided to accept the OnlyFans sponsorship.

I have my doubts that they're really trying to change it into anything other than a porn website. There's so much association of "OnlyFans" with porn that it might be an unshakable reputation. Think of the skepticism you would receive while explaining to your boss that the OF pages in your browser history, or to your spouse that the OF charges on your credit card are just you watching mountain bike vlogs. You would think that if OnlyFans really wanted to appeal outside of porn, they would offer a separate platform free of the baggage. 

It might sound conspiracy-brained (but with guerilla marketing being a real and prevalent thing, it's not unheard-of), but I think it's pretty believable that OnlyFans is using more palatable content to lure potential porn consumers to its site. The porn creators far outweigh the people doing SFW content; if Lew is worth all that to OF, they must believe that people will consume more than just his content — and there aren't that many more mountain bikers to subscribe to. OnlyFans marketers likely see him as a gateway drug of sorts for a mostly male audience to get on their site.

I don't think the UCI is entirely wrong here, and I think Lew Buchannan is just a patsy.

There is nothing new here. Any CMO would do the same. Its not about what OnlyFans 'technically' is, but what it is 'perceived' to be. UCI is making a hard choice, but associating itself with something that is perceived that way is clearly challenging. Riders are sponsored as a marketing tool, representing the brand they are sponsored by. They need to think carefully about who they choose and what perceptions they actively choose to be associated with.

What is so bad about adult entertainment that UCI cannot be assosiated with it (especially just by having a contestant having a website that has porn as a sponsor). Its not like porn is illegal or evil or is that how its seen in the US? Where I live it is very normal for adults to consume porn so i dont really get it. Its not like he is sponsored by a website promoting violence, drug abuse or terrorism etc. Seems very narrow minded and fundamentalistic to me.

Not really. Feld Motorsports, who promotes Supercross and Motocross, have no problems with Logan Karnow being sponsored by Onlyfans. Trust me there are WAY more eyes on Supercross than anything the UCI does in MTB.

I think he hit on the issue when he noted that we are in the 21st Century.  The UCI is always a few centuries behind.  It's a shame that they took an interest in mountain biking.  They've taken away a lot, and added nothing.

Porn is a destructive thing, and while that’s traditionally been perceived as a traditional Christian view, the truth seems to be emerging in pop culture that it really does warp people’s perceptions of relationships and can cause serious psychological harm and addictions. Not to mention the exploitative nature of the content itself. It can really destroy relationships as well. No wife or girlfriend I’ve ever had was okay with me watching the stuff, and I seriously doubt many are actually ok with it, many probably tolerate it. Pragmatically—exploring porn on the internet is a good way to get yourself into trouble with hackers and viruses. They specifically target user of this kind of content because they tend to be impulsive and easily manipulated. 

And that right there is my argument. The two of you riffing on this illustrates the problem.

When a brand is trying to build market share, why would it associate itself to something that alienates a good portion of its audience. Its crazy to think this would end well and doesnt look good on Lewis. Best he can do here is step away from OnlyFans and find another sponsor. Im sure he wants people to remember him as a greater rider, not the guy sponsored by OnlyFans.

Maybe some of this still goes on in moto and other brands for that matter. But thankfully most progressive CMO's are smart enough to stay away from these kinds of associations. And I don't buy that it is socially acceptable but an entire geographical area either. Sure, you are your friends might be OK with it, but go and ask parents, teachers . . . hell, even women in general. 

If OnlyFans was best known for men portraying women, as opposed to women portraying women, Buchanan would be being celebrated. Double Standard.

Seems like clickbait. Was he "banned" from racing? Or was he told that he wouldn't be allowed to represent aforementioned sponsor while attending races? He could still go racing without their logo, no? 

I don't think it's at all conspiracy theory of you. It's what I have been thinking for a while. I'm sure some marketing person at Only Fans was like, our main users are male, what else is also male dominated, mountain biking & motocross. Let's grt our name out there in front of potential customers whilst framing it as rebranding.

And Lewis is getting exactly what he wants to from all of this, he had slipped off the radar before Only Fans, now people are talking about him.

OnlyFans have been trying to change for a while and even announced a ban on adult content at one point.  The backlash was so quick and loud that they had to reverse the decision.  Their quest is not altruistic though, they want an IPO and the only way they will get it is by breaking the association with adult content.

Back to the subject of LB specifically, the UCI is headed by a bunch of rich white guys (I am one as well) who are embarrassed/upset by women taking control of their sexuality(I am not one of those).  The historical problem with porn is not the sexuality, it is the exploitation by men of women. 

OnlyFans allows women to use their sexuality for their own benefit and eliminates the exploitation portion of porn.  This should be celebrated instead of scorned by the establishment IMO.  This decision reeks of the outdated concept that any sexual act is bad and especially those acts where women are in control.

Exactly! It's clickbait. Would anyone be talking about lew if he released a biking shredit or vlog? This is the equivalent of a soap opera: "Stay tuned for todays episode of days of our mountain biking lives where lewis finds out he is banned from racing and swears to avenge his honor before he finds out that he is the father of katorina's soon to be born twins!!!!"  

Can't find any follow up articles to see if it was a problem but xhamster sponsored Promosport Racing for XC and DH back in 2016. 

Yes but that was a local team of people doing some local and national races in Italy, probably most people didn't even know (source: I joined that team a year later as it was based closed to home). 

I couldn’t care less about of.  It’s certainly much more above aboard than plenty of alternatives.  But like any porn site it’s also used by exploitative people, impossible to perfectly moderate, and it’s going to be controversial even Among open minded individuals while others will never be willing to weigh in if the sites benefits to sex workers outweighs inherent flaws to sex work.  

but they are a porn site that allows users to do other things.  Their marketing for anything is equally marketing for their porn.  And I assume their one time move away from porn was a publicity stunt.  Or they realized they’d become completely wiped out as a company without it.  But realistically Lewis and others are getting paid with marketing funds from a porn company wether they are asked to produce porn or not.

I really can’t blame any sponsor, event organizer, etc for not wanting to associate with of despite the fact I have no issue with them.

UCI is a fun police and will ban fun things.

If the product of the sponsor harms the body, like cigarretes or alcoholic beverages, fine, ban it;

Why wouldn’t OF have have an off shoot under a different name?

Lew is a cock anyway.

I'll be accepting sponsorship applications on my new site onlyfans.lol

I wonder how many times a fan has seen a sponsor logo on a riders helmet or kit and wondered,  Hmm. what does that company do.  Lets see what google says??   Pretty sure there aren't many people on this site that are ok with the youngest fans watching elite riders googling this sponsor to see what its all about.  Do a little experiment.  When WC is back on pay attention. see how young the youngest fans are.

Uci has made the right choice.

really??  Wasn't aware of that. fare call.  Do they still sponsor though??

 do think banning is a bit much. No issue with a non naming sponsor. I can't see a problem with him appearing on onlyfans advertisement at their evenst on their site, and even their being adults only representation at mtb events like after parties etc.  just not a logo on his kit

Serious question, is it ok that Neko has a Dale's Pale Ale sponsorship?  Shoule parents object because kids could research what Dale's Pale Ale is and maybe later become alcoholics?  

This response is going to sound patronizing. It is not meant to be  text is not a great medium.  Exposure to alcohol (images, watching others) does not cause alcoholism. There are other environmental and  genetic factors that contribute to alcoholism.  Early (and excessive) access to porn does cause problems with relationships sexual performance expectations within relationships. There is lots of evidence to back this there is also plenty of research to back up comment about alcoholism. So simply put, a logo for a beer on a helmet, and a kid looking it up will not cause alcoholism, however the dopamine flood of looking at some girls ponanny getting stuffed with a cucumber will cause kids problems.  Not against porn  adults should be able to make the choice to look at it.

I understand your point and i'm not really defending either side but I could argue that Neko's helmet sponsor could be much more destructive than Lew's OF sponsorship.  OF is a paywall site, no kid who decides to look up OF is going to see a ponanny getting stuffed with a cucumber unless they steal their parents credit card, but they can steal a can of their parents Dales out of the refrigerator.   As you already noted, alcohol is a physical addiction and is much harder to stop than something like porn addiction, so shouldn't we have much strickter regulation on it's marketing?  

Yep. thats the theory.  Kids these days have a very different life than i did growing up.  Athletes are role models anyway you slice it.  Little rippers look up to them and unfortunately there are kids out there without great parents who make sure they cannot access this stuff.

No. i can't agree with the addiction comment.  Both are physical.  A 12 year old stealing a beer or 2 will not cause any issue.  There is a risk o future addiction issues if a person is having a beer at an early age but no guarantee.   Equally, early exposure to porn has it's issues as i mentioned before, however the difference for me is if my kids sneak a beer they will learn what it tastes like and i will be more careful with how i store my beer in the future. If the get online and see something i don't want them to see everything changes.  There is a vast difference between the 2 for kids.   If it was just about adults,  all good. adults can make a choice.