British canoeist 'forced to choose between Olympics and OnlyFans' | Hacker News Reader

British canoeist 'forced to choose between Olympics and OnlyFans'

bbc.com

39 pointsTMWNN24 comments

As if the olympics wasnt struggling enough to connect with the world and stay relevant, they're deciding it is time to alienate even more people on moral grounds that signal clearly that if you aren't rich and connected the olympics aren't for you. How does that align woth it being a sports event for everyday people (in name at least, even if not in spirit for a long time now)?

I think we'll see the end of the olympics before the turn on the century.

Thats the thing though, just about every athlete you hear of these days is very much in the rich and/or connected realm of things. Make no surprise its why it can be painful to see politicians fighting tooth and nail for some of them, while ignoring basic plights of the very same demographics they'll pretend to be caring for in their athletic politics.

In the Netherlands athletes are not rich but they do get support from the state who is rich. The Olympics is dominated by countries with money and always has been.

In the Netherlands athletes are not rich but they do get support from the state who is rich

Same in the UK, but according to the article, the support is nowhere near enough to cover all the actual costs of his training, hence the OnlyFans.

You know what would be great? If there was an Olympics where anyone could sign up but you were only allowed to compete if you've never won an event or participated in any official competition in that sport. I'd love to see an actual Olympics for the masses. I think it'd be fun!

I'd love it to be a civic duty thing that all able bodied adults each country are eligible for. Each Olympics, a group of 100 random adults from each country are picked and sent to the Olympics.

It would be cool to see how each country compares athletically using random samples, but also would encourage everyone to stay fit. Who wants to be picked only to fail to complete a 50 meter swim on the international stage while representing your country?

It’s more likely that people will be selected by the countries based on some fitness criteria that is obscured from the Olympics governance machinery so as to simply make an impression that they’re selecting random people, whereas in fact they’re not.

Once you exclude enough people from the balot using exemptions like "bad feet", you'll randomly pick within the fitest in your able bodied adults and it won't mean what you actually wished for.

If this happens, I imagine some events would get "anonymous mode", where you don't get to go on-stage, but never have to tell anyone your name either. And major sport teams wanting to qualify a new player would have secret ratings, not shared with any public or Olympic committee.

I will bet 1 BTC that the Olympics will still exist in 100 years.

I'd say BTC has worse chances of surviving 100 years.

What if the Olympics are suspended in 100 years, as they were in 1940 and 1944?

And I'm willing to bet you 2 BTC that OnlyFans will not.

Some "firsthand" experience. So I happen to follow a canoeing guy on OnlyFans and on Instagram. He doesn't actually post anything dirty or so, mostly covered nudity on OF, completely nice and fair, chill guy, on IG.

And with this submission I realised it's the same guy! I've heard about the affair, but didn't connect the dots.

I fully support his move, if this is what it takes to get funding, then it's fine (and it's a sign the system is broken).

PS That's just a throwaway account, unfortunately

"PaddleUK say Rozentals' ban is not disciplinary action, but an "interim action" and a "neutral act designed to protect all parties" and to "safeguard other athletes, staff, and volunteers due to the nature of the allegation".

"The investigation has been referred to independent investigation service Sport Integrity," the governing body said.

It added: "Paddle UK is committed to ensuring a safe and open environment for all, and interim action under the Athlete Disciplinary Policy is only taken where necessary and proportionate."

How brainlessly tedious, mealy mouthed and empty this kind of twaddle sounds, especially when it's constantly used by utterly hypocritical, mendacious or simply cowardly organizations and corporations in justifying, without genuine communication, some latest bit of corporate moral diarrhea they've shat all over the place.

> He says he has earned more than £100,000 since creating his OnlyFans account in January.

God damn

By the letter of the contract, it's an open-and-shut case in the team's favor: "Indecent, offensive or immoral behaviour" is a bannable offense. The article doesn't mention how spicy his OnlyFans account is, but I'm assuming his OF content is such that it would be hard to argue it doesn't qualify as "indecent" or "immoral." [1] [2]

If the player has a case, I'd think it would stem from legal limits on the extent to which an organization's people are allowed to contractually sign away their rights to engage in "immoral" behavior when "off the clock."

Under what circumstances is an organization allowed to impose its notions of "morality" on its people when they're "off the clock"?

To me, part of the question is whether you're using the organization's resources or branding. If the OnlyFans channel mentions the Olympics or his team by name, or uses its logos, or he makes videos during the times he's officially "on the clock" for training, my instinct is that they have every right to object.

But if he's using his own name, or a pseudonym, staying "off the clock" and not displaying any Olympics or team branding, it's less clear.

(Thought experiment: If LeBron James started an OF side hustle, would / should the NBA be allowed to come down on him? If your answer's different from this case, what makes the situations different?)

He's a sympathetic character -- they tell people "You need a ton of money to compete here" [3] so he says "Well that sucks, my family isn't rich, I don't really have the skills or free time to get a job at FAANG, but I guess I can hustle the money on OF" and then they suspend him for doing it -- but he's only doing it trying to get through the obstacles they created.

(OTOH, if a bunch of skilled but poor athletes started taking the same path, would it damage the Olympics brand if people started to think "The Olympics? You mean those sports teams where the players all sell their bodies online to pay their team dues?")

[1] This seems super vague. If you and I sign a contract that has a clause saying you won't engage in offensive behavior, if I want out of the contract I can always trap you by, say, walking through a doorway at the same time as you do. If you don't hold the door for me, that's offensive behavior -- you let it slam into my face, you impolite uncultured swine! If you do hold the door for me, that's offensive behavior -- it's clearly a form of gendered violence and sexual harrassment, you sick perverted swine! No matter what you do I can always claim your actions were "offensive" or "immoral," so I can get out of the contract, and hit you for breach-of-contract penalties to boot.

[2] If a contract forbids you from "indecent" behavior, does that mean you can't engage in any form of sexual activity whatsoever for the duration of the contract?

[3] To me, this seems counter to the spirit of the Games. I always thought the Olympics were supposed to be a contest for amateur competitors -- but most of the teams seem to be professionalized outfits with very expensive training. (I know very little about sports.)

> The article doesn't mention how spicy his OnlyFans account is, but I'm assuming his OF content is such that it would be hard to argue it doesn't qualify as "indecent" or "immoral."

What is indecent or immoral is almost entirely subjective. Some cultures approve of cannabalism. Some do not see breasts as sexual. Some see sex as a rite and something to acheive. Some see dominance as moral (i.e. only the strong shall lead). Random murder is the closest society has come to an universal moral, even then, what seems random could be killings to save face for the family.

Morality is exceptionally tricky at the global scale. The Olympics body is imposing their morals, not everyone's morals.

It's the UK sport association for his sport limiting an athlete in England, so English law and morals are relevant here.

Prostitution is legal and a crown protected profession in the UK. Thus the law says it is neither indecent nor immoral.

You'll find the judgement of what is moral exceptionally broad in such a country.

You are mixing very distinct fields of judicature, this case would, in all likelihood, not fall under labor law provisions that would consider things such as 'harming an employer's image' and somesuch.

I assume that in this case, from a contract law perspective, due to the unspecified terms in the contract, a civil court would do a simple balancing of interests under purview of the contact clauses and with respect to the unequal power relation between the stipend provider and the stipend holder.

Under the legal system I am familiar with, which is not common law based, he would probably have a solid case.

> but I'm assuming his OF content is such that it would be hard to argue it doesn't qualify as "indecent" or "immoral."

Don't just assume that. There's lots of organisations with very strict views on behaviours, especially in sports. Ronnie O'Sullivan got fined for playing snooker without shoes for a few minutes for example. Or again for an untucked shirt.

I think the GP agrees, but you're getting tangled up in the triple-negative.

> Under what circumstances is an organization allowed to impose its notions of "morality" on its people when they're "off the clock"?

It depends. If the activities would harm the reputation of the employer, or are criminal, the employer can often terminate their employment. Depends on UK law, but that's a common rule.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com