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.

> 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.)

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.