Porn Pedallers Cycling Club lose British Cycling affiliation - because name falls foul of UCI regulations

froze wrote:

While I don't condone porn it isn't illegal either, which raises a question.  IF the club was named Beer Pedallers Cycling Club, would that be offensive? does it sound exclusive? is it illegal?  none, because I'm sure someone has a brand of beer cycling club somewhere; so ok, Porn Pedallers Cycling Club, well is porn illegal in Britian?  Obviously not, so if it isn't illegal just as beer isn't,  I don't see the problem with the name.  Is it a name I would give for a cycling club? no, but it isn't my club it's their club to name it however they feel fit as long as it's not racist, and last I checked porn is inclusive of all races.  Why did England get their feathers all ruffled up anyways?  they have more porn  activity in their TV shows then the USA has, but a cycling club can't have the word porn as their title?   Ok, that's just plain weird, especially when considering British humor. 

Just a quick point to head off any surfacing Anglophobia: the UCI is French, froze 

brooksby wrote:

Seriously, you'd think that the UCI would have better things to do than legislate on "acceptable team names"...

Like @awavey, I suspect it's the "Television X" sponsors logo rather than the team name that conflicts with the "brand of product" bit of the rule, though I'm not sure what a pornographic "bis" product is. (The first Google result for Television X shows it describes itself as "The Home of British Porn", so I don't think there's any doubt that it is a pornographic product.)

We could argue about whether just being porn is in itself enough that it would "damage the image of the UCI or the sport of cycling in general", but since the rule says "might damage" (emphasis mine), I think BC have to assume that the UCI could object.

armb wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Seriously, you'd think that the UCI would have better things to do than legislate on "acceptable team names"...

Like @awavey, I suspect it's the "Television X" sponsors logo rather than the team name that conflicts with the "brand of product" bit of the rule, though I'm not sure what a pornographic "bis" product is. (The first Google result for Television X shows it describes itself as "The Home of British Porn", so I don't think there's any doubt that it is a pornographic product.)

We could argue about whether just being porn is in itself enough that it would "damage the image of the UCI or the sport of cycling in general", but since the rule says "might damage" (emphasis mine), I think BC have to assume that the UCI could object.

 

1) Every sport has rules around what you can and cannot call a team. Partly to protect trademarks, partly to stop copycat team names whch might add confusion (People's Front of Judea CC vs Judean People's Front CC for example ) and partly just for fairly obvious reasons around keeping it reasonably tasteful. Same way that private number plates aren't allowed to spell rude words.

2) "Bis" signifies an addendum to an existing rule so when it gets changed they add in "bis".... and then the new text. It's a Latin prefix or suffix designating the second instance or addition of a thing.

crazy-legs wrote:

armb wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Seriously, you'd think that the UCI would have better things to do than legislate on "acceptable team names"...

Like @awavey, I suspect it's the "Television X" sponsors logo rather than the team name that conflicts with the "brand of product" bit of the rule, though I'm not sure what a pornographic "bis" product is. (The first Google result for Television X shows it describes itself as "The Home of British Porn", so I don't think there's any doubt that it is a pornographic product.)

We could argue about whether just being porn is in itself enough that it would "damage the image of the UCI or the sport of cycling in general", but since the rule says "might damage" (emphasis mine), I think BC have to assume that the UCI could object.

 

1) Every sport has rules around what you can and cannot call a team. Partly to protect trademarks, partly to stop copycat team names whch might add confusion (People's Front of Judea CC vs Judean People's Front CC for example ) and partly just for fairly obvious reasons around keeping it reasonably tasteful. Same way that private number plates aren't allowed to spell rude words.

2) "Bis" signifies an addendum to an existing rule so when it gets changed they add in "bis".... and then the new text. It's a Latin prefix or suffix designating the second instance or addition of a thing.

How is the word 'porn' in itself distateful, it isn't 'rude' nor is it graphic or offensive? And in any case 'porn' is just a shortened term for pornographic,'the depiction of erotic behavior in media intended to cause sexual excitement.

So, stuff that males and females do in the natural course of a relationship and having a crack at producing offspring.

It's total cock and bull.

Rapha Nadal wrote:

Who's the lady in the photos?  Asking for a friend, obviously...

"some of whom are award-winning porn stars"

What a terrible job, having to view all those predictable movies and then choose which ones get the awards!

Seriously, it might seem that BC are nit-picking but they can't really choose which UCI rules to ignore just because these lovely people apparently raise money for charity. Funny that the porn people see nothing wrong with their own line of work and this is all BC's fault.

So if it's all so fine and dandy then why are porn mags and videos not displayed at checkout tills in supermarkets? I'm sure every family would like a copy with their groceries, ideally with several to choose from. The shops could sell scratchcards (for charity?) where you could win a trip to a brothel, teenagers could get work experience making videos or more compassionate types could spend Friday nights with young women who have to work on street corners.

I can't see how affiliation makes any difference to their fundraising efforts but this concocted 'story' is absolutely brilliant clickbait for a load of cycling websites and social media.

Simon E wrote:

Rapha Nadal wrote:

Who's the lady in the photos?  Asking for a friend, obviously...

    

Funny that the porn people see nothing wrong with their own line of work and this is all BC's fault.

So if it's all so fine and dandy then why are porn mags and videos not displayed at checkout tills in supermarkets? I'm sure every family would like a copy with their groceries, ideally with several to choose from. The shops could sell scratchcards (for charity?) where you could win a trip to a brothel, teenagers could get work experience making videos or more compassionate types could spend Friday nights with young women who have to work on street corners.

What's wrong with their line of work? It's not yours, so why are you worried? Highly suspicious of those who rush to judgement. Did you clear your browser history before jumping on Mrs Whitehouse's bandwagon?

Your overreaction regarding sex and porn is entirely consistent with the faux moral outrage that still so easily whipped up in the UK on matters of sex and carnality. From one silly extreme to another.

And as has been pointed out elsewhere, it's not as if the UCI and BC have spotless ethical and moral reputations to maintain, do they?

hairyderriere wrote:

Your overreaction regarding sex and porn is entirely consistent with the faux moral outrage that still so easily whipped up in the UK on matters of sex and carnality. From one silly extreme to another.

And as has been pointed out elsewhere, it's not as if the UCI and BC have spotless ethical and moral reputations to maintain, do they?

Maybe those organisations are not spotless (try naming one that is) but they have rules. Would you like to go through the UCI rule book and mark the ones everyone can ignore?

Do you apply that principle to driving on the roads? Lots of people do, they decide which rules they can ignore and use twisted logic blame the rulemakers (e.g. speed cameras are cash cows, law-breaking drivers are the victims).

Regarding my supposed overreaction, that's a typical 1970s era male attitude - that it's all harmless, there are no victims, and us poor lads can't have a good laugh any more because some sanctimonious git always gets offended on behalf of some minority group. Perhaps if you pulled your head out of the sand and read about what really happens and the effects that stuff has on people then you might think differently.

This group can ride their bikes and fundraise without BC affiliation. I don't have to like what they do for a living and they don't have to care what I think. I'm certainly not outraged, I save that for more important things.

Simon E wrote:

This group can ride their bikes and fundraise without BC affiliation. I don't have to like what they do for a living and they don't have to care what I think. I'm certainly not outraged, I save that for more important things.

they can, but then they dont get the benefits of club insurance, or an easy way to manage membership, activities,entries, there are some benefits to being an affiliated club, just as there are for individuals.

But if they have no intention of racing or ever competing and are just entering sportives for fundraising, why should UCI rules which are clearly written mainly with pro and pro/am teams in mind ever apply to them ?

fwiw I dont think its the name of the club thats the issue necessarily, since its hard to see how its directly or indirectly related to any sponsorship rules, unless they claimed it was a commercial 3rd party sponsor organisation or something, but applications for club affilliations do involve you having to list all the logos on your club kit as sponsors, with a picture so they can be matched up, which obviously immediately then hits that sponsors rule square on.

Awavey wrote:

fwiw I dont think its the name of the club thats the issue necessarily, since its hard to see how its directly or indirectly related to any sponsorship rules, unless they claimed it was a commercial 3rd party sponsor organisation or something, but applications for club affilliations do involve you having to list all the logos on your club kit as sponsors, with a picture so they can be matched up, which obviously immediately then hits that sponsors rule square on.

I am guessing that having “Pascalssubsluts.com” as a shirt sponsor isn’t helpful in that respect.

Not sure what a subslut is? Perhaps it involves a Subway foot long Italian  BMT . 

Rapha Nadal wrote:

Who's the lady in the photos?  Asking for a friend, obviously...

*AHEM* Google 'fake female taxi *COUGH* .