So the NHRA decides to cave and screw over a popular driver over.... (2 Viewers)

[HEMI6point1]

Taken from Summer Richardson's instagram.

I don't get it. The NHRA allowed Penthouse back in 1999. Of course, that was before social media and the NHRA likely caved to a bunch of a-holes. Namely, the religious zealots, misogynists, the far-right-wingers, the "ban pr0n" crowd, the incels, the Red Pillers and women who look like the "before" picture on an extreme weight loss ad who like to ruin everything because they are jealous that men would rather look at someone like Summer than someone who looks like, well.... them. The NHRA really screwed this lady over simply because they would rather cave to these people.

 

[Jack]

Just read that the NHRA is not allowing her to use Only Fans as a sponsor on her A Fueler. So she will be sitting out this upcoming season. The interesting part is she's had them as a sponsor for the past two seasons and now the NHRA pulls the rug out from under her.. Reminds me of the Jim Dunn Penthouse days.

 

[JohnnyNitro]

I have often thought (wished) we had another sanctioning body to turn too. Like The "AHRA" back in the 60s & 70s. I respect the NHRA. But somehow I find myself feeling their (NHRA) missing it.?

 

[BOO BOO]

Unfortunately the NHRA has a history of screwing over ppl. You'll not here why or who made this decision . All you get is crickets.

 

[T.Smith]

Popular driver? I never heard of her.

Interesting hill to die on considering a good portion of the content on there is women getting screwed.

Also, Penthouse and Jim Dunn racing was over 25 years ago.

 

[stitcherbob]

Popular driver? I never heard of her.

Interesting hill to die on considering a good portion of the content on there is women getting screwed.

Also, Penthouse and Jim Dunn racing was over 25 years ago.

And Winston cigarettes were the sponsor..... times change. At least we got to keep the beer and add hard liquor

Times change. Not always for the better. Confederate flags banned from NASCAR, men allowed in women sports (and they didn't even get to have their "trans-Shirley"...) and so on

 

[camaro]

Popular driver? I never heard of her.

Interesting hill to die on considering a good portion of the content on there is women getting screwed.

Also, Penthouse and Jim Dunn racing was over 25 years ago.

this gets my vote for best "Irony" post

 

[Jack]

Popular driver? I never heard of her.

Interesting hill to die on considering a good portion of the content on there is women getting screwed.

Also, Penthouse and Jim Dunn racing was over 25 years ago.

So why was it fine with NHRA in 2023 and 2024 when they sponsored her?

 

[Jack]

Popular driver? I never heard of her.

Interesting hill to die on considering a good portion of the content on there is women getting screwed.

Also, Penthouse and Jim Dunn racing was over 25 years ago.

So why was it fine with NHRA in 2023 and 2024 when they sponsored her?

 

[T.Smith]

So why was it fine with NHRA in 2023 and 2024 when they sponsored her?

I have no idea, but just because it was fine, doesn't mean it was right.

 

[mick]

if a sports entertainment company advertises their product as family fun, then that's what it needs to be.
i'm going to bring my kid there, and he will leave not questioning what he saw and heard.
if a sports entertainment company advertises their product as R rated or worse, then i will not bring a youth to an event.

 

[Randy]

I have no idea, but just because it was fine, doesn't mean it was right.

Sometimes when my wife says "fine" that usually means it's not.

 

[65 Goatboy]

So why was it fine with NHRA in 2023 and 2024 when they sponsored her?

This is crazy. I never heard of OnlyFans so I googled it, it does have other content like musicians but it seems to be primarily for sexual content. No it doesn't seem approriate for a family oriented sport so for 2 years the Nhra had no idea what this sponsor was all about?!! Unbelievable.

 

[mgty3whlr]

NHRA banned it because they wouldn't be able to swoop in and make them an Official Whatever of the NHRA.

 

[Jack]

I have no idea, but just because it was fine, doesn't mean it was right.

Respect your argument but the NHRA has the professional responsibility to explain publicly why it was denied AFTER allowing it to exist for two years. Thus is a VERY different situation than just denying it to happen in the first place. By the way her car is very competitive in the TAD world. Surprised you had never heard of her.

 

[Joe]

And Winston cigarettes were the sponsor..... times change. At least we got to keep the beer and add hard liquor

Times change. Not always for the better. Confederate flags banned from NASCAR, men allowed in women sports (and they didn't even get to have their "trans-Shirley"...) and Confederste Battle flags fly outside the tracks.

 

[stoppro]

More secrets from NHRA cowards explain yourselves,this is way too late to ruin her season.Tell us who made the decision.I'm old an getting really tired of their BS and no explanations.

 

[65 Goatboy]

More secrets from NHRA cowards explain yourselves,this is way too late to ruin her season.Tell us who made the decision.I'm old an getting really tired of their BS and no explanations.

If your a motorsports fan I'm sure your aware of the big lawsuit going on in Nascar. Two of the top teams are suing Nascar for many of the same things the Nhra has been doing for years.

 

[DragFan2]

I'm betting quite likely that NHRA had no idea what the company OnlyFans was about over the last 2 years. They have many important details to stay on top of is my guess. Lame, but probably true.

 

[Greasemunk]

So let me make sure I have this clear: A completely legal, successful company that wishes to invest dollars into Drag Racing to support an up and coming racer (for a third consecutive year) is being banned from doing so because part of their business does not align with some kind of moral compass to protect the sport of drag racing from "bad influences"?

Yet they have allowed Cigarette and Tobacco advertising, Alcohol, Religious organizations, Proven fraudsters and convicted con men that have been proven to be far more physically and/ or financially harmful to the greater population than an online content service that allows consenting adults to purchase content of other consenting adults?

Right. Got it.

Anyone who is claiming the moral high ground on this is simply wrong. Did you run over with a blanket to protect the poor children's eyes from the Monster Girls, Skoal Girls or Miss Winston back in the day? do you avert your eyes whenever you see a backup girl in a short skirt and high boots? or are you already running to the meeting director to make a complaint?