I've often heard that it's better for kids to live in a stable home with divorced parents than it is to live in a broken home with parents that fight all of the time.

Nobody knows the details and subtilties that led up to Armstrong's divorce excpet him and his ex-wife. For anyone to say that it's all Lance's fault because he decided to "go Hollywood" is complete hogwash.

So this thread is still active but not about topic?

I don't know what is best for children, but I think I've become quite normal person and my parents divorce hasn't afftected me much. I think Lance's children won't suffer from their parents divorce either.

__________________
Pain is just weakness leaving the body.

Read and learn.

http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/en...111000008.html

It is well known in Austin that your hero was a serial adulterer. Apparently at least one young lady in San Fran found out as well.

Let me guess your response: "There is no proof". Ignore the fact the the Andre Aggasi fundraiser he met Shery Crow at was before his divorce.

You seem to be having a little trouble making up your mind as accented by the underlines.

You've grown a bit beyond normal bitterness over the situation and Armstrong seems to be your outlet. I'd suggest you seek some professional help.

No, that's not my response. Why would you say Armstrong is my hero out of curiousity? Talk about jumping to conclusions!

Incedently, just because he met Crow at a fundraiser before he was divorced doesn't mean that he was sleeping with her. I met my wife years before we started dating and eventually ended-up getting married.

In my opinion it's the "anti-Armstrong" people that seem to come into these discussions with all kinds of preconceived notions! I really don't care all that much. I have my opinions and I'm certainly not going to change them based upon someone's opinion on an internet bulletin board! Having said that you certainly can't argue with the facts as they're presented on a "Yahoo Entertainment TV" web site. LOL!

Sorry Charlie, no bitterness here. I just think LA is a dope and a creep from what I have seen of his off the bike behavior. And that includes seeing him around Austin.

That doesn't make me bitter. Just able to see past the public relations machines.

As for your earlier comments about anger transference, get a grip on reality and get out of the Freud textbooks.

Stupid, immoral behavior that hurts children bothers me. People like LA that put their career and own selfish wants ahead of trying to make their family work bother me.

If that is what Freud calls anger transference than I will proudly accept it as so.

Give me a break. You are really reaching now. If I had the time or patience I could find posts on 10 different boards where you are never willing to accept anything other than the LA public relations spin on things.

The Yahoo article is not my opinion. It is a News article that I am sure if not true would have led to a lawsuit or a retraction. I have seen neither.

Haha! Really? Please do!

All you have to do is read through this very thread to see who are the ones with their mind made-up on the issue. There's some serious anger being harbored over the whole thing. And it ain't me!

Oh and let me just add (before you do too much work looking )... The fact that I've taken the "pro-Armstrong" side of the doping debate, doesn't make him my "hero". I don't believe in hero worship or idolizing. You won't find one place where I've said that "Armstrong is clean" or "Armstrong is innocent". I've only said that he's just as clean and/or innocent as any other rider in the pro peloton.

Oh, yeah and there's certainly no PR or spin on anything that the almighty Yahoo would publish! Right? You're unbelievable!

Are you suggesting that Yahoo has an agenda against Lance Armstrong? It was reported in other sources. Are they all ganging up against poor Lance?

So, just for the record. It doesn't bother you when a guy runs around and cheats on his wife and destroys the family unit? Leaving the kids to have to deal with Step-parents and the feelings of hurt and blame that come with divorce.

I haven't heard you condemn LA for his behavior on any front, all you want to so is attack the bearer of the news. You people ask for links and then when you get them you attack me and say I am unbeleivable.

So, I am left to surmise that adultery and the divorce caused by it are acceptable in your eyes. Nice set of values you have.

Had to edit my first response because I wasn't satisfied leaving it at that.

No, not at all. It very well could be true. I'm only pointing out that it's naive to believe everything you read. Believe it or not, sometimes things get published to generate controversy and to get people to read the publication in question.

I didn't say it doesn't bother me. There you go jumping to conlusions again. I will say that (unlike you!) I won't judge any public figure based on their personal lives (athletes, actors, politicians, whatever). You see, I beleive that it's none of my business. You're the one getting all wound-up about it! We don't know all Of the details of what happened and personally I don't want to know. Do you have any friends that have cheated on their wives oR girlfriends? People make mistakes.

Evidently you've never read what I had to say about Armstrong's actions against Simeoni then? I never asked you or anyone else for a "link". There you go jumping to conlusions again.

Where did you ever get the idea this was acceptable to me? Please see above. There you go jumping to conlusions again. My values are none of your business.

LOL! You can believe what you want to believe and I'll do the same. Okay? Ciao!

Perhaps there are a few things about that article that escaped your notice. Now I'm not saying it isn't true because I don't know. I don't have any way of knowing and if I did, it would still be none of my business. But since you seem to feel that Lance Armstrong is the living-aura of the man who left your mother, you suggest that it is not just your business but everyone's business. So perhaps we should take a look at the article with a skeptical eye for a moment.

Cycling legend Lance Armstrong has begged his wife Kristin to forgive him for cheating on her with another woman, say sources.

"Lance's friends, family and managers all told him he had to get rid of his mistress and focus on rebuilding his marriage," says a source.

"She was devastated," says a family member.

"After breaking off with his mistress, Lance called Kristin and begged her to bring the children and meet him in Paris," a source confides.

When you look at the entire length of the article. (1,283 characters including spaces and punctuation), and compare that to the number of times you see "a source" or "a family member" listed as the source, doesn't it ring a little bell somewhere, suggesting that maybe these "sources" are at best questionable and at worst, volunteers from the magazine's mailroom? The lines excerpeted from the article here all end with "a source" or "a family member" and represent 485 characters or a full 37% of the article. It also represents every single reference to the article's sources.

Take in to consideration the fact that Kristin has stated that she and Lance get along better now than they did when they were married and that they have remained good friends. Does this sound like a woman who was tossed aside in favor of a younger mistress?

And what is the source of the arcticle to begin with? That's easy enough to see. It's right at the top of the page. It's the ever-accurate, recognized news-authority, Star Magazine.

It's difficult to say whether he strayed or not but this article offers no more proof than the opinions posted in this thread. Let's just throw together a similar "article" as an example...

The ever-diligent Run_and_Ride has set out on a quest to ruin his biological father by digging for evidence that his former parent is the likes of American cycling hero, Lance Armstrong, according to sources.

Sources have stated that Run_and_Ride still feels anger toward the Subaru spokesperson, Lance Armstrong, for having run out on his family. Were proof to surface showing the Tour de France record-holder to be the father of Run_and_Ride, sources say he would be heir to the Armstrong fortune.

According to sources, DNA testing may be in the works to provide the proof needed to show that he carries the freakishly athletic traits displayed each July by Armstrong. This physical ability is the mark of the Armstrong family line. Once that proof has been obtained, sources refused to deny that Run_and_Ride intends to begin training along side Lance for the 2005 Tour de France.

Before you blow a gasket, this is obviously just an example of how such an article can be put together. "Sources" is a pretty low-level claim when it comes to responsible publishing. If the magazine actually had anything, don't you think they'd use it?

As far as law suits go, there is a standard for proving damage in this country which largely boils down to proving a monetary loss caused directly by misstatements and wrongful claims. I think Armstrong, even with the best of attorneys, would have very little luck proving that his income, which is based on being an athlete and a spokesperson, has suffered for the claims in the article you cited.

Star Magazine? I'm betting there a better sources with similar claims. I can't believe you have to dig that far into the slime pits of junk publications to find such reader-bait.

A much better source would have been the Weekly World News as they are never afraid to print the truth. Star Magazine is just fluff compared to WWN. Which is surprising as they are owned by the same company.

Oh well I have to go board up my house as there is a two-headed bat baby on a feeding rampage that is being controlled by aliens who work for the Re-Elect Bush Campaign. (or so say sources within a white house)

Hahaha!!! You better hurry!

Beastt you have your head so far up Lance Armstrong's butt that you taste his food before he does.

I can only imagine that you are a paid shill, or perhaps a seriously deluded idolater. Possibly a woman who lusts after Lance, or a man who ... lusts after Lance (which is OK). Maybe you are a family member, or a friend, or a teammate of his?

Anyways, your incessant reiteration of the basic arguments AGAINST Lance doping is as tired and worn out as an old shoe, and twice as smelly.