notorious Texas playboy

Dumbasses,

Dave Bailey at Frisco, right? Oh yeah, and that other Texas
bike guy. As long as you're gawking at LANCE's spread in
Architectural Digest, perhaps you would like to ask
the burning question of whether his arm candy is detracting
from his charitable message
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/fashion/22lance.html

And even if you don't want to ask that, someone else does.
There are some good quotes, but the best thing about this article
is the lead graphic of Lance and his various dates. The worst
thing is that it never points out that they all look like his mom.

Ben

In article
<084ec35e-0500-4004-93a4-b6a6548d176b@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:

> Dumbasses,
>
> Dave Bailey at Frisco, right? Oh yeah, and that other Texas
> bike guy. As long as you're gawking at LANCE's spread in
> Architectural Digest, perhaps you would like to ask
> the burning question of whether his arm candy is detracting
> from his charitable message
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/fashion/22lance.html
>
> And even if you don't want to ask that, someone else does.
> There are some good quotes, but the best thing about this article
> is the lead graphic of Lance and his various dates. The worst
> thing is that it never points out that they all look like his mom.
>
> Ben

As a right-wing kook, I should have a few dogs in this fight that I
don't. To wit: I think the NYT is generally a pretty good newspaper, at
least now that I can read it online for free (the archive is one of the
top ten web resources). I also think that Lance should be with the
mother of his children, but that ship has sailed, and I don't think my
opinions about a stranger's personal life should matter at all.

That said, this was a ridiculously ****ty article. Am I seriously
supposed to believe that given the average state of celebrity
relationships, there is anything the least bit shocking about Lance
playing the gay divorcee with the hottest women he can find, and one
after another? Next the NYT is going to tell me that marrying Larry
Fortensky hurt Liz Taylor's ability to be taken seriously as a
spokeswoman for AIDS charities.

I could go on, but why?

Oh heck: Yeah, I think the author couldn't find a safe,
attributable-to-a-source quote to explicate the whole "they look like
his mom!" meme, and the artist's graphic was the slyest safe way they
could note the similarity.

Also, I think Lance has way more vulnerability on the
doped-his-way-through-the-Tours front than he does on the
serially-dates-young-blond-women front. Is anyone here going to stand up
and say that Lance's private life has been so unseemly as to cost him
credibility as a cancer fundraiser?

My final theory on the article is that two reporters were BS'ing about
the whole looks-like-his-mom blondes thing, and Allen Salkin's
word-count was a little below quota for the month, and the LAF-hook was
the least-lame hook they could suss out for actually writing up this
**** article.

The other reporter he was BS-ing with had to be the Etape du Tour guy,

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

On Jun 23, 12:25*am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I also think that Lance should be with the
> mother of his children, but that ship has sailed, and I don't think my
> opinions about a stranger's personal life should matter at all.

1) That's Doublespeak. Triplespeak. Although you're right about your
opinion not mattering at all <g>. Especially to Lance and his ex.

2) Regarding the ex: read the print in the article again. Hint: she is
mentioned.

3) Just curious: Are "Hate Lance" glasses ("Sorry, Green Only in
stock at this time") available with prescription lenses (IRT to your
reading problem)? --D-y

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:46:00 -0700 (PDT), "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:

>Dumbasses,
>
>Dave Bailey at Frisco, right? Oh yeah, and that other Texas
>bike guy. As long as you're gawking at LANCE's spread in
>Architectural Digest, perhaps you would like to ask
>the burning question of whether his arm candy is detracting
>from his charitable message
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/fashion/22lance.html
>
>And even if you don't want to ask that, someone else does.
>There are some good quotes, but the best thing about this article
>is the lead graphic of Lance and his various dates. The worst
>thing is that it never points out that they all look like his mom.
>
>Ben
"We made love all day

Not bad for a one-balled dude, I suspect some "vitamins" were on hand
for this feat...

"In our little hideaway
But I blew up our love nest
By making one little request
Diamond ring."

N

On Jun 22, 8:46*pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:

> ... perhaps you would like to ask the burning
> question of whether his arm candy is detracting
> from his charitable message

People who read tabloid type stuff --including your linked article --
don't necessarily care about charitable messages. They do care about
arm candy. That's why they are tabloid readers.

On Jun 22, 10:25*pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is anyone here going to stand up
> and say that Lance's private life has been so unseemly as to cost him
> credibility as a cancer fundraiser?

Paging Lafferty, paging Lafferty...

In article
<c419df5b-1206-4e5b-80ee-3ebb36f74540@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
"dustoyevsky@mac.com" <dustoyevsky@mac.com> wrote:

> On Jun 23, 12:25*am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I also think that Lance should be with the
> > mother of his children, but that ship has sailed, and I don't think my
> > opinions about a stranger's personal life should matter at all.
>
> 1) That's Doublespeak. Triplespeak. Although you're right about your
> opinion not mattering at all <g>. Especially to Lance and his ex.

Well sure. I'm a pretty big proponent, in the abstract, of married
couples not divorcing. Given the concrete example of Mr. Armstrong
actually dating every famous blonde he can, er, get his hands on, I
don't really care. I understand that lots and lots of people live with
broken, and that it happens for lots and lots of reasons, and given a
concrete example, I would demur from laying judgment. Which was the
point of my "I don't think my opinions...should matter" comment.

> 2) Regarding the ex: read the print in the article again. Hint: she is
> mentioned.

Yes. I'm sure you're going somewhere with this.

> 3) Just curious: Are "Hate Lance" glasses ("Sorry, Green Only in
> stock at this time") available with prescription lenses (IRT to your
> reading problem)? --D-y

Yes. I'm desperately jealous of Lance's ability to attract women who
look like his mom. But being ever-so-slightly more serious, the totality
of my point was that I am a person predisposed to think less of Lance
for his life choices*, but they don't matter, especially in regards to
his LIVESTRONG fundraising efforts.

Further, I was outright baffled that a paper as sober and frankly
self-regarding as the NYT would print an article as news-free as this
one. I actually would have respected the reporter more (and the paper
more) if they had just swung for the fences and gone with the hilarious,
underreported, and slightly creepy "they all look like his mom!" angle.
At least that would have been funny.

I freely admit to not being much of a supporter of the LIVESTRONG
foundation: I have other donation priorities, for reasons that have
absolutely zero to do with Lance's dating habits. But everything I have
heard about LIVESTRONG is tremendously positive, in terms of the quality
of its administration and its ability to actually help and support
cancer patients.

I'm sure more than one or two people here read the Fat Cyclist blog, and
its side-story of how incredibly helpful LIVESTRONG has been in a
practical and focused fashion.

Here's the key part of the story:

http://www.fatcyclist.com/2007/05/25...-fake-news-pie
ce-about-doping-today/

There are major, interesting, fascinating stories to be written about
Lance. He's an absurdly over-the-top character. He's got epic story arcs
on top of epic story arcs. He's one of the great sportsmen and charity
spokesmen of all time, and yet the very plausible doping rumors are
always present.

Meanwhile, the NYT writes the worst, least interesting story about his
personal life possible**, and doesn't even mention the really weird
common strand that thematically unites all his girlfriends.

*Don't worry, I probably think badly of yours, too. My opinions of my
own life choices are unprintable.

**C'mon: Sheryl, Ashley, Kate, Tory...if you were a millionaire playboy,
recently divorced, you would totally hit it, one after another, and make
love all day in your little hideaway. It is not interesting or strange
to me that a single 30-something guy with flexible scheduling
commitments is dating every well-formed woman that will have him.
Compared to my brother-in-law, Lance is a friggin' piker. And he only
played semi-pro hockey!

OTOH, my brother-in-law has never married,

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

On Jun 24, 3:43*am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
<<snipped>>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau rcous...@gmail.comhttp://www.wiredcola.com/
> "In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
> "In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Very nicely said!!
Bill C

On Jun 24, 2:43*am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes. I'm sure you're going somewhere with this.

I'm parked "with this", so to speak. Occasionally I kinda violate the
"leave them alone" thing to speak up a little when The Divorce subject
comes up. And Lance The Absentee Dad, too. I live here, it's a little
difficult to set people straight without giving out information that
could be misused by enemies or dorks looking for something to do. So,
I hope "I live here" will suffice...

Where did I read this... "great men are sometimes very bad men..."? Or
at least, very, very horny.

I think it's funny that even the rich and famous are not free from the
"swirl" as I call it-- "pressure to conform to bull**** conformity for
the sake of conforming to bull**** conformity".

So it goes. And gosh no, it's not strange by any means that Lance is
cutting a wide swath. Note, it takes the swathees to complete the
picture, and I haven't seen any news articles IRT any of the named
signing up for convent duty apres Lance. So it goes! --D-y

On Jun 24, 12:43*am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I freely admit to not being much of a supporter of the LIVESTRONG
> foundation: I have other donation priorities,...

I gave at the office. It involves afternoon training rides.

On Jun 24, 12:51*pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com>
wrote:
> On Jun 24, 2:43*am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes. I'm sure you're going somewhere with this.
>
> I'm parked "with this", so to speak. Occasionally I kinda violate the
> "leave them alone" thing to speak up a little when The Divorce subject
> comes up. And Lance The Absentee Dad, too. I live here, it's a little
> difficult to set people straight without giving out information that
> could be misused by enemies or dorks looking for something to do. So,
> I hope "I live here" will suffice...
>
> Where did I read this... "great men are sometimes very bad men..."? Or
> at least, very, very horny.
>
> I think it's funny that even the rich and famous are not free from the
> "swirl" as I call it-- "pressure to conform to bull**** conformity for
> the sake of conforming to bull**** conformity".
>
> So it goes. And gosh no, it's not strange by any means that Lance is
> cutting a wide swath. Note, it takes the swathees to complete the
> picture, and I haven't seen any news articles IRT any of the named
> signing up for convent duty apres Lance. So it goes! * --D-y

Yep, we don't have all the details so there's no way in hell to tell
what's actually gone on. They're consenting adults so I don't see
where how they do things matters to us.
My only thought is that someone who exhibits a pattern of lies,
broken commitments, and betrayals in a relationship is just as likely
to go that route in other phases of their lives, but we don't know
that Lance, or anyone he's been involved with have done any of that.
Lots of times it's not what it looks like. I had a friend who seemed
to be into actual psychopaths, and married two. NOT a good scene. The
second one accused him of all kinds of **** and he was charged with
it. That lasted until the Judge asked her to be quiet and let the
proceedings go on. She ended up screaming at the judge, kicking a
bailif in the nuts and raking his face, and making it a great episode
for a "reality" court drama.
That covinced the judge there was, at the least, reasonable doubt and
he dismissed the case. She went to lockup for probation violations of
the heroin and burglary charges she'd recently been paroled on, and
then the contempt and assault charges.
You would have never known any of it was going on from the outside.
Divorce is a lot like abortion. Noone thinks they are good things,
but sometimes they are the best option. How the hell do we know what
anyone's situation is, even if they are good friends we may not know
the whole story. Just not our problem, unfortunately that **** is big
business for magazines, papers and tabloid TV crap though, and if
there was no market then they wouldn't be doing it.
Who's the problem actually with?
Bill C

On Jun 24, 10:11*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:

[snip]

My mother-out-law says no matter how thin the pancake it still has two
sides.

In article
<rcousine-61D296.00434324062008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@gmail.com> wrote:

> There are major, interesting, fascinating stories to be written about
> Lance. He's an absurdly over-the-top character. He's got epic story arcs
> on top of epic story arcs. He's one of the great sportsmen and charity
> spokesmen of all time, and yet the very plausible doping rumors are
> always present.

Then it is time to ignore doping.
As long as doping is gossiped about,
and hunted down there will be no end
to it. Everybody agrees that doping
will not go away on its own. We must
take active steps. That means we stop
gossiping about doping, stop demonizing doping,
and stop accusing people of doping.

--
Michael Press

On Jun 24, 12:43*am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> *"dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 12:25*am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 3) Just curious: *Are "Hate Lance" glasses ("Sorry, Green Only in
> > stock at this time") available with prescription lenses (IRT to your
> > reading problem)? *--D-y

Dumbass,

Don't confuse playa hating with actual hate.
LANCE is a public figure. Occasionally people, yes
even reporters, will say unflattering things about him.
That doesn't make them Laffertyesque Ahabs to his
whale. Which is not to say that all this tut-tutting about
his charity work is justified. Let the guy date, who
gives a crap? But Ashley Olsen, ick.

> Yes. I'm desperately jealous of Lance's ability to attract women who
> look like his mom. But being ever-so-slightly more serious, the totality
> of my point was that I am a person predisposed to think less of Lance
> for his life choices*, but they don't matter, especially in regards to
> his LIVESTRONG fundraising efforts.
>
> Further, I was outright baffled that a paper as sober and frankly
> self-regarding as the NYT would print an article as news-free as this
> one. I actually would have respected the reporter more (and the paper
> more) if they had just swung for the fences and gone with the hilarious,
> underreported, and slightly creepy "they all look like his mom!" angle.
> At least that would have been funny.

Dumbass,

I basically agree with you and SLAVE that the article was
gossiping about the arm candy and the charity stuff was
an angle to get it into the newspaper. However, if you are
familiar with the NYT from the front of the book (news
coverage), you may not realize that in fact it does leaven
the serious paper-of-record stuff with articles explicitly
devoted to Stupid ****.

Most often, these are articles about lifestyle dilemmas that are
of interest to well-off New Yorkers anxious about getting their
kids into hoity-toity private schools and the Ivy League, but
there is a gossip element as well - they're probably trying to
be the upmarket alternative to the Post's Page Six. A look
through the "most e-mailed" articles in the Style section will
frequently cause me to ask "Who the hell _are_ these people?"

The Times has changed a lot in the last 25-30 years.
I think it probably ran equally stupid articles back then,
but they were less gossipy and more about the
Brett-and-Muffy, boat-shoe set.

Ben

On Jun 24, 1:44*pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:

> [I]f you are
> familiar with the NYT from the front of the book (news
> coverage), you may not realize that in fact it does leaven
> the serious paper-of-record stuff with articles explicitly
> devoted to Stupid ****.

Yeah, like peppering the pages with stuff from this guy for example:
http://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/...anuary2008.pdf

"Investigating him is a way of investigating the larger cultural
phenomenon."

Indeed -- the NYT sometimes informs us by the left hand.