Public Scrutiny vs Entitlement to Privacy of involved Parties

[Race Radio]

[Edited by mod: RR didn't start this thread. It, and several posts that followed it, were move here from the LA Clinic thread, as it became a discussion about the moderation policy of the site, regarding the right of privacy of people who are connected to Lance.

There is an obvious conflict that arises when someone in the public domain and who trades on an image gets scrutinized, when it involves people who didn't step in into the public eye with it, or trade on that image. This is the way that discussion started, and how it unfolded.]

Back on topic

Wonderboy and Jen from SF. How cute.

--edited by mod: that's all you know. This is not the place for further speculation about the nature of people's relationship when no public announcement has been made about it. Just because you have an issue with Lance doesn't mean you can drag Jen into it, on this site, or fantasize about 'what a snapshot really says about her'.--

 

[Runitout]

--edited by mod--

Still- not sure why we need to know about Lance's --[edit] private life--. I'd be much more interested in financial or criminal matters than salacious gossip, however much they might show someone to be a lying hypocrite.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

--edited by mod--

Still- not sure why we need to know about Lance's --[edit] private life--. I'd be much more interested in financial or criminal matters than salacious gossip, however much they might show someone to be a lying hypocrite.

It goes back to part of the myth building of the 'brand' that was mentioned earlier about being a 'family man' - and as usual some are having difficulty believing Lance was lying to them:

"In the beginning we had this brand of brash Texan, interesting European sport, a phenomenon. Then you layered in cancer survivor, which broadened and deepened the brand. But even in 1998 there was very little corporate interest in Lance. And then he won the Tour de France in 1999 and the brand was complete. You layered in family man, hero, comeback of the century, all these things. And then everybody wanted him."

 

[cyclelicious]

Nah, churlish invective about Armstrongs personal life, mother, children says more about the gross morality of the poster/posters.

 

[Runitout]

Nah, churlish invective about Armstrongs personal life, mother, children says more about the gross morality of the poster/posters.

Given the way Armstrong and his acolytes have treated the Andreus and others, I can understand the temptation to throw bricks at him wherever they lie- I don't think it says anything too damning about Race Radio or others like him. I just think that it's better to focus attention on his tax affairs and the way he runs his charity, and leave his cheating ways to the Murdoch press.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Nah, churlish invective about Armstrongs personal life, mother, children says more about the gross morality of the poster/posters.

If he kept his personal life private you would have a point.
But it is quite clear from Stapletons comments that it was a deliberate and deceitful act to 'layer in' family man to help broaden the myth..

Do you know LA's Mom's name? His kids?
What about other riders families? Off the top of your head can you name their spouses or children?

 

[Stingray34]

Nah, churlish invective about Armstrongs personal life, mother, children says more about the gross morality of the poster/posters.

I can't speak for other posters, and I admit that, at first, I thought it was just salaciousness, too. But, in the context of 'Brand Armstrong' and the wider scope of myths and other assorted lies that have contributed to his place in sport and society, I can see that interest in his personal life can be interpreted as building a case against said brand.

I can imagine a Federal case also delving into it in order to provide a pretext to a profile that has him as a liar and a cheat in all facets of his life.

 

[cyclelicious]

Given the way Armstrong and his acolytes have treated the Andreus and others, I can understand the temptation to throw bricks at him wherever they lie- I don't think it says anything too damning about Race Radio or others like him. I just think that it's better to focus attention on his tax affairs and the way he runs his charity, and leave his cheating ways to the Murdoch press.

Sorry to disagree, but a cheap shot is pretty damning and telling about the people throwing those shots. Continue on with the REAL issues as you see fit and leave the gossip mongering s h i t out.

 

[Race Radio]

Nah, churlish invective about Armstrongs personal life, mother, children says more about the gross morality of the poster/posters.

Where did I write about his kids?

So promoting a lie in order to make millions is ok? Pointing out the inconsistencies in the myth is not? It is ok for Armstrong's media machine to smear LeMond, Anderson, Betsy, Tyler, etc but anyone that questions the myth is "Gross"?

Really?

 

[cyclelicious]

I can't speak for other posters, and I admit that, at first, I thought it was just salaciousness, too. But, in the context of 'Brand Armstrong' and the wider scope of myths and other assorted lies that have contributed to his place in sport and society, I can see that interest in his personal life can be interpreted as building a case against said brand.

I can imagine a Federal case also delving into it in order to provide a pretext to a profile that has him as a liar and a cheat in all facets of his life.

IMO, you're being disingenuous at best. Comments about his personal life, family have NO place in this discussion and prove nothing except taking a discussion down to the lowest level possible.

 

[Anonymous]

It goes back to part of the myth building of the 'brand' that was mentioned earlier about being a 'family man' - and as usual some are having difficulty believing Lance was lying to them:

Let's see.

LA "branding" to include Hero. Check. Family man. Check. Comeback of the century. Check. Cancer survivor. Check.

Of the above only one is true.

and as usual some are having difficulty believing Lance was lying to them

Right you are.

 

[python]

i myself don't find texas personal life of much interest...hardly ever posted on that(iirc, only maybe 1-2 posts on his 1st marriage). his kids in particular should be out of this mess.

but looking a bit wider (not only from the false brand-building point of view as astutely noted by others) ...also from the psychological portrait/character of the person and the federal investigation for cheating - it seems fair game to explore some aspects of his personal behavior of the suspect.

after all, character assassination is his favoured tactic.. why not to taste some of his own brew ?

 

[rhubroma]

Sorry to disagree, but a cheap shot is pretty damning and telling about the people throwing those shots. Continue on with the REAL issues as you see fit and leave the gossip mongering s h i t out.

Such as it is in the political scene, when you use your private life as propaganda to further your career or business, then you can't cry wolf when someone exposes the hypocrisy.

The moment you go private with the public persona to advance the prestige and profit of the latter, if the former is untrue, or worse, a lie of purely a manipulative force over the public, then that private lie becomes, as a result, a necessary aspect of the public domain's beef with you.

In other words one reaps what one sows.

Sorry, but get a sense of reality. And what's actually perverse and cheap, so very cheap.

 

[krebs303]

The temperature in Hades is freezing. I agree with rhubroma

 

[rhubroma]

The temperature in Hades is freezing. I agree with rhubroma

Oh, come on krebs303, you've always been one of my closet fans! You only weren't willing to admit it publicly.

 

[Francois the Postman]

OK people, we do draw a line here when it comes to private lives. It isn't always an easy one when we have on the one hand a rider who is, indeed, trading to some extent on a crafted image.

BUT it still involves the other half, people who are (also/still) entitled to privacy.

So, we have 2 rules of thumbs that we try to apply, even if it isn't always easy, or black and white.

If adults haven't both stepped into the public light about their going-ons, it is none of your business. If people have been open about it in public (think public announcement, etc), it probably can be.

Even if one of the parties didn't know where the boundaries are, and dragged spouses, friends, etc into it, and the other party hasn't confirmed it, it still is judged to be mere speculation about an area of privacy that is none of your business on this site.

Minors are totally off-limits.

So, when you drag other people into it, check it with the above, will you. If you are not sure, just check it with us before posting. Thanks.

 

[Race Radio]

Sorry, but get a sense of reality. And what's actually perverse and cheap, so very cheap.

Agreed. (of course)

What is more perverse, promoting a lie to make millions or pointing out that this lie is in fact a lie?

 

[Francois the Postman]

Such as it is in the political scene, when you use your private life as propaganda to further your career or business, then you can't cry wolf when someone exposes the hypocrisy.

The moment you go private with the public persona to advance the prestige and profit of the latter, if the former is untrue, or worse, a lie of purely a manipulative force over the public, then that private lie becomes, as a result, a necessary aspect of the public domain's beef with you.

In other words one reaps what one sows.

Sorry, but get a sense of reality. And what's actually perverse and cheap, so very cheap.

I agree with all of that.

Except: It still involves the other half, and none of the above applies to them. And in this case, it was all speculation based on a photo around a table. You know, nudge nudge, wink wink.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sorry to disagree, but a cheap shot is pretty damning and telling about the people throwing those shots. Continue on with the REAL issues as you see fit and leave the gossip mongering s h i t out.

Hold on - this goes back to the Stapleton piece about "layering the brand" - and a part of that was portraying LA as a 'family man'.

No-one has brought in his kids, the only mention of his mother was how (another) GF looked like her.
Another poster asked for some 'proof' that LA was not a 'family man' when this is presented it is seen as gossip?

 

[Anonymous]

Agreed. (of course)

What is more perverse, promoting a lie to make millions or pointing out that this lie is in fact a lie?

Depends on how far one's head is up Lance's backside.

 

[rhubroma]

I agree with all of that.

Except: It still involves the other half, and none of the above applies to them. And in this case, it was all speculation based on a photo around a table. You know, nudge nudge, wink wink.

The first person, though, to involve the so called other half, has been the one who gained the most in doing so, but is now, however, under greatest scrutiny because of how he made such gains and who he involved to make them.

As fas as the protection of privacy goes, if you choose to marry the president then what else do you expect? The real tragedy, if there will be one, is for the kids.

Unfortuntaly for adults who make certain decisions, the outcome isn't always pleasant. But as it's so often preached, one has to take responsibility for one's own actions in world for which the lessons are often harsh.

This is what used to be called the growth process.

 

[rhubroma]

I've stepped over the bounds of decency again, which nobody can stand more than myself. Krebs303 will be throwing a fit.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

IMO, you're being disingenuous at best. Comments about his personal life, family have NO place in this discussion and prove nothing except taking a discussion down to the lowest level possible.

I was wondering why you had such a strong opinion about not bringing in someones personal life when they have deliberately allowed it to 'layer the brand'.

Then I found this in your posting history:

Since this thread has digressed I'll throw out a bone. Check out the settlement Lemond procured in the Yellowstone Club lawsuit. He's certainly not crippled financially. Don't feel sorry for Lemond. He's equally as nasty as his arch nemesis. He just hides it better.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

No-one has brought in his kids..

There have indeed been mentions of his children recently, which have been deleted as quickly as possible.

Susan

 

[Stingray34]

IMO, you're being disingenuous at best. Comments about his personal life, family have NO place in this discussion and prove nothing except taking a discussion down to the lowest level possible.

Am I, Yoda?

Shall I open my mind further for you?