lonewolf wrote:Lets see.. all Lolo has done is overcome a difficult childhood, devote eight years to becoming a world class hurdler, suffer a crushing defeat graciously, work four more years and come nearly all the way back in record time from surgery to correct a congential defect, endure unwarranted sniping for presenting a naturally pleasant personality to the public as she captured the attention of the media. What's not to hate? Yep, I don't know how it came up in the interview but, although admirable, she probably should have kept the virginity thing to herself. Actually, I thought it refreshingly amusing that she commented staying chaste was more difficult than training. I am not aware she has ever criticized her competitors. It is not her fault she is attractive or that the media did not lavish praise on her contemoraries. Anyone in her circumstances would be foolish not to captilize on once a in lifetime opportunity. .
Let's cut her some slack.
And, kudos to her for finally firing back.
Yes, most admirable. The trouble is that when you want to be constantly in the news (a la Brett Favre a few years ago), it may backfire. It backfired. End to the tempest in the teapot.
Pego wrote:Yes, most admirable. The trouble is that when you want to be constantly in the news (a la Brett Favre a few years ago), it may backfire. It backfired. End to the tempest in the teapot.
WIth all due respect Pego, the Favre analogy is unfair and makes no sense IMO. Look at his rap sheet:
Drug addiction
Sent lewd pictures to another woman who isn't his wife, who then filed harassment charges against him
Strung out the Packers for two seasons in a row, not letting them know until midsummer whether he would return to the team
Strung out the Vikings for one season until August, forcing the team to fly down to see him at his house in Mississippi and find out his intentions were
Demanded that he be allowed to skip summer training camp with both the Packers and the Vikings
What does Lolo have on her rapsheet that compares with these things.
Adriana S wrote:On The New York Times calling her the "Anna Kournikova of track":
"They didn't even do their research, calling me the Anna Kournikova of track. I have the American record. I am the American record holder indoors, I have two world indoor titles. Just because I don't boast about these things, I don't think I should be ripped apart by media."
She continued:
"I think it was crazy just because it was two days before I competed, and then the fact that it was from a U.S. media, they should be supporting our U.S. Olympic athletes and instead they just ripped me to shreds."
I give her my utmost respect. Glad she's defending herself
Lolo wasn't winning at 60 meters in the Olympic final, and this is also outdoor season where the race is 100 meters anyway, so how is her being an indoor champ relevant? It isn't.
"They should be supporting our U.S. Olympic athletes" I agree, and they totally didn't support Dawn Harper and Kelley Wells. Lolo is also hypocritical as she has made negative comments about her fellow American track athletes on twitter before.
Lolo basically now comes off as some spoiled, snobbish, brat. She didn't deserve the coverage. She played the media for attention, and some of it whipped right back and smacked her right in the face.
Also, Lolo claiming she is still a virgin is, laughingmya$$offable, and that is real talk. Some women forget that a reputation built up when you are a younger lady, is often hard to seperate yourself from, especially if you end up being someone in the spotlight when you are older. What is even more laughable is that the media took that story and ran with it, like it is truth.
Bottom line, she got what was coming to her. She wanted to be a media darling, even though she hadn't earned that type of attention on the track. Only a spoiled brat would expect to have it only one way.
Nowhere did I imply similar personality traits in any other area but an attention seeking behavior. You want to be a constant celebrity, be prepared that somebody will take a potshot at you and scrutinize your every little move, fairly or unfairly.
Nowhere did I imply similar personality traits in any other area but an attention seeking behavior. You want to be a constant celebrity, be prepared that somebody will take a potshot at you and scrutinize your every little move, fairly or unfairly.
But there are are other athlete/celebrities that you could have compared her to that don't have Favre's character flaws and history of bad behavior (eg. Sharipova, Danica, etc.). I would have thought that you would have compared her to one of them if all were trying to say is that she's guilty of wanting to be a celebrity, which she is. The Favre comparison implies that she's also guilty of unnaceptable/bad behavior other than being a celebrity.
Edit: Here's a funny take on Lolo Jones from the Tom Joyner Morning Show along with some other Olympic and social commentary.
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nowhere did I imply similar personality traits in any other area but an attention seeking behavior. You want to be a constant celebrity, be prepared that somebody will take a potshot at you and scrutinize your every little move, fairly or unfairly.
But there are are other athlete/celebrities that you could have compared her to that don't have Favre's character flaws and history of bad behavior (eg. Sharipova, Danica, etc.). I would have thought that you would have compared her to one of them if all were trying to say is that she's guilty of wanting to be a celebrity, which she is. The Favre comparison implies that she's also guilty of unnaceptable/bad behavior other than being a celebrity.
sprintzfan wrote:You guys please feel free to help me tweak my Ryan Bailey analogy to best illustrate the point I'm tring to make there. Maybe he isn't the best Lo Lo type male equivalent in terms of his story and accomplishment level, but I hope you still get the point I'm driving at there, even if Ryan Bailey isn't the best male athlete I could have chosen to serve as my example.
If there is a better case of a "very good looking" male athlete who just is not as good as a couple of his closest competitors, I'll gladly replace his name and chosen even with Bailey and the Men's 100m.
Funny that you mention Ryan Bailey, because when they were lining up the 100m, my wife said "Oh, he's good looking!" Anyhoo...on with the thread...
I keep thinking: Who the hell is Jere Longman? An obscure writer very few people have ever heard of before writing a cheap hatchet job about a high profile athlete? One who trots out an even more obscure "expert" from the University of Western Ontario to support the purely personal opinions that the NYT decided to publish?
Then, too, I keep thinking who are these people who keep posting pathetic mewlings about Lolo's virginity or her intention to cry? What do they know about it and why do they care?
jhc68 wrote:I keep thinking: Who the hell is Jere Longman? An obscure writer very few people have ever heard of before writing a cheap hatchet job about a high profile athlete? One who trots out an even more obscure "expert" from the University of Western Ontario to support the purely personal opinions that the NYT decided to publish?
Then, too, I keep thinking who are these people who keep posting pathetic mewlings about Lolo's virginity or her intention to cry? What do they know about it and why do they care?
I wouldn't call Longman an obscure writer. He has been with the NYTimes quite a long time.
If ever there were a time in this sport for the phrase don't hate the playa, hate the game, this is it. Jones has figured out how to make a good living in a sponsor-driven sport, and in my estimation she does it on more than mere physical appearance. (And even if she did, she's obeying the laws of the marketplace--it's going to take a bigger stage than T&F to change those laws.) If there is a criticism to level it's at the 99% of track & field pros who think their only job is to show up and win.
David Oliver is a very good-looking man, knows it and uses it to his advantage, and is in commercials airing during these Olympics despite not making the team. Nobody talks about that.
David Oliver is a very good-looking man, knows it and uses it to his advantage, and is in commercials airing during these Olympics despite not making the team. Nobody talks about that.
If only he Tebowed, then LJ would be off the hook.
1) The NYT article is what was brought by theToday show's Savannah Guthrie when she interviewed Lolo. The NYT article is what's being talked about on ESPN, national talk radio and major newspapers and news websites across the country. Without the New York Times, this story doesn't have legs and stays at the level of message board and facebook gossip.
2) Though Lolo was hurt by the Kournikova comparison, she probably would not have been offended if someone compared her to Sharipova. However, I think some track fans reject the idea that track even needs a Sharipova, and may have been turned off even if someone as accomplished as Allyson Felix presented herself in the media the way Lolo does. These folks are also turned off by the social media and the way young folks use it these days, while Lolo embraces it. This doesn't bother me.
3) Some folks also feel that Lolo is guilty of TMI, especially with regards to her virginity. These folks were equally turned off when Tebow talked about his virginity. They think its innappropriate to reveal so much about yourself for the whole world to hear, especially with regards to sex.
Adriana S wrote:The only thing Lolo can be blamed for is the whole "virginity" thing.
I think if she had kept that one to herself, then the media downfall wouldn't be as harsh.
As a track fan this is where my irritation with the entire situation lies. In my office, no one pays attention to the sport except during Olympic years. The first mention of the sport came shortly after Lolo's virginity comments and this prior to her making the team in the first place. Basically the comments were from the men as you might expect and from the women that it was just a bit TMI.
My issue with the entire episode is that she was presented as one of the faces of the team which I feel was miscast considering the athletes in her own event who were better than she and quite predictable to challenge for a win that Lolo was unlikely to.
The NYT article was meanspirited in my opinion however I thought her wimpering, teary or whatever anyone wants to call it response to it only lent further credence to the article instead of her letting it roll off her back, dismissing it or whatever one wishes to call that.
She ran a great race in the final and she should have simply stated that instead of trying to present her "side" of the story.
Dutra5, I appreciate your comments and understand where you're coming from and I agree with you about TMI. I wish the media in general, and NBC in particular, hadn't slighted Harper the way they did, as though Lolo had been America's best hurdler over the last couple of years. There were folks that I work with who believed that Lolo was the gold medal favorite, but I set them straight a couple of months ago when the hype started. As for the NYT piece, remember it was Guthrie who brought it up, not Lolo, and she obviously doesn't have thick enough skin to let stuff like that roll off her back, which isn't surprising since she's not a politician or A-list celebrity who is used to dealing with tabloid gossip about themselves.
The one thing I agree with ios that Lolo needs thicker skin. She's not the first athlete that people hated on. In her interview with Lewis Johnson after her heat, she seemed so discombobulated, it's amazing she was able to get through the race. Carl Lewis was hated on throughout his career, but he never let it affect him. The Williams sisters have also had to deal with haters, of a more insidious variety than that directed at Lolo. Look at Gabby Douglas, there were many people, Black women nonetheless, who were hatin' on her because they didn't like her hair. Ignore the haters Lolo.
Basically they said that Jones expects the US media to be a cheerleader and not reporters. They felt that the NY Times article while harsh was fair-they guy who wrote it has followed and reported on women's sports for over 20 years-and at a time when it was not popular. He has a lot of respect, experience and persepective.
I think they hit the nail on the head-the press is not there to promote brand Jones.
slowjo wrote:Great discussion about Jones on CNN this morning.
Basically they said that Jones expects the US media to be a cheerleader and not reporters. They felt that the NY Times article while harsh was fair-they guy who wrote it has followed and reported on women's sports for over 20 years-and at a time when it was not popular. He has a lot of respect, experience and persepective.
I think they hit the nail on the head-the press is not there to promote brand Jones.
But you've also admitted to a hatred of Jones in the past. Most neutral observers who feel that Jones is fair game also concede that Longman went too far.
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Sun Aug 12, 2012 9:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
The article by Jere Longman appeared under the Olympics-coverage “In the Rings” signature, which The Times uses to signify that the article is a point-of-view piece and not straight news coverage. This means, in The Times’s style, that the writer has some latitude to insert his own perspective.
I have written in the past about problems that arise with this approach, which sometimes translates into too much opinion appearing in the news columns. In this particular case, I think the writer was particularly harsh, even unnecessarily so.
I queried the sports editor about it, and his response was that “One person’s harsh is another person’s tough minded,” and that the writer, “while acknowledging Jones’s accomplishment and qualities of perseverance and candor, thinks this female athlete fell short.”
I believe writers like Jere Longman, who does have a long and worthy track record at The Times, should have some room to express their hard-earned perspective. But this piece struck me as quite harsh and left me, along with others, wondering why the tone was so strong.
jazzcyclist wrote:The one thing I agree with ios that Lolo needs thicker skin. She's not the first athlete that people hated on. In her interview with Lewis Johnson after her heat, she seemed so discombobulated, it's amazing she was able to get through the race. Carl Lewis was hated on throughout his career, but he never let it affect him. The Williams sisters have also had to deal with haters, of a more insidious variety than that directed at Lolo. Look at Gabby Douglas, there were many people, Black women nonetheless, who were hatin' on her because they didn't like her hair. Ignore the haters Lolo.
GREAT post jazz!!! Really well stated! I concur 1,000%. Not 100, 1,000!
jazzcyclist wrote:I just watched CNN piece. Since I'm a longtime Christine Brennan hater,
Hate, hate, hate....I never watch CNN because it is all nonsense, Fox lite. Who cares what some moron there says?
Agree with this characterization of CNN btw. Fox lite is nice. MSNBC is "Fox left" imo. But Fox lite is a good one for CNN. I'm gonna steal that one from you CD.
But unlike you CD, I still do watch all three networks though. Not a whole lot but some. Because as a bit of a politics junkie I like to keep up on the mood of the electorate. And I do think the 3 cable news channels, and talk radio too, influences how voters think.
But I totally understand why you or anyone else, would totally avoid CNN. It's irks me often times. Didn't years ago. (1990s I guess.) But the past 10 years or so I've lost a lot of respect for them.
As for Brennan on "Reliable Sources" this morning, I switched away from the Gold Medal basketball game, (and ALMOST missed LeBron's game sealing three pointer as a result ) just to hear her. And I agreed with about 80 or 90% of what she had to say about Lo Lo and this particular controversy.
What I didn't respest is how clearly (clear to me) she was protecting aka refusing to comment candidly on Jere Longman, that author of the NYT article subjet of this thread. She made it clear, that just because he is a colleague and long time friend/associate, she wouldn't be honest condemn his take on Lo Lo as the unnecessarily mean and personal attack it was in many places. I think Brennan would only characterize the story as "tough."
I don't like that kind of personal bias. Particularly for someone who has always come across to me, as a vocal advocate of "women's rights."
Brennan didn't have to totally slam the guy. But she could have been a lot more honest and critical about the tone he took.
She should have had the guts imo, to be more critical of the tone of Longman's piece. The tabloid-like tone.
slowjo wrote:I do not hate Lolo Jones. I hate mass murderers, child molesters and loud lawn movers on a Sunday morning. You sound like you suffer from the same complex she has. Don't like what someone says so call them haters.I
I thought that was a dumb remark by Jazz. When Jazz says mojo hates LJ...you know he has jumped the shark.
slowjo wrote:I do not hate Lolo Jones. I hate mass murderers, child molesters and loud lawn movers on a Sunday morning. You sound like you suffer from the same complex she has. Don't like what someone says so call them haters.I
I thought that was a dumb remark by Jazz. When Jazz says mojo hates LJ...you know he has jumped the shark.
You don't have the moral authority to talk about "jumping that shark" after some of you Penn State commentary.
slowjo wrote:I do not hate Lolo Jones. I hate mass murderers, child molesters and loud lawn movers on a Sunday morning. You sound like you suffer from the same complex she has. Don't like what someone says so call them haters.I
I thought that was a dumb remark by Jazz. When Jazz says mojo hates LJ...you know he has jumped the shark.
You don't have the moral authority to talk about "jumping that shark" after some of you Penn State commentary.
I still stand by all my Penn State commentary, if you don't mind.
I just thought it was idiotic to say mojo hated LJ. Mojo, one of the sweetest people here.
I once sent a nasty comment her way once, which I apologized for, but still regret.
Anyhoo...on with the thread...
) just to hear her. And I agreed with about 80 or 90% of what she had to say about Lo Lo and this particular controversy.