PDA

View Full Version : Olympic gold medallists Sale, Pelletier divorce



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42

Latte
07-19-2010, 05:59 PM
I only noticed one person suggesting a cover-up. Everyone else is annoyed that the media manipulated us. They sure had time to write about Jamie & David's "perfect love story" - in fact, it was shoved down our collective throats before, during and after SLC. Surely, journalists had seen David's wife at competitions (when he was a nobody and she supported him); but the inconvinient timing of J&D's relationship was quickly forgotten. Because it didn't fit the story.

What she said.

Also, from what we heard from the Canadian posters during the Olympics, it seems that the Canadian media did not carry the many, many, annoying news confrences that Jamie and David had daily to complain about how they really won and how they were cheated. Maybe they were and maybe they weren't, that isn't the point. While they whined on US tv, we missed a lot of other sports they we wanted to see. I never forgave them for that. For completely taking over the US coverage. Why the US media let them do it I will never understand.
When we complained here, the Canadian members made it plain that these news conferences were not shown in Canada. Talk about controling what the viewers see and only showing Jamie and David only in a good light!:eek:

kwanfan1818
07-19-2010, 06:05 PM
I never forgave them for that. For completely taking over the US coverage. Why the US media let them do it I will never understand.
It must have been the drugs. Or the $$$. Or, perhaps, that any kind of fluff gets more US airtime than curling, bobsledding, skeleton, long-track speed-skating, cross-country skiing... and they were the Fluff du Jour.

Winnipeg
07-19-2010, 07:10 PM
I think it is media that decides what they will air and will not. If they aired a bunch of time for S and P interviews, it was their decision really not S and P's.

Jenny
07-19-2010, 07:18 PM
I think it is media that decides what they will air and will not. If they aired a bunch of time for S and P interviews, it was their decision really not S and P's.

Agree - it was the media's choice to cover it (and make it into a circus), and in fact I think that S&P and B&S were responding to the interest more than they were actually pushing the story forward.

I do agree that S&P's agent at the time (Craig something?) tried to leverage the opportunity as much as possible to get them exposure and sign endorsement deals etc, but I don't think he was capable of making it as big as it was, nor were S&P, without media *wanting* to make it a big deal. Skandal sells, and the media jumped all over the opportunity.

kwanfan1818
07-19-2010, 07:26 PM
How much of it was repeat coverage of the same press event?

fan
07-19-2010, 07:53 PM
It must have been the drugs.

????

WildRose
07-19-2010, 09:11 PM
Yes I think David will try to continue in commentating, as evidenced by his gig for NBC last autumn while Jamie was doing BOTB. He is intelligent and witty. I guess Jamie and david can kiss goodbye a future in commentating with CTV for future Olympics, Worlds.
The only thing CTV broadcast was the Olympics. Everything else (Worlds, Canadian Nats, the Grand Prix events, 4 Continents) is on CBC, where Tracy Wilson & Kurt Browning have been doing all the commentary anyway.

Japanfan
07-20-2010, 06:43 AM
I just don't think either of them had a commitment to their marriage, I don't think they had any kind of long term doomed relationship or any more relationship issues than any of us. I think they got blindsided with a classic 'year after the birth of the first child' marital crisis (number one time for affairs for all marriages, even us ordinary mortals) and that domino-ed into personal life crises for both of them and power shifts in the marriage, all the usual stuff that if you try to weather and get through you come out the other side a lot stronger. They just seem to both take marriage lighly IMO.


The rich, beautiful and famous generally have more opportunities to cheat on a partner or meet a new partner than your average person. And they aren't held back by financial issues such as the cost of splitting up a household, starting two new households, and paying for child care arrangements/child support as single parents.

Jamie, David and Craig may not be rich, beautiful and famous by Hollywood standards, but they are much closer to that world than most of us. And although marriage usually requires work, divorce rates tend to be higher for celebrities/the rich and famous than they are for the rest of us.

Perhaps they take marriage more lightly than some in part because they can and because they are surrounded by temptation.

rvi5
07-20-2010, 01:33 PM
The rich, beautiful and famous generally have more opportunities to cheat on a partner or meet a new partner than your average person...

I am not certain I completely agree with the part about "meeting new partner" opportunities, depending on the context of your comment. Hollywood stars can never be certain if someone takes an interest in them because of love, money, or furthering their own careers. Because of swarming fans and paparazzi, they also tend to hide away at resorts, clubs, and restaurants which are too expensive for the average person. I would think their selection of potential partners would be limited to a small pool of other rich and successful people. Probably part of the reason why you always read about celebrities dating each other's exes. It may also be an explanation why the divorce rate and multiple marriages appear to be higher with celebrities. Many likely "settle" for what they can get, rather than waiting for a soul mate. Although, Hollywood stars do work closely with each other over periods of months, which present greater opportunities to become closely acquainted with the limited selection of potential partners.

MacMadame
07-20-2010, 08:05 PM
divorce rates tend to be higher for celebrities/the rich and famous than they are for the rest of us.

I wonder if that's really true or just public perception.

Jenny
07-20-2010, 08:17 PM
The rich, beautiful and famous generally have more opportunities to cheat on a partner or meet a new partner than your average person. And they aren't held back by financial issues such as the cost of splitting up a household, starting two new households, and paying for child care arrangements/child support as single parents.

I'm with rvi5 in questioning this - famous people have more at risk when they cheat because it can affect their careers. And sure, they may have more people *wanting* to hook up with them, but as rvi5 said, it's harder to sift out who really is into you as opposed to your celebrity/money/connections.

And in some cases, the financial risk is much greater - look at Tiger Woods and countless others who are sued/screwed by their lovers and then their spouses. They have a lot more to spend, but also a lot more to lose.


And although marriage usually requires work, divorce rates tend to be higher for celebrities/the rich and famous than they are for the rest of us.

We need Prancer for this part, as she always seems to have the stats on this topic. I agree with MacMadame that there might be a perceived higher rate because we hear about them more, and also because celebrities are often repeat offenders (ie multiple marriages and divorces).


Perhaps they take marriage more lightly than some in part because they can and because they are surrounded by temptation.

Agree with this, and also that celebrities - I'm thinking particularly of male politicians - seem to take on a god complex in that they believe the rules don't apply to them, and that they can get away with things the rest of us can't.

Not sure how any of this applies to Jamie and David :lol: but wanted to comment on the general ideas.

mag
07-21-2010, 02:30 AM
...And in some cases, the financial risk is much greater - look at Tiger Woods and countless others who are sued/screwed by their lovers and then their spouses. They have a lot more to spend, but also a lot more to lose. ...

I think the vast majority of divorced couples would be more than happy to have Tiger's "financial" risk. Dividing hundreds of millions of dollars still leaves you with hundreds of millions of dollars. Dividing $50,000 a year with a mortgage and no savings gives you $25,000 per year with two rents and a lot of debt.

The Observer
07-25-2010, 02:01 AM
And in some cases, the financial risk is much greater - look at Tiger Woods and countless others who are sued/screwed by their lovers and then their spouses. They have a lot more to spend, but also a lot more to lose.

Tiger is the one being screwed? I don't think so. He was the one doing the screwing!

RD
07-25-2010, 04:40 AM
Tiger is the one being screwed? I don't think so. He was the one doing the screwing!

From another perspective, he was likely like that BEFORE he got married, likely before he even met his wife. Is it slightly plausible that she KNEW deep down he was like that, but decided to marry him anyway?? Just sayin'.

zowie
07-25-2010, 01:16 PM
Maybe Tiger knew deep down he would be screwed if he cheated but decided to get married anyways knowing the risks.