Kate Hudson‘s name might not be one to seek out for a public feud or renewed gossip from almost two decades ago, but now, she finds herself caught up in the renewed tension between Lance Armstrong and Sheryl Crow without really wanting to be. The actress, who is known for her role in How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, has been reported by those near her as being “severely frustrated and furious” to have been forced into a “dramatic narrative” which she “asserts” is “in no way related” to her. It all came to a head when Sheryl Crow was recently on the Netflix interview program The Bobbycast and revealed the details of her heartbreak over the cycling breakup. In that conversation, Crow said that Armstrong had entangled himself with a Hollywood movie star at the time of his break-up, which also coincided with herself receiving a horrendously bad breast cancer diagnosis. Soon after the comments were made public, people on social media felt compelled to draw lines and make links that were never all there, and many soon jumped to the conclusion that the actress at hand was Kate Hudson.
But the assumption is spreading online at an alarming pace and Hudson is very upset, frustrated and surprised. Hollywood inside man Rob Shutter, who’s spoken to those in Hudson’s inner circle, says she’s “frustrated as all get-out” people immediately assumed it was her. Shutter stressed she was “none of this” involved in Sheryl’s splitting with Lance and he added “none” for good measure. This is more than a slight distortion to Hudson’s history or relationships; it’s outright wrong. She’s always done her best to keep her love life as covered as possible, and making herself a part of one of love and heartbreak, cancer, and a very public cycling scandal feels unfair and tiring. The primary problem with this is that the time lines just don’t match up. As Shutter noted, Armstrong and Crow parted ways in the year of 2006 while Hudson and Armstrong has not been connected romantically until this summer, after she left her husband of the time Chris Robinson. The 2 years period makes it impossible for Hudson to have played any role in the break-up but the damage of rumours on the internet had already been done.
The Bobbycast reflects Sheryl Crow’s original comments, which were raw and personal. She explained how she found out that Armstrong was seeing an actress, when he was still engaged to her and while she was dealing with her own health issue. She refused to reveal the actress’ name and she seemed to be not starting a witch hunt but sharing her own harrowing tale. But the Internet wasn’t known for its patience or subtlety, and in hours, fans and gossip accounts alike declared that a new actress was Kate Hudson. The actress has never made any public detail about a romantic relationship with Lance Armstrong, and people who know her say she’s used this entire situation as a cautionary tale about how easily a seemingly innocuous comment can become a malicious accusation. She doesn’t want to be a pawn in a drama she’s not part of, the third leg of a don’t-make-me-part-of-a-triangle situation.
This is also an interesting topic to consider in the editorial realm in terms of consumption of celebrity stories. On the other hand, Sharing personal stories is the right of all public figures, including Sheryl Crow, in certain instances, such as health issues and failed relationships. Her tale is interesting and it’s its worth being heard. Then there’s the need to plug in a familiar face, like Kate Hudson, to make the man in the mask a likeable bad guy, or to give them a diegetic turnaround, as in the last-minute sudden realization of the true nature by a cast member. The true news that has less drama is buried. The answer in this instance is that it is two different relationships that took place in different years in time, and the only common denominator are having been made by the same former cyclist. Hudson feels the rage of not only her own name being ruined, but how easily something can be taken for granted in just one night. This effect has been amplified, however, by social media in which a thoughtfully conducted interview can become a wildfire of misdirected blame.
