Emma O'Reilly Responds to Strickland article.

[Dr. Maserati]

Former USPS soigneur Emma O'Reilly has responded to the recent Bill Strickland aricle on the Bicycling website.

She doesn't hold back:

So Mr. Strickland I would like you and your ilk to know that I am sick to death of you making judgments of me and my word. You don’t know me, I have never met nor talked to you, you have never made an attempt to talk to me. Who are you to make out that my word is worthless?

What is noticeable is that Strickland made no attempt to contact Emma and attempt to coroberate her story, which confirms my suspicion that his recent piece on Armstrong is a deliberate attempt by him to afford Armstrong a softer landing when the full scale of his fraudulent career is exposed.

Good on her for calling him out.

 

[JPM London]

Former USPS soigneur Emma O'Reilly has responded to the recent Bill Strickland aricle on the Bicycling website.

She doesn't hold back:



What is noticeable is that Strickland made no attempt to contact Emma and attempt to coroberate her story, which confirms my suspicion that his recent piece on Armstrong is a deliberate attempt by him to afford Armstrong a softer landing when the full scale of his fraudulent career is exposed.

Good on her for calling him out.

Funny, I don't read his notes about the "10 allegations" the same way - I just see that he's referring to the fact that in a court a "word against word" is difficult to win/call and is not making a judgment on credibility on any of those 10.

He simply doesn't deal with the credibility part of it and so I also don't find it weird that he didn't contact her (in regards to this particular article).

The article is simply a personal opinion piece on Armstrong and as such I don't think he's spoken - at least wouldn't need to speak to - anybody.

The allegations are just there for those who still don't know.

Especially considering that the piece is about how he himself deals with (finally!) accepting that LA doped I don't follow it...

... However I do most def understand Emma's reaction and that she feels it's a shot at her credibility - it's easy to read it that way (if it's about yourself). I also very much like her retort - if it's overdoing it in connection with this article it's def not so with regards to the years and years of abuse and stone walling she's been getting. And I really, really like the bit about trying to help fight the problem just to see everything go completely haywire...

 

[Digger]

Yeah I'm glad for her - she was really annoyed because normally she keeps well away from the media, so it just goes to show how wronged she feels. Also notable is the concerted campaign Lance had against her.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Funny, I don't read his notes about the "10 allegations" the same way - I just see that he's referring to the fact that in a court a "word against word" is difficult to win/call and is not making a judgment on credibility on any of those 10.

He simply doesn't deal with the credibility part of it and so I also don't find it weird that he didn't contact her (in regards to this particular article).

The article is simply a personal opinion piece on Armstrong and as such I don't think he's spoken - at least wouldn't need to speak to - anybody.

The allegations are just there for those who still don't know.

Especially considering that the piece is about how he himself deals with (finally!) accepting that LA doped I don't follow it...

... However I do most def understand Emma's reaction and that she feels it's a shot at her credibility - it's easy to read it that way (if it's about yourself). I also very much like her retort - if it's overdoing it in connection with this article it's def not so with regards to the years and years of abuse and stone walling she's been getting. And I really, really like the bit about trying to help fight the problem just to see everything go completely haywire...

Not really - here is the PDF to the full 'Endgame' story and here is the part mentioning O'Reilly:

06 The Saddle Sore.
Allegation
Former Armstrong soigneur Emma O'Reilly told journalist David Walsh that, in ‘99, the team forged a backdated prescription to explain a positive test in stage 1 of the tour.

Relevancy
The federal case potentially includes an accusation that Armstrong defrauded the government by securing more than $40 million of sponsorship money from the U.S. Postal service from ‘99 to ‘04. If Armstrong duped his way out of a positive test, fraud might become a reasonable assertion.

Armstrong's Response
He has always maintained that the prescription—to treat a saddle sore—was legitimate.

Our Take
At this point it’s Armstrong’s word against O'Reilly’s. Unless other witnesses corroborate her story, Armstrong wins this one.

Right there it says it, Armstrongs response, and he didn't even lift the phone to get her response not only for this article, but in the 7 years since she spoke to Walsh.

Of course "Armstrong is going to win this one" when he doesn't bother his arse to find out the other side of the story.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Brilliant stuff from O'Reilly. I can understand her reaction entirely. Especially as has been pointed out Strickland is still acting as an apologist for the Uniballer.

Excepting Walsh and Kimmage. All english speaking cycling journalists are lazy lying oxygen stealing Armstrong-****-sucking fanboy ****s who are a boil on the **** of the sport.

 

[JPM London]

Not really - here is the PDF to the full 'Endgame' story and here is the part mentioning O'Reilly:

Right there it says it, Armstrongs response, and he didn't even lift the phone to get her response not only for this article, but in the 7 years since she spoke to Walsh.

Of course "Armstrong is going to win this one" when he doesn't bother his arse to find out the other side of the story.

Ok, now I've read the same text again... and I still don't read it that way.
"Armstrong's response" is just a catchy header, the text below clearly shows he wasn't asked to respond for the article - otherwise it wouldn't simply say "LA has always maintained..." and the "LA will win this one" is still not a comment on anyone's credibility. If you read the other 9 the wording is very much along those same lines and, to me at least, clearly reads as a simple evaluation of where the allegations would stand in front of a jury - which the lead to the "allegations" part of the article also clearly states.

Don't forget the main article is actually about how he's changed his mind and now thinks LA's credibility is not very good.

I don't really think Strickland cares much which allegations are and aren't true (they're all probably true in my mind) - to him there are two points 1) LA did dope and 2) What will happen in court?

Also it's very likely that Strickland didn't even do the "allegations" part - it could very likely have been added when an editor thought it needed something more and they had an intern do a 10 minute left-hand job with it - there's no new or remotely interesting info in that bit and as long as they only have an "what will the courts say?" angle it's utterly irrelevant.

When I read his article I don't see him defending Lance at all - mainly talks about his own feelings. Basically the article is quite un-interesting in the first place when it comes to LA - only really interesting if you want to know about Strickland. With that in mind, I don't think he cares tinker's cuss about who's credible and who's not - he knows the answer, but the article isn't about them - it's about himself (and a bit about his daughter not caring one bit).

 

[Irish2009]

In court it's one word against another, so Armstrong would win, however can anyone explain why Mrs O''Reilly would make this up. Strangely I have met both Armstrong and O'Reilly pre Discovery days. I have no reason to belive Mrs O'Reilly is lying about the incedent, in fact i belive her. She had nothing to gain, he has everything to lose.

 

[JPM London]

Playing devil's advocate (or not even that actually) you could also oppositely aruge he's actually backing up Emma. If you look at the allegation part he writes that "Emma told Walsh" - not that "rumour has it that Emma allegedly claimed to the cancer-loving, sports-hating David Walsh" which is a far more normal wording in the apologetic and/or lawsuit fearing publications...

 

[JPM London]

In court it's one word against another, so Armstrong would win, however can anyone explain why Mrs O''Reilly would make this up. Strangely I have met both Armstrong and O'Reilly pre Discovery days. I have no reason to belive Mrs O'Reilly is lying about the incedent, in fact i belive her. She had nothing to gain, he has everything to lose.

Which is exactly why most able brained people agree with you on that view...

... however for many who are strong in the "benefit of the doubt" belief it's also probably a lot to do with discarding it blankly or not relying on it too much as she has been described as holding a grudge and having an axe to grind (by the LA camp funnily enough)...

 

[Oldman]

In court it's one word against another, so Armstrong would win, however can anyone explain why Mrs O''Reilly would make this up. Strangely I have met both Armstrong and O'Reilly pre Discovery days. I have no reason to belive Mrs O'Reilly is lying about the incedent, in fact i belive her. She had nothing to gain, he has everything to lose.

I wouldn't discount the possibility that she had more evidence to offer Novitsky's group when she knew it would be used to settle the matter rather than degrade her in the press.

 

[Granville57]

Wow. She's had enough!

I think this is the key line:

Unfortunately, it’s hard to effectively bully someone who is telling the truth.

More than anything, I think this indicates just how much the tide is turning.
LA & Co bullied and harassed so many people over the years, but that time is over.

Bring it on.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ok, now I've read the same text again... and I still don't read it that way.
"Armstrong's response" is just a catchy header, the text below clearly shows he wasn't asked to respond for the article - otherwise it wouldn't simply say "LA has always maintained..." and the "LA will win this one" is still not a comment on anyone's credibility. If you read the other 9 the wording is very much along those same lines and, to me at least, clearly reads as a simple evaluation of where the allegations would stand in front of a jury - which the lead to the "allegations" part of the article also clearly states.

Don't forget the main article is actually about how he's changed his mind and now thinks LA's credibility is not very good.

I don't really think Strickland cares much which allegations are and aren't true (they're all probably true in my mind) - to him there are two points 1) LA did dope and 2) What will happen in court?

Also it's very likely that Strickland didn't even do the "allegations" part - it could very likely have been added when an editor thought it needed something more and they had an intern do a 10 minute left-hand job with it - there's no new or remotely interesting info in that bit and as long as they only have an "what will the courts say?" angle it's utterly irrelevant.

When I read his article I don't see him defending Lance at all - mainly talks about his own feelings. Basically the article is quite un-interesting in the first place when it comes to LA - only really interesting if you want to know about Strickland. With that in mind, I don't think he cares tinker's cuss about who's credible and who's not - he knows the answer, but the article isn't about them - it's about himself (and a bit about his daughter not caring one bit).

The point is that Strickland/Bicycling are trying to portray a neutral opinion and then come out with "Our Take" - this is a deliberate attempt to sway opinion.

Their "Take" is that it is one persons word against the other - if they had left it at that it might not look like such a flagrant attempt at trying to minimize the damage.
Yet, amazingly, even though Lancey looked me in the eye and lied I'm still going to give him the benefit that his word is better than O'Reillys (and of course not contact O'Reilly to see if she can get someone to corroborate her story).

 

[Granville57]

Funny, I don't read his notes about the "10 allegations" the same way - I just see that he's referring to the fact that in a court a "word against word" is difficult to win/call and is not making a judgment on credibility on any of those 10.

Right there it says it, Armstrongs response, and he didn't even lift the phone to get her response not only for this article, but in the 7 years since she spoke to Walsh.

Of course "Armstrong is going to win this one" when he doesn't bother his arse to find out the other side of the story.

At first read, I was in JPM London's camp on this. I could see how Strickland (or the magazine) could use the "in court" escape hatch to defend their wording.

But that's just it: the wording.
They could've just as easily said,
"If testimony from others confirms O'Reilly's account, it could spell serious trouble for Armstrong."

But that's not how they present it. They still shine the light of hope in Lance's direction. Given the years, and years of rumors, reports, first, second and third-hand accounts, and who-knows-what other avenues of information have reached Strickland since 1999--the sum total of which stretch the bounds of credibility for Lance--then it's no wonder that Emma is raging!

I'm now with Dr. Maserati on this one.

It's that very subtle type of "leaning" that has allowed the fraud to live for so long. Bicycling Mag has been more than complicit over the years.

The party is over.

 

[Neworld]

Good on Emma! Here is a person that was bullied and undoubtedly threatened with the potential to be branded a 'rat', and financially...and she said as little as possible, moved on and with what appear to be a fantastic set of morals just made the best of a horrible environment.

Now, a journalist recycles her name into a massive FBI doping investigation and makes 'generalizations' about the value of her word. Of course she's ****ed off. She's a better person than me, and again, in the end she will come out shining. I suggest that after the court(s) settle this one she write a tell all about her time with the Postal-EPO-pushers, even if we all hear about it in the court transcripts. How many books are favourably written about LA? Another 'insider' book wouldn't hurt.

THen again maybe EO'R is above all this and hopes to avoid all the negativity and wasted energy over someone like Mr. Lying Gonad?
NW

 

[Dr. Maserati]

At first read, I was in JPM London's camp on this. I could see how Strickland (or the magazine) could use the "in court" escape hatch to defend their wording.

But that's just it: the wording.
They could've just as easily said,
"If testimony from others confirms O'Reilly's account, it could spell serious trouble for Armstrong."

But that's not how they present it. They still shine the light of hope in Lance's direction. Given the years, and years of rumors, reports, first, second and third-hand accounts, and who-knows-what other avenues of information have reached Strickland since 1999--the sum total of which stretch the bounds of credibility for Lance--then it's no wonder that Emma is raging!

I'm now with Dr. Maserati on this one.

It's that very subtle type of "leaning" that has allowed the fraud to live for so long. Bicycling Mag has been more than complicit over the years.

The party is over.

Yeh - I rule.

But seriously, I have just gone back over the article. In the online piece it actually says "Innocent? Guilty? You decide: The top 10 cases against Lance" (written by Joe Lindsay).

Also it recounts the 'Transfusion" that Landis saw and in the "Our Take"

A direct eyewitness account, if upheld, is one of the strongest types of evidence. But investigators most likely need corroboration to feel
confident. George Hincapie, who among others was said by Landis to be present for and participating in the transfusions, has been subpoenaed.
We can’t call this one.

What, "we can't call this one"? Didn't stop them with Emma.

But this is the main point - in reaching his conclusion that LA doped, Strickland doesn't offer the (neutral) reader the oppurtunity to check and cooroberate who told him and what they told him.......

I don't know how you'll feel. I don't know, if you're not already there, what might lead you to believe that Lance Armstrong doped. It wasn't Floyd Landis for me, or the federal investigation, or any public revelation. My catalyst was another one of those statements that was never said by someone I never talked with. It was not from one of Armstrong's opponents. It was not from anyone who will gain any clemency by affirming it under oath.

It was an admission that doping had occurred, one disguised so it could assume innocence but unmistakable to me in meaning. The moment I received it felt strangely like a relief, and after all these years unreal and apart from what was happening, like those odd instants that sometimes immediately follow the death of someone you love, when grief is eclipsed by gratitude that the suffering has ended.

..... and these (unnamed) people have more credibility than someone he hasn't even bothered to call?

 

[blackcat]

we have an entire thread on Armstrong lies. His word is risible. He lied to his wife, he lied to his foundation stakeholders, he lied to the sycophants who have leveraged and multiplied this campaign of disinformation. Kik, it was not a necessary evil. Not everyone doped. Most who have doped, have been subpoenaed (licence) into the big lie (84 reference not 3rdR), not a lie the responsibility of Prance Gunderson, but the sport's burden and liability.

 

[JPM London]

it actually says "Innocent? Guilty? You decide: The top 10 cases against Lance" (written by Joe Lindsay).

Also it recounts the 'Transfusion" that Landis saw and in the "Our Take"

What, "we can't call this one"? Didn't stop them with Emma.

I think they still put it like that for two other reasons: 1) to avoid lawsuits/heat/bullying from the LA camp and 2) Because of this modern, politically correct and completely misunderstood idea of "all opinions have equal weight" idiocy that enables daft mockery of science a la intelligent design to even have a place in American schools - and also enables a thin manure like the "10 allegations" piece to pass for journalism.

Thanks for pointing out the helpless intern is called Joe Lindsay... So, the complete piece is - as I suspected - a sorry mash-up of a personal angle, "I'm suffering because my hero is no longer" essay and a rehash of old facts (ooops, sorry - alleged facts)...

 

[pedaling squares]

What strikes me is that Strickland basically calls Lance Armstrong a liar:

I was on a ride with Armstrong once when I finally just asked him: “Did you dope?” He looked me in the eye and told me he was looking me in the eye and telling me he never had.

When I told my daughter that I believed that Lance Armstrong had doped...

but has a hard time finding O'Reilly any more credible than this liar.

In the article, Strickland is predicting outcomes in court and not delivering his own verdict. So I can understand why he says corroboration is required to tip the scales in O'Reilly's favour. It's been a long time since I read the Walsh book, but I thought that O'Reilly mentioned many incidents, some of which included some pretty specific details. Summing her account to Walsh up in a couple of sentences was perhaps a bit of a hack job, but then again they are limiting their story to the TUE and not the makeup, the admission, etc.

 

[Berzin]

Funny how when it came time to judge Emma's statements against Armstrong's denials, Strickland categorically states that's Lance's word wins hands-down, yet doesn't state how or why he comes to such a conclusion.

It's sort of like saying "My friend is telling the truth because he/she wouldn't lie to me".

 

[Race Radio]

I realize this is an anti-LA thread at heart, but one thing to keep in mind about O'Reilly is the lie that she was not paid by Walsh. I am not saying she is wrong about this but just pointing out something important in a thread making her sound like a bastion of truth.

did you read the article? She admitted that Walsh gave her a small amount of money to help with her legal fees. Even after all we know the groupies still try to smear anyone that questions the myth

--edited by mod--

 

[JPM London]

did you read the article?

Since when did actually reading become obligatory

 

[JPM London]

I realize this is an anti-LA thread at heart, but one thing to keep in mind about O'Reilly is the lie that she was not paid by Walsh. I am not saying she is wrong about this but just pointing out something important in a thread making her sound like a bastion of truth.

As far as I can see it's a pro-Emma thread - not anti-LA.
It's actually more about Strickland v Emma than anything to do with LA.

Please provide a link to where Emma lies about having been paid for the interview (to cover her costs).

And, no, you pointed out something that's completely unimportant for the reason Race Radio already so eloquently provided...

I didn't actually know it was possible to be so far off the mark in one single post so short, but you amazed me - truly...

 

[Granville57]

one thing to keep in mind about O'Reilly is the lie that she was not paid by Walsh.

2nd Paragraph

Years ago I gave an interview to David Walsh, in which I told him the truth of what I had seen and experienced in my years in cycling. Incidentally, I got paid a small sum of money for all the time I put into helping David.

----------------------

Thanks for pointing out the helpless intern is called Joe Lindsay...

Let's make sure we keep our Lindsay's/Lindsey's straight here. J. Lindsay is the hapless guy that's been covered here in the past and isn't worth our energy.

Joe Lindsey is one of the more sane voices at Bicyling.com with much to offer in his regular column.

 

[Fausto's Schnauzer]

...the lie that she was not paid by Walsh.

When did she deny? Some documentation por favor....

 

[pedaling squares]

I didn't actually know it was possible to be so far off the mark in one single post so short, but you amazed me - truly...

Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.

- Samuel Beckett


Ok, to ensure this post is on topic. It is refreshing to see Velonews print this letter. Another sign that some of the US media sources are more willing than ever to consider other perspectives. A long way to go perhaps, but it's nice to see a start.