Emma O'Reilly Responds to Strickland article.

[blackcat]

or ameliorate their impending loss of face, a credibility that indeed evaporate years back in the Gunderson era

 

[JA.Tri]

Bicycling soft pedaled...a bit.

The article could have been more neutral on Emma's assertion..as has been pointed out above.

To view the article another way: "he said/she said... therefore LA wins." might have been applying the principle of "benefit of doubt".

While I see JPM's view, mine is a little more jaundiced. Overall I thought the Bicycling article/s were laying an apologetic foundation for LA's eventual confession/downfall.

 

[Granville57]

Ok, to ensure this post is on topic. It is refreshing to see Velonews print this letter.

I think you mean bicyling.com. Unless you have a link? Please try to stay on topic "PS".

or ameliorate their impending loss of face, a credibility that indeed evaporate years back in the Gunderson era

Nothng like a good blackcat post to expand one's vocabulary.

 

[pedaling squares]

I think you mean bicyling.com. Unless you have a link? Please try to stay on topic "PS".

Ah crap, you're right of course. I was just trying to add something on topic so I wouldn't get my own post deleted. Bicycling.com, velonews, you can forgive me for confusing one with the other.

 

[Granville57]

Anywho....

Back to the OP:

Her closing statement is revealing as well. In part...

To finish up, I would like you to know that what Lance has done for cancer sufferers has been phenomenal, and I agree with you that whether he is judged guilty or not he will still be an inspiration and rightly so.

This very well may be heartfelt and sincere, but I sense that part of it may be a reflection of her exhaustion at fighting the LA Brigade for so long, and not wanting to incur anymore wrath or give anyone more fuel to discount her credibility.

It's one of the cards they have relied on for so long:
"Our followers are an army of sufferers. DO NOT OFFEND."

But that sheen is slowly fading as well.

 

[JA.Tri]

9999 just how good are they

Boy Howdy!

I am really looking forward to reading Bill's/Joe's/Bicycling's response to Emma's letter.

That surely will be the test of the "metal".

Credit to Emma! Now we get to see just what "they" are made of.

 

[jimmypop]

Race radio and Granville, it's great she said so in this article, but where was she when "LA Confidential" came out and Walsh was claiming she was not paid?



Not only was she paid and was part of the denial by not coming clean when Walsh lied, she also was looking to get money when she realized Walsh was going to make money. Great ethics.


I won't comment on the unethical behavior in this thread.

Remind me how any of this changes the facts of Armstrong's PED abuse?

 

[JA.Tri]

Race radio and Granville, it's great she said so in this article, but where was she when "LA Confidential" came out and Walsh was claiming she was not paid?



Not only was she paid and was part of the denial by not coming clean when Walsh lied, she also was looking to get money when she realized Walsh was going to make money. Great ethics.


I won't comment on the unethical behavior in this thread.

Alternatively Mr Walsh could have offered Emma payment (after the interview), thereby removing any question of credibility.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

Damn, you admit that you understand the topic of the thread and still try and go off topic?

Race radio and Granville, it's great she said so in this article, but where was she when "LA Confidential" came out and Walsh was claiming she was not paid?



Not only was she paid and was part of the denial by not coming clean when Walsh lied, she also was looking to get money when she realized Walsh was going to make money. Great ethics.


I won't comment on the unethical behavior in this thread.

I am interested in the piece you quoted - yet did not link, as you obviously are someone of high ethics (I am glad there is finally someone else around here) could you please show the link as I got a rather dubious website when I searched, thanks.

 

[pedaling squares]

I am interested in the piece you quoted - yet did not link, as you obviously are someone of high ethics (I am glad there is finally someone else around here) could you please show the link as I got a rather dubious website when I searched, thanks.

And there I thought that blogs were the sources of all credible news.

 

[AussieGoddess]

sorry - I am with JPM on this one.

I think Emma O'Reilly has over reacted.

No one (and certainly not the article) is saying Emma's word is NOT credible. Simply that the defense is innocent until proven guilty, and if you are accusing someone and only have ONE eyewitness with no corroborating evidence, then the defense will usually win.

Its not that she is not credible - she is. Thats why the article is listing it as an issue against Lance in the first place. Its simply that its one against one and unless its corroborated by someone else or other evidence, its not enough.

 

[Anonymous]

Damn, you admit that you understand the topic of the thread and still try and go off topic?




I am interested in the piece you quoted - yet did not link, as you obviously are someone of high ethics (I am glad there is finally someone else around here) could you please show the link as I got a rather dubious website when I searched, thanks.

Here it is. BPC strikes again...

It can be found here too...You have to love the little troll sometimes. He keeps up the same drivel over and over at a time when most Armstrong trolls have returned to playing Halo full time again...

 

[Fausto's Schnauzer]

It's funny how people get uppity and claim someone is going off topic only when the person brings up a valid point that doesn't suit their agenda.



Sure the actual quote I used is from a blog, but the actual info the quote is discussing is from the Outside Magazine article...as it clearly states and links. Here is the link to the page of the article
http://outsideonline.com/outside/features/200512/lance-armstrong-1.html?page=6

Where's O'Reilly's denial of having been paid?

 

[pedaling squares]

H88, I'm sure it has not escaped you that Walsh alone was responsible for the disinformation, and that there is no mention of O'Reilly even knowing about the Walsh/Velonews interview. So I am not convinced that this affects her credibility.

I'm interested to know when I have accused you of being an LA groupie pushing disinformation. A person who came to this site with an agenda to disrupt - that is what I have accused you of being. And I retain hope that you will prove me wrong.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's funny how people get uppity and claim someone is going off topic only when the person brings up a valid point that doesn't suit their agenda.



Sure the actual quote I used is from a blog, but the actual info the quote is discussing is from the Outside Magazine article...as it clearly states and links. Here is the link to the page of the article
http://outsideonline.com/outside/features/200512/lance-armstrong-1.html?page=6

Keep trying boys.

It's interesting how people like road race, you, pedaling squares, etc. like to claim that anyone not demanding LA's head is a groupie pushing disinformation, yet you guys seem to follow a set plan ever time.

P.S.- Any of you Anonymous Internet Tough Guys care to make a wager whether I am this BPC person or even any previously banned member????

Sure, I will - but I know you aren't BPC.
I am amazed that you claim that I called you a groupie when that was the very first time that I had ever responded to your posts.
As you aren't even a month here it seems like we must have already met.

Its ok I already had the Online piece, thanks. Did you see this part?

It's also a fact that Walsh has said in the past that he did not pay Emma O'Reilly, when he actually did. Walsh recently admitted in an interview with Outside that he had paid O'Reilly for her story, despite assuring VeloNews in June 2004 that he had not. His explanation for telling this falsehood is that "I felt at the time if I'd said yes, she would have been absolutely screwed."

Do you think David was talking about people like you?

Also - as you have such high ethics and you are obviously good at finding out how much people earn for interviews and books could you tell us how much Bill Strickland made for his recent book 'Tour de Lance'?

 

[Race Radio]

You boys should work on your reading comprehension skills...unless you are purposely using misdirection.

Peddaling, you have done much more then that both publicly and privately...none of it appropriate to some who is a moderator.

Night boys, enjoy your highly organized attack on those who don't buy in to every word you say. (Oh, that was fun attacking a whole group!)

It appears you need to work on your comprehension skills, Emma did not make the claim that she had not been paid.....Walsh did. She needed money for legal fees to fend off the insensate harassment from Wonderboy, not because of some huge gravy train.

But of course, you knew that.

 

[Benotti69]

Race radio and Granville, it's great she said so in this article, but where was she when "LA Confidential" came out and Walsh was claiming she was not paid?



Not only was she paid and was part of the denial by not coming clean when Walsh lied, she also was looking to get money when she realized Walsh was going to make money. Great ethics.


I won't comment on the unethical behavior in this thread.

Walsh gave an interview to Competitor radio and explained the reasoning behind that.

http://competitorradio.competitor.com/?s=walsh

She had to undertake a huge amount of work to read what he had written in regards to her part in the book. She had to correct and edit what he wrote a few times. So of course she should be paid for it. Not like she gave an interview and that was it, she did a lot of work and was justified in receiving a sum of money for her work.

It is very funny when people accuse Walsh of making huge sums of money on this book, when he took a year of work, unpaid, to write it.

Unmasked.

 

[frenchfry]

I found Emma's letter very moving. It also illustrates just what happens if someone tells the truth about Lancey-poo, he unleashes his band of thugs with the intent to destroy. Psychological, financial destruction - the works. Mike Anderson has also illustrated the destruction methods, as have Betsy Andreau and others.

The good news is that Lancey-poo no longer has the protection of the media, and Emma and others can now tell their story with a lot less fear of being attacked by Armstrong's bullys. I can only imagine that this has empowered others that are interviewed by the investigation to tell the truth as well. When Strickland says that the broken down bus doping incident could go either way, I am sure he was referring to the possiblilty of those on the bus telling the truth or not because of fear of reprisals. With Novitzky watching, I am sure the witness intimidation squad has had to take a back seat to the PR campaign.

I hope the bad guys are dealt with so that honest and upright people like Emma can find some peace with this and their telling the truth finally brings some good to the sport of cycling.

By the way Hampsten88, the "financial gain" talking point is getting pretty old, especially when you consider Lancey-poos financial disgressions (ie marketing his foundation for personal gain). The sum that was paid to Emma (which it appears was "earned" for her work and also to offset legal fees resulting from Armstrong's harassement) pales in comparison to the financial gain that Lancey-poo has incurred and which is being uncovered now that his godlike status has been reduced to common criminal under investigation.

 

[TexPat]

I found Emma's letter very moving. It also illustrates just what happens if someone tells the truth about Lancey-poo, he unleashes his band of thugs with the intent to destroy. Psychological, financial destruction - the works. Mike Anderson has also illustrated the destruction methods, as have Betsy Andreau and others.

The good news is that Lancey-poo no longer has the protection of the media, and Emma and others can now tell their story with a lot less fear of being attacked by Armstrong's bullys. I can only imagine that this has empowered others that are interviewed by the investigation to tell the truth as well. When Strickland says that the broken down bus doping incident could go either way, I am sure he was referring to the possiblilty of those on the bus telling the truth or not because of fear of reprisals. With Novitzky watching, I am sure the witness intimidation squad has had to take a back seat to the PR campaign.

I hope the bad guys are dealt with so that honest and upright people like Emma can find some peace with this and their telling the truth finally brings some good to the sport of cycling.

By the way Hampsten88, the "financial gain" talking point is getting pretty old, especially when you consider Lancey-poos financial disgressions (ie marketing his foundation for personal gain). The sum that was paid to Emma (which it appears was "earned" for her work and also to offset legal fees resulting from Armstrong's harassement) pales in comparison to the financial gain that Lancey-poo has incurred and which is being uncovered now that his godlike status has been reduced to common criminal under investigation.

Thanks. I understand Emma's reaction to the piece. The innuendo and rumour spread about by the pro LA crowd as always been very hard to take.
Even if what Strickland wrote was not intended to imply that Emma's interview with David Walsh had credibility issues, it certainly comes across that way. My view is the same as hers. BS comes across as someone similar to the good ol boys on the legal team who I had rather forgettable exchanges with. His tone was no more sly than those country club lawyers. After you hear these things repeated a few times, one becomes hyper-aware.
And FF, peace is exactly what I hope to get out of all of this; I got a hate letter not too long ago that frankly makes me very ill at ease.

 

[thehog]

Emma is more taking a swipe at journalism as a whole. There has been many a cycling journalist who've come to visit her ove the years to tell "her" story only to change once lent on.

Strickland now had a new career in writing books on Lance's doping. The guy looks stupid. He's covering his tracks. He's part of the fraud.

Strickland accepted money for years knowing full well what he was writing was a lie. He never faced what Emma went through.

The worst of it wasn't the legal pressure. It was spreading rumors around about Emma's sexual history so she could never work in cycling again.

Endgame.... whos more fulfilled? Bill and his books of lies or Emma?

 

[skippythepinhead]

Race radio and Granville, it's great she said so in this article, but where was she when "LA Confidential" came out and Walsh was claiming she was not paid?



Not only was she paid and was part of the denial by not coming clean when Walsh lied, she also was looking to get money when she realized Walsh was going to make money. Great ethics.


I won't comment on the unethical behavior in this thread.

Even IF (big big if) there was some collusion to hide the fact she was paid for her work, she doesn't appear to be making any effort to live a lie, so it's truly difficult to understand your point and how it does or does not impact the larger issues.

And if you think there's something unethical going on here, spraying bullets in a drive-by no-comment only bolsters the notion you have nothing (big nothing) to add.

 

[TERMINATOR]

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).

In a court, Lance would never testify so it won't be her word against Lance's. It will be Emma's word against nobody else, since nobody from Pharmstrong's camp will want to risk a perjury charge just to lie for some guy who's done with the sport.

Also, Emma has no reason to lie whereas Lance does so Emma would actually win out here on this allegation. Strickland is still drinking from the punch because of those nickel-on-the-dollar royalties from his book.

 

[TERMINATOR]

Emma is more taking a swipe at journalism as a whole. There has been many a cycling journalist who've come to visit her ove the years to tell "her" story only to change once lent on.

Strickland now had a new career in writing books on Lance's doping. The guy looks stupid. He's covering his tracks. He's part of the fraud.

Strickland accepted money for years knowing full well what he was writing was a lie. He never faced what Emma went through.

The worst of it wasn't the legal pressure. It was spreading rumors around about Emma's sexual history so she could never work in cycling again.

Endgame.... whos more fulfilled? Bill and his books of lies or Emma?

I agree...the people at Bicycling were reading the comments sections everywhere and noticing that 90% of all comments about Lance are that everyone knows he doped and his lies are enormous.

Strickland and all the other Lance's sycophants feel as though they are pariahs. Now that Lance is retired and him and his entourage are laughed at for the frauds they really are, Strickland hedged his bet and decided that it was better to switch sides.

Not sure about Emma's alleged sexual history (although I can't help notice that Lance used the word "whhore" to describe those rumor in his SCA deposition. But even if that could be proven, female whhore's would be more likely to be hired, not less. Let's not get too righteous with ourselves here.

Also, it doesn't really make sense what the Lance camp is alleging....let's see, Emma has sex with some guys so she then says Lance is a doper. How does that even make sense given that Lance has never, ever mentioned Emma as being a whhore to any media? And if the peloton hires known dopers at all levels of management and as riders, not sure why being a "whhore" would mean she could never work in the sport. Makes absolutely no sense to me.

In Hollywood, actresses that aren't whhores are the ones who generally can't find jobs. Cycling is no less scuzzy.

 

[elizab]

Quite frankly, in my ever so humble opinion, she has quite a thresh hold to have put up with so much for so long. She too has been attacked and has never responded.
Lance pays people like Fabiani tens of thousands of dollars a month to perpetuate the myth, to promulgate falsehoods which flatter himself. He has paid the governing body overseeing his dope controls hundreds of thousands of dollars with zero transparency. Exactly who has the credibility problem?
We've been put out thousands of dollars not to mention the character assassinations and the loss of work by Frankie for refusing to be a good sport on the lance gravy train. Does it end? Just recently Frankie was informed he was the only tv crew member from Versus not invited back to cover Le Tour this summer. The price of telling the truth has been costly. I'm not surprised she's been quiet every time she was attacked by Lance. You pay a huge price going up against the machine.
I too had a problem with Joe's piece. The hospital room has been talked about ad naseum. It can't be summed up in a tidy 50 word paragraph. If space is an issue to Bicycling and the truth can't be told in its entirety, it doesn't do justice to the truth.
Way too many people in journalism have turned a blind eye to the truth for financial gain or to fill some void within. Some journos knew and didn't care. I hope every single person - journalist or not - who knew the truth and remained silent which made them complicit in the fraud is revealed in the end.

 

[JPM London]

Thanks. I understand Emma's reaction to the piece.

Thanks for chiming in Tex, I was considering writing you directly to get a comment from you - but you obviously dropped by on your own initiative...