Emma O'Reilly Responds to Strickland article.

[Mrs John Murphy]

Betsy - was there any explanation given as to why they dropped Frankie, or were you left to connect the (obvious) dots?

It looks like Versus are still onside with Armstrong.

 

[Digger]

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.

Well said. I am angry because the person who has most to be gained from telling lies is in fact Lance, yet he's the one who tends to be believed in the mainstream.
I always said on here that the truth is not a variable. How many times does Lance's story and version of events change. Not once has Emma's or Betsy or Frankie et al.

 

[Digger]

This is a good thread - do not respond to him.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

This is a good thread - do not respond to him.

+ 1

People shouldn't be sucked into his aim which is to derail the thread.

As has been pointed out - O'Reilly's anger is with Bill Strickland for failing to even contact her and the broader issue of her treatment since she spoke out to David Walsh.

It is no wonder people are so reluctant to break omerta if this is how you get treated. The sport and the media (yeah CN hacks I'm looking at you) need to do more to protect the whistleblowers.

 

[skippythepinhead]

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.

Your post and my knowledge of the abuse you and Ms. O'Reilly have suffered through the years makes me that much sadder and angrier about the shameful narcissistic nonsense Strickland and Bicycling are pimping. Cycling is sick and still stuck very much in denial, and the day of reckoning seems far off.

 

[Digger]

+ 1

People shouldn't be sucked into his aim which is to derail the thread.

As has been pointed out - O'Reilly's anger is with Bill Strickland for failing to even contact her and the broader issue of her treatment since she spoke out to David Walsh.

It is no wonder people are so reluctant to break omerta if this is how you get treated. The sport and the media (yeah CN hacks I'm looking at you) need to do more to protect the whistleblowers.

There was a clip on Youtube two years ago but is gone now I think. At the top table was Pat, David Walsh and Jorg Jaksche. Pat said that his door is always open to people who want to tell the truth. Walsh got so angry with Pat and said to him that when Frankie told the truth, Pat said that Frankie had an axe to grind and did it for ulterior motives (money). I can't think of even one whistleblower who has been welcomed by Pat.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

There was a clip on Youtube two years ago but is gone now I think. At the top table was Pat, David Walsh and Jorg Jaksche. Pat said that his door is always open to people who want to tell the truth. Walsh got so angry with Pat and said to him that when Frankie told the truth, Pat said that Frankie had an axe to grind and did it for ulterior motives (money). I can't think of even one whistleblower who has been welcomed by Pat.

Me neither. Everyone who has blown the whistle has had their integrity attacked - by the authorities, and then gleefully aided and abetted by the cycling media, who by repeating these slurs turn them into 'facts'.

It goes beyond the Armstrong case - look at how Manzano was treated, Jaksche, or Gaumont (called a 'nutter' by 'honest' David Millar) for other examples of how whistleblowers have are slandered and mistreated.

 

[Michael Brown]

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.

I agree with you completely. 100%. Every word.

She over-reacted to a perceived attack. I don't necessarily blame her for feeling that way...but her long response to such a short blurb was an over-reaction.

 

[JA.Tri]

I agree with you completely. 100%. Every word.

She over-reacted to a perceived attack. I don't necessarily blame her for feeling that way...but her long response to such a short blurb was an over-reaction.

The length/detail of a blurb should not dictate the length of the response. Sometimes the details are crucial to establishing the circumstances.

 

[Red Lobster]

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.

You may want to take a moment to ruminate on the distinction between "validity" and "logical relevance." Jimmypop attempted to point you in the same direction earlier but his effort flew straight over your head it seems.

 

[patricknd]

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.

very good post

 

[Granville57]

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.

I agree with you completely. 100%. Every word.

She over-reacted to a perceived attack. I don't necessarily blame her for feeling that way...but her long response to such a short blurb was an over-reaction.

Here's the flaw in that logic:

Bicycling (like many other media outlets) gently imply that "if you are accusing someone and only have ONE eyewitness with no corroborating evidence, then the defense will usually win." But that isn't, and never was, the case. Emma never once pretended that she was the only one who knew about the backdated TUE. Of course there are other witnesses.

They then further imply...
"Its simply that its one against one and unless its corroborated by someone else or other evidence, its not enough" which carries the suggestion that maybe it won't be corroborated by someone else. Which, given what I have previously stated in regards to Bicycling and Strickland's perspective, is disgusting in its feigned sense of "justice" because they know damn well that many, many of the accusations against LieStrong have been corroborated by other witnesses and they themselves have heard some of those first hand.

The whole scenario then begs the question:
What would Emma O'Reilly POSSIBLY have to gain by implicating the biggest name in cycling in a doping cover-up?

That question HAS to be asked, and would be asked in a court of law.

Why didn't Strickland/Bicycling ask that question?

 

[JPM London]

There was a clip on Youtube two years ago but is gone now I think. At the top table was Pat, David Walsh and Jorg Jaksche. Pat said that his door is always open to people who want to tell the truth. Walsh got so angry with Pat and said to him that when Frankie told the truth, Pat said that Frankie had an axe to grind and did it for ulterior motives (money). I can't think of even one whistleblower who has been welcomed by Pat.

To think that he would even say that when sitting next to Jaksche! Boy, this man is good for some incredible quotes from time to time (well, consistently when he opens his mouth, actually)...

 

[DirtyWorks]

Here's the flaw in that logic:
... Emma never once pretended that she was the only one who knew about the backdated TUE. Of course there are other witnesses.

They then further imply...
"Its simply that its one against one and unless its corroborated by someone else or other evidence, its not enough" which carries the suggestion that maybe it won't be corroborated by someone else.

The whole scenario then begs the question:
What would Emma O'Reilly POSSIBLY have to gain by implicating the biggest name in cycling in a doping cover-up?

That question HAS to be asked, and would be asked in a court of law.

Why didn't Strickland/Bicycling ask that question?

1. My guess is this is the source of Emma's emotional reply. While I agree she misinterpreted it in some way, in another way they used her claims in a very substantial way that still deliberately challenges her credibility. They have the bully pulpit and used it against her.
2. Strickland/Rodale won't ask the question because they used the article to establish some crazy mental gymnastics in order to get ahead of what may come from law enforcement (felonies) while trying to keep the myth alive.

 

[Anonymous]

The validity of my point was established in my first post. Jimmypop was merely trying to turn this into something it was not...a typical action on these forums.





It's interesting how all of the anti-LA people talk about how the pro-LA people attack them and send nasty emails and nasty posts, etc. yet as soon as someone presents something that does not toe the anti-LA line 100% they do the exact same things...even if you have never said anything about whther LA doped or did not dope.

 

[MacRoadie]

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

Please try to keep up better then certain mods and the obsessives.

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's rather amusing that the anti-LA brigade tells people to open their eyes, while having theirs firmly closed to anything that does not fit their agenda 100%.

I'll be waiting to see the usual rash of insults and attacks that I know will come from the usual suspects.

It's interesting how all of the anti-LA people talk about how the pro-LA people attack them and send nasty emails and nasty posts, etc. yet as soon as someone presents something that does not toe the anti-LA line 100% they do the exact same things...even if you have never said anything about whther LA doped or did not dope.

Every time you post something in this and every other thread, you have to either include Armstrong or some rant against half the forum yet you still feel somehow inclined to continue posting...

 

[Fausto's Schnauzer]

The validity of my point was established in my first post. Jimmypop was merely trying to turn this into something it was not...a typical action on these forums.





It's interesting how all of the anti-LA people talk about how the pro-LA people attack them and send nasty emails and nasty posts, etc. yet as soon as someone presents something that does not toe the anti-LA line 100% they do the exact same things...even if you have never said anything about whther LA doped or did not dope.

How do you take your tea?

 

[Anonymous]

Every time you post something in this and every other thread, you have to either include Armstrong or some rant against half the forum yet you still feel somehow inclined to continue posting...

No, no, he has a point. A lying, one balled, fraud who over and over has been shown to do nothing but lie about his past has MUCH more credibility than a woman who was not asked a question about something someone else was asked a question about that when he made the statement had not paid money to the person who they were asking about, but because nobody asked her about it (especially considering some blog hack wrote his ignorant opinions on the subject) she didn't answer a question which is MUCH more egregious than Armstrong's lies and fraud over the years. Lets all applaud his argument for what it is...Grade A Trolling.

 

[Granville57]

1. My guess is this is the source of Emma's emotional reply. While I agree she misinterpreted it in some way, in another way they used her claims in a very substantial way that still deliberately challenges her credibility. They have the bully pulpit and used it against her.
2. Strickland/Rodale won't ask the question because they used the article to establish some crazy mental gymnastics in order to get ahead of what may come from law enforcement (felonies) while trying to keep the myth alive.

Some good points here.

To the bold:
That is another key aspect underlying all this. For those who want to uphold a sense of "fairness" or "justice" and view the article from the strict perspective of "how a court would view it" we need to keep the source in mind.

The original article did not come from the Mayberry Gazette. It was not just put out there to the general public from some innocent sideline observer. It was put forth from people who have admittedly spent time alongside those from the LieStrong camp. Not the least of which would be Strikland's giddy acceptance into their inner-circle (to a degree) while writing his book, as well as cozy, man-crush bike rides next to his beloved champion.

But Strickland/Rodale never once reached out to O'Reilly in any attempt to balance the scales. This concept that they are assuming some sort of journalistic neutrality is completely absurd.

 

[Barrus]

The validity of my point was established in my first post. Jimmypop was merely trying to turn this into something it was not...a typical action on these forums.





It's interesting how all of the anti-LA people talk about how the pro-LA people attack them and send nasty emails and nasty posts, etc. yet as soon as someone presents something that does not toe the anti-LA line 100% they do the exact same things...even if you have never said anything about whther LA doped or did not dope.

You started in this thread to moan about the behaviour of other psoters so you brought this upon yourself. A rant that was completely off-topic, as has been almost all your posts in this topic

Get back on-topic everyone. lets not have this topic dwell that far off-topic as well

 

[DirtyWorks]

For those who want to uphold a sense of "fairness" or "justice" and view the article from the strict perspective of "how a court would view it" we need to keep the source in mind.

The original article came from an organization who have profited handsomely from the LieStrong camp. Not the least of which would be Strickland's giddy acceptance into their inner-circle (to a degree) while writing his book, as well as cozy, man-crush bike rides next to his beloved champion.

But Strickland/Rodale would never contact O'Reilly in any attempt to balance the scales.

This concept that they are assuming some sort of journalistic neutrality is completely absurd.

Fixed that for you.

I would argue Rodale was one of the very few outside of Tailwind to earn any kind of extra money from the Armstrong myth. They don't want to lose that revenue and have been shown to do anything in order to maintain it.

As much as many people are getting punished for telling the truth, my genuine hope is the common historical account is written by a David Walsh, not a Bill Strickland. Ideally, hashing this stuff out in this forum tilts history being retold with a Walsh perspective.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

This would be a fair assessment except that Bicycling actually present the 'evidence' and then add in their "take".
As its a case of "he said, she said" they should have done what they did in the 'Transfusion' piece and not called it.

With nothing else to go on (as they didn't bother to even call Emma) they said "Armstrong wins this one" - so yes, it is an attack on her credibility.

Also - how did Emma over react? This was her response directly to the Endgame article:

But having read your article, I have decided enough is enough. For you to say in relation to that allegation that Lance wins — without you verifying my side of story — is it because you feel Lance’s word is worth more than mine? Is it because the only people you spoke to are still involved with Lance and cycling? I am sure Lance has people to back up his side, but I never got the opportunity to put my side across.

That seems like a pretty honest assessment and certainly not over the top.

 

[thehog]

This would be a fair assessment except that Bicycling actually present the 'evidence' and then add in their "take".
As its a case of "he said, she said" they should have done what they did in the 'Transfusion' piece and not called it.

With nothing else to go on (as they didn't bother to even call Emma) they said "Armstrong wins this one" - so yes, it is an attack on her credibility.

Also - how did Emma over react? This was her response directly to the Endgame article:

That seems like a pretty honest assessment and certainly not over the top.

It's important to notate that this is a build up. Emma's name has been dragged up time & time again even when she's barely said a word to anyone. She had every right to overreact.

The other issue is as you state.... "Armstrong wins..."....... Believe me there are no winners in this sordid mess. No one is going to "win".

 

[fatandfast]

Emma makes things pretty clear. She likes people to ask rather than assume how she feels about a subject. She points out things that Armstrong contributed to bike racing. She also doesn't make Lance out to be anymore or less of a doper than anybody else. As she said she was a little wet behind the ears, she probably regrets saying anything

 

[cat6cx]

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.

I’ll try to help get it back on topic and discuss the point of your comment. However I’m having a hard time filling in some of the blanks by the way you have it worded.

H88 are you saying that Emma lied and said she was not paid by Walsh? (You said “the lie” not who lied.) Or are you saying Walsh lied when he said he didn’t pay her. Is the bolded "this" refering to the "lie" or her story about LA.

Maybe if you can clearly establish that point, then we can move on to the second point about her credibility.

If she lied, I would say yes it hurts her credibility, if Walsh lied I would say it doesn’t hurt it as much, but still makes it a little messier.

I just need a few more details as the way your comment is worded leaves it open to interpretation.

Thanks