Emma O'Reilly Responds to Strickland article.

[MarkvW]

sanity

But you and others are making it out to be part of some larger LA funded conspiracy.

It's not.

Journalists are just like the rest of us. They want to do a 'good enough' job, get their copy in and go home to the pub.

If you think they're sitting at their desk, fretting over what could be inferred for their words, then you're seriously deluded.


The idea that journalists are completely committed to the full and absolute truth rather than deadlines, is as deluded as the idea that LA is clean.

In any other forum, I'd probably jerk you around for stating the obvious. In this forum, I welcome the fresh air. The people criticizing you have probably never dealt with a journo professionally.

 

[Mambo95]

Oh - I'm sorry I didn't realize they were under a deadline to get the opinion of their own journalist on print, can you link that or did you just make that up?

Actually I'd rather be seriously deluded than ignorant. Strickland has said that he had spoken to both Lance & JB before releasing the article.

Strickland wrote a very long article about how he had heard lots of rumors over the years but couldn't report it as no-one would go on the record.
Then he turns around and says 'oh, Lance doped' on the basis of an unnamed person who didn't go on the record.

Look, you yourself pointed out that Strickland himself didn't write the line himself, it was written by a staff writer.

There are many posters on here who are devoted to the LA story and spend lots of time on it.

Joe Lindsey is not one of those people. He's just a guy who has a job to do and gets on with it.

Do you have a job? Do you do the absolute best the possibly could, taking days on research on something that needs to in hours?

No, you don't. You just do the best you can and keep up the output targets. That's what's happened here. No conspiracy, no PR groups. Just a guy trying to do his job.

If you can't see this, then you've clearly never worked.

 

[Benotti69]

<snip>

The people criticizing you have probably never dealt with a journo professionally.

Seing as how you dont know anyone on this forum AFAICS, that is a defacto comment and means nothing.

 

[Mambo95]

In any other forum, I'd probably jerk you around for stating the obvious. In this forum, I welcome the fresh air. The people criticizing you have probably never dealt with a journo professionally.

Cheers. While I've never worked professionally as journo, when I was 15, I did a work experience course at the local paper just when the biggest story in their history happened. It made me realise what journos are up against. It was utter chaos. And that was just local level.

(In case you're wondering, Newbury Weekly News, August 1987)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Look, you yourself pointed out that Strickland himself didn't write the line himself, it was written by a staff writer.

I wasn't talking about the (Joe Lindsey) line - I thought the fact I mentioned Bill Strickland might have been a clue as to who I was talking about.

There are many posters on here who are devoted to the LA story and spend lots of time on it.

Correct - and 'we' don't get paid for it, yet 'we' can uncover more tahn they can.

Joe Lindsey is not one of those people. He's just a guy who has a job to do and gets on with it.

You obviously have no idea who Joe Lindsey is and ignored the earlier post about him.

Do you have a job? Do you do the absolute best the possibly could, taking days on research on something that needs to in hours?

Yes I do.
You think an article written by professionals that does little fact checking and doesn't even contact people (for 7 years) is doing the absolute best?

No, you don't. You just do the best you can and keep up the output targets. That's what's happened here. No conspiracy, no PR groups. Just a guy trying to do his job.

You know nothing about me - don't confuse your acceptance of ****poor standard with anyone else.

How would you know "what happened here"?

If you can't see this, then you've clearly never worked.

So, as well as deluded now I have never worked?? Damn, did I leave the camera on?

 

[pedaling squares]

A reminder to all that this thread is/was back on track after yesterday's nonsense - let's keep it on topic and not debate whether any forum member is employed, knows a journalist, knows anyone who is employed, etc.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

In any other forum, I'd probably jerk you around for stating the obvious. In this forum, I welcome the fresh air. The people criticizing you have probably never dealt with a journo professionally.

Well I guess you were directing that at me - I have worked with and know many journalists.

The people you appear to have dealt with may have called themselves journalists - but were in fact reporters.

 

[Mambo95]

Well Dr. M,

I congratulate you on having employment that doesn't rely on deadlines and output targets or any other pressure. A world where only perfection exists, regardless of time or money.

Once you've Kate tomorrow, I'd invite you to spend some time in a real working environment. A newsroom would be be best - they're absolute chaos at times.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Cheers. While I've never worked professionally as journo, when I was 15, I did a work experience course at the local paper just when the biggest story in their history happened. It made me realise what journos are up against. It was utter chaos. And that was just local level.

(In case you're wondering, Newbury Weekly News, August 1987)

You should send your CV off to Bicycling - fancy an editor position?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well Dr. M,

I congratulate you on having employment that doesn't rely on deadlines and output targets or any other pressure. A world where only perfection exists, regardless of time or money.

Once you've Kate tomorrow, I'd invite you to spend some time in a real working environment. A newsroom would be be best - they're absolute chaos at times.

I never said anything about "perfection" (nor indeed most of the stuff you wrote) but I do expect a standard to be upheld - I doubt you can make that distinction.

 

[MacRoadie]

A reminder to all that this thread is/was back on track after yesterday's nonsense - let's keep it on topic and not debate whether any forum member is employed, knows a journalist, knows anyone who is employed, etc.

Maybe it's just run its course. Bill Strickland and the staff at Bicycling wrote an article. Emma O'Reilly wrote a response to her portrayal within that article.

There's not much else to discuss without the debate devolving into motivations, agendas. etc. What led up to the article, what Emma's response included or excluded, etc is all speculation. Anything else will be pure supposition on everyone's part.

The article and response speak for themselves. Maybe we should just leave it at that. If either Strickland or O'Reilly want to come on here and add clarity then that would be great, but no one else seems willing or capable of adding anything else substantive.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Mambo95]

You should send your CV off to Bicycling - fancy an editor position?

No, he earns less than me. Nice job though. I'd prefer Cycle Sport or this website.

But back to the point. If you think that the scenario for anything that was written was written by LA's camp, rather than a hack who wanted to knock off then present it.

Do you really think that LAs camp would be focused an alleged post dated TUE for a drug test that wasn't even a fail, rather than eyewitness accounts of actual blood transfusions, as this thread has suggested.

These are the points you have been arguing. It shouldn't be about whose word is better, but whose word is relevant.

The 'Evangelical' anti-Armstrong people amaze me who doggedly cling on to the irrelevant trivia that they know rather than the crucial testimony that they don't.

 

[D-Queued]

Oh - I'm sorry I didn't realize they were under a deadline to get the opinion of their own journalist on print, can you link that or did you just make that up?

Actually I'd rather be seriously deluded than ignorant. Strickland has said that he had spoken to both Lance & JB before releasing the article.

Strickland wrote a very long article about how he had heard lots of rumors over the years but couldn't report it as no-one would go on the record.
Then he turns around and says 'oh, Lance doped' on the basis of an unnamed person who didn't go on the record.

Hmmm.

Putting one and one together, maybe it was Lance and/or JB that were the unnamed person(s) that wouldn't go on the record.

Based upon content, and the many points provided in this thread, it stretches the imagination to think that he bothered contacting anyone other than those two.

Dave.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, he earns less than me. Nice job though. I'd prefer Cycle Sport or this website.

But back to the point. If you think that the scenario for anything that was written was written by LA's camp, rather than a hack who wanted to knock off then present it.

Do you really think that LAs camp would be focused an alleged post dated TUE for a drug test that wasn't even a fail, rather than eyewitness accounts of actual blood transfusions, as this thread has suggested.

These are the points you have been arguing. It shouldn't be about whose word is better, but whose word is relevant.

The 'Evangelical' anti-Armstrong people amaze me who doggedly cling on to the irrelevant trivia that they know rather than the crucial testimony that they don't.

Tell you what - when you weren't busy with Ad Hominens you appear to attribute a lot of things to me that I never actually said.

If you want to quote something I wrote by all means, but I have no interest in wasting my time discussing things I never said.

 

[MacRoadie]

Can someone put this thread out of its misery?

You guys need to take your love fest somewhere else (like PM's maybe). Of the last 33 posts going way back to #79 on page 8, 15 of them have been personal bickering between you two.

Maybe we can start a new thread, starting with the nice link we got on Bikezilla from cat6cx...

 

[slcbiker]

I can easily see Strickland trusting his anonymous source more than Emma. If the source was someone like Hincapie or Vaughters, who was there all the time, and maybe a friend of Strickland. Or others like that. Then the source would have alot of sway with Strickland.
Emma, regardless of her credibility, is someone he doesn't know, and someone who already has a big iron in the fire (she's testified in a case).

I thought it was a decent article. I'm about in the same place he seems to be.
Lance probably doped. So did almost everyone else. Based on what happened to Bonds, he's probably going to get off pretty lightly from a legal perspective.

Off to ride the bike now.

 

[Mambo95]

Tell you what - when you weren't busy with Ad Hominens you appear to attribute a lot of things to me that I never actually said.

If you want to quote something I wrote by all means, but I have no interest in wasting my time discussing things I never said.

Look Dr M. I'm not even sure what you argument is any more. My original post was to say that the line was just a journo trying get his work done.

The opposing theory, seemingly supported by you, is that subtle changes in language, which most people won't pick up on, is a Strickland./Armstrong conspiracy to undermine one of the weakest pieces of evidence.

This is a shame, because you were one of the three posters on here that I actually paid attention to. But you seem to have gone irrational native.

Best wishes though.

 

[pedaling squares]

A reminder to all that this thread is/was back on track after yesterday's nonsense - let's keep it on topic and not debate whether any forum member is employed, knows a journalist, knows anyone who is employed, etc.

Hello? Hello? Is this thing on?

Please M95 & DrM, your debate is best held outside of this thread so that anyone who may have an interest in or a point to make about O'Reilly's letter can do so without surfing through unrelated content.

 

[AussieGoddess]

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.

If there are other witnesses - then there would be corroboration. The whole point is that there was only Emma (and the ones actually doing the PED's) there.

Again - this is NOT saying Emma O'Reilly's word is not good enough. The '10 points' is about which of Lance's blunders/legal issues is going to stick and which ones he gets away with.

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?

Sadly - I do agree with you. They are slandering her (not in this article as it doesnt ask this question). The answer to this of course is the 'talking points' answer that she is motivated by spite.

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.

I agree - they should have not called it .... especially as circumstantial evidence can also back this up a bit (he gave 2 interviews stating he had no TUE's, and his paperwork hadnt been done to show a TUE) I would have thought it was a bit more credible.

BUT - I still dont take that as a slight against Emma O'Reilly's word.

I do feel for her though. She has been dragged through a lot for coming out with the truth. He is truly an a$$hole.

Strickland wrote a very long article about how he had heard lots of rumors over the years but couldn't report it as no-one would go on the record.
Then he turns around and says 'oh, Lance doped' on the basis of an unnamed person who didn't go on the record.

Yep. This is the bit I didnt like about the article. I thought it was well on the nose.

Actually I thought the whole thing was not about Lance but about Strickland. Who the hell cares at what point HE decided that Lance took PED's ?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It was not a conspiracy but it was partly funded by the print media, tv and radio perpetuating his myth as they saw it as a great story, 'beats cancer wins TdF'. It led to a bigger interest in the sport in the English speaking world which generated advertising for those writing about it on a regular basis. It also funded the american revolution for certain bike companies. Would we have all those amercian bikes in the peloton or Sram aswell competing with Shimano and Campag?



The term journalist has gained unfortunate connotations, like the word 'politician', what professions should attract the most idealistic, altruistic and honourable people? Politics and Journalism. A journalist should stand for integrity, outing hypocrisy, corruption and lies, but in truth it along with politics, both professions are reviled.

While some may think one would live in cloud cuckoo land to expect any different, i believe if we dont expect these sort of attributes we can hardly expect it from others in society, so we should demand it from them and not accept what it has become, a pen pushing button monkey business.

Prob not. I guess you do not like having those bike companies making money in the pro peloton. Good for you to show your real feelings towards those companies. Cheers.

 

[Benotti69]

<snip>


Actually I thought the whole thing was not about Lance but about Strickland. Who the hell cares at what point HE decided that Lance took PED's ?

if i read it correctly it was his 12year old daughter who got the message through to BS that Gunderson is a doper

 

[poupou]

On bikezilla, there is a little mistake, O'Reilly is not an accuser, she is just saying the truth, ath least her truth about a fact.
A witness does not have to prove something, he just have to report the facts as clearly as he can.

 

[fatandfast]

On bikezilla, there is a little mistake, O'Reilly is not an accuser, she is just saying the truth, ath least her truth about a fact.
A witness does not have to prove something, he just have to report the facts as clearly as he can.

Glad you got her point. When she originally talked about drug use in cycling she never was singling Armstrong out, he was part of the problem as she observed, not the sole cause.

 

[elizab]

Journalists are just like the rest of us. They want to do a 'good enough' job, get their copy in and go home to the pub.

If you think they're sitting at their desk, fretting over what could be inferred for their words, then you're seriously deluded.


The idea that journalists are completely committed to the full and absolute truth rather than deadlines, is as deluded as the idea that LA is clean.

I agree and disagree. Journalists should be arbiters of the truth. They should seek the truth. But as Mambo points out some are more committed to their deadline than to the complete truth. May I add "space" as an issue as well? It all depends on the journalists. Some flat out don't care. I know of one on the gravy train who was purported to say "they all do {dope} it". Some journalists just loved hanging out with the star athlete so much so they'd party together (among other favors done.) I know of others who just didn't and still don't think some relevent aspects of all of this are pertinent; I know of one sitting on mounds of information that has never been reported. There are journalists who have the drive and the scruples to go after the story but they don't have the backing of their editors. I know of one editor who is described as a "celebrity star ******" hence, reporting on the issue is quashed. There are writers who have hidden behind the cloak of objectivity i.e. I can't write what I know because it won't seem objective. There are those who refuse to look at all the evidence - ALL the evidence because it's too time consuming or has been discussed before even though it's never been discussed in its entirety.

Bill never contacted me regarding the hospital incident for his book last year. When I asked why he said he had relied on other information. Like Emma, we felt slighted. Why was our word so disrespected and not valued that we were never ever contacted? Is that not the basic tenet of journalism to contact the person about whom you are writing?

It has been extremely frustrating. In my dealings, there are very few journalists who have conviction. There are a few I respect and trust completely. Four American journalists come to mind that I know of who questioned the myth from the get-go. They alone are held in my highest regard.

 

[ricara]

Welcome Back!

Good to hear from you! Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experiences.

Since it wouldn't be a negative thing, would you mind sharing the names of the four ethical journalists you've found? I'd like to keep them on my radar screen so I can stay informed.