Emma Addresses Strickland
BL
couldn't crack her.
http://bicycling.com/blogs/theselection/2011/04/27/emma-o%E2%80%99reilly-responds-to-strickland%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cendgame%E2%80%9D/
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:asydnRxlac7fsybQ...@giganews.com...
> Interesting how Armstrong went after her with his legal team but couldn't
> crack her.
> http://bicycling.com/blogs/theselection/2011/04/27/emma-o%E2%80%99reilly-responds-to-strickland%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cendgame%E2%80%9D/
Great read, thanks for the link!
Funny that the part you take away from this article is about Lance and his
legal team. The article had little to say about that; rather, it was, as
your subject line states, Emma addressing Strickland, and the weight the
media places on her testimony vs others.
The part I found most interesting was this-
"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."
There is no reason for me to suspect that Emma was motivated by money to
spin a fictitious tale to Mr. Walsh, but the very act of paying people for a
story has to cast those stories in a questionable light. It doesn't take a
rocket scientist to understand that an embellished story is going to be
worth more. Mr. Walsh is closer to the National Enquirer than the New York
Times (and yes, sometimes even the National Enquirer does get it right, but
I feel safer believing what I read in the New York Times).
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Substance McGravitas
She comes across as pretty well balanced. You could learn a lot from
rereading the article and trying to notice the parts you naturally block
out. It'd be a big effort, but it'd pay dividends.
She's believable and has a decent perspective.
Kurgan Gringioni
> crack her.
> http://bicycling.com/blogs/theselection/2011/04/27/emma-o%E2%80%99reilly-responds-to-strickland%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cendgame%E2%80%9D/
Dumbass -
She lost me right away with this:
"When I spoke to David, Marco Pantani and Jose Maria Jimenez had
just died. This is what the problem is: People are dying because of drugs in
the sport."
That conclusion is just wrong. They were both depressives, Pantani died from
a cocaine addiction/overdose and I couldn't find what drugs killed Jimenez
but they weren't PEDs. He was retired at the time of his death.
The point is: it wasn't PEDs in sport that killed those guys. They were
depressives and it was drugs from society in general that killed them.
Unlike the recreational drugs, EPO doesn't affect the brain. There's a very
significant minority of Western culture whom could be diagnosed as
depressive and therefore susceptible to the temptation to self-medicate out
of the depression by using recreationals. Sport will have some of these
people in its ranks and they will bring those predispositions with them.
It's a problem which is much bigger than PEDs in sport, if PEDs in sport did
not exist, the depressives would still have those issues.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
RicodJour
wrote:
>
> Great read, thanks for the link!
>
> Funny that the part you take away from this article is about Lance and his
> legal team. The article had little to say about that; rather, it was, as
> your subject line states, Emma addressing Strickland, and the weight the
> media places on her testimony vs others.
>
> The part I found most interesting was this-
>
> "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."
I found this interesting:
"But now I am sick to death of journalists and people in the media
using my facts to help whatever point they want to get across. They
chase me like dogs in heat when they are trying to get their story,
then drop me if they’ve got their facts or I won’t elaborate or
embellish their story.
{snip}
For the record, I might not have achieved anything like Lance has—who
has? But I live a nice, quiet life running a small business, with my
two dogs and my boyfriend."
Chase me like a dog in heat? What woman would say that? It's
implying she's a female dog - a bitch. Very odd. Then I read the
last part - and that explained it all. She's in business with the two
dogs (notice the first billing) and her boyfriend. I wonder who's top
dog? =:O
R
Substance McGravitas
Shes's sick of people who wont listen and take her staements out of
context - like you and Brian. It pisses her off. That's all she said in
the bits you twisted.
Frederick the Great
Substance McGravitas <Fr...@Burger.com> wrote:
> Shes's sick of people who wont listen and take her staements out of
> context - like you and Brian. It pisses her off. That's all she said in
> the bits you twisted.
People who talk to reporters deserve everything that happens to them,
and it always happens. Peddle your injured innocence elsewhere, Mary.
--
Old Fritz
Frederick the Great
Substance McGravitas <Fr...@Burger.com> wrote:
You her mouthpiece?
--
Old Fritz
Anton Berlin
sentence their killed her credibility with me.
"I would like you to know that what Lance has done for cancer
sufferers has been phenomenal."
However if she had said....
"I would like you to know that what Lance has done for cancer
sufferers has been another criminally minded money making fraud
scheme."
She would have been 100% correct.
Phil H
You bring to mind the Venn diagram of overlapping delusional
perspectives.
Phil H
Fred Flintstein
I think when Strickland says that if it's her word against
LANCE's then LANCE wins he was speaking in a legal sense. At
least that's how I took it.
Emma seems to have a different read on it, that Strickland is
saying that LANCE is more believable.
Fred Flintstein
RicodJour
> context - like you and Brian. It pisses her off. That's all she said in
> the bits you twisted.
I have no...errr...dog in the fight. I was commenting on the words
she used. They are funny/strange. All the rest is just doping and it
bores me.
R
BL
Phil H
Out of context isn't a precise account of what she said. Folks with
their own agenda, selling newspapers, books, gossip mongers, the
"bring down Lance" brigade etc. Her desire was to rid cycling of drugs
and the impression that Lance the bully went after her.......well, you
can make accusations, but you'd better be able to back them up with
facts otherwise you're wide open to attack.....simple as that. She's
right...she was very naive.
Phil H
Mike Jacoubowsky
You didn't take anything "out" of context so much as create an extremely
misleading idea of what the article was actually about. You wouldn't score
very high on the verbal SAT if you had read that article and said it was
about Lance's legal team being unable to rattle Emma.
I don't think you read the article very carefully or you wouldn't have used
it to try and support your core belief that the world is rallying against
Lance and it's only a matter of time before he falls.
Substance McGravitas
Agreed. She took it personally and I'm sure it wasn't intended that way.
BL
Show me where I have ever taken what she has said out of context.
BL
legal hassles given her by Armstrong interesting because of a
conversation I had a few years ago with Prentice Steffen in which he
gave me the details of Armstrong's legal threats against him. SSDD.
Substance McGravitas
You're not capable of seeing your own misrepresentations. You are not
constrained by reality. "Each reader will take from her statement what
they will" justifies claiming that she was talking about anything.
You claim the article was about Lance's legal team, no reasonable person
would read it that way.
Phil H
wrote:
Anything BL reads about Lance is subject to his "occupational
psychosis." That's just a fancy name for frame of mind but its true
that he sees things a particular way because he is convinced of
Lance's guilt. Someone with no prejudice would have a hard time
deciding if Lance's actions were really bullying Emma or anyone else
to keep his secret or protecting his name against false accusations.
Phil H
Anton Berlin
> Interesting how Armstrong went after her with his legal team but
BL anyone with a 3rd grade reading ability would read this section of
the article and come up with the conclusion you wrote.
"why did Lance’s legal team feel the need to go to the High Court the
morning of my testimony for the above case so they could sit in on it?
They would have known that I was without my lawyer, another bullying
tactic that I had become accustomed too. Unfortunately, it’s hard to
effectively bully someone who is telling the truth."
Yes - Lance's legal team went after her and couldn't crack her and
the rest of these RBR jokers are being stupid cunts. It must be
some kind of silly grade school game they play.
Phil H
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree, you haven't taken what she said out of context but that's a
moot point. She is critical of people (Rico includes you) because of
their "other" agendas.
As for her word versus Lance's, Strychnine was right. Lance wins
because more is needed than just somebody's word to establish the
accused deed as a fact........don't you think? The fact that she
doesn't see this means what......a very narrow and naive perspective
maybe?
Phil H
Anton Berlin
> because more is needed than just somebody's word to establish the
> accused deed as a fact........don't you think? The fact that she
> doesn't see this means what......a very narrow and naive perspective
> maybe?
>
> Phil H
Wait a sec - she was asked to tell the truth. Put under oath and
appears to have done so. Because of that she's paid a price -
suffered consequences. We all know this can happen.
Would you trust Lance Armstrong to tell the truth when there would be
consequences for him ?
I doubt anyone in this forum can honestly say they would.
“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't
believe you”
Not about differences in opinion, or Rashomon style perspectives.
Lance is, has been and will be an outright liar.
RicodJour
I included no one.
> As for her word versus Lance's, Strychnine was right. Lance wins
> because more is needed than just somebody's word to establish the
> accused deed as a fact........don't you think? The fact that she
> doesn't see this means what......a very narrow and naive perspective
> maybe?
She's been kicked around and she's sensitive to anything on the issue
where her name crops up. Nothing surprising there.
R
RicodJour
>
> Wait a sec - she was asked to tell the truth. Put under oath and
> appears to have done so. Because of that she's paid a price -
> suffered consequences. We all know this can happen.
True. We also know that people commit perjury, juggle kittens and
steal library books. So let me take the opportunity to say I hate
Vino. He's a dick and I hope he Rasmussen's himself in his next time
trial.
> Would you trust Lance Armstrong to tell the truth when there would be
> consequences for him ?
>
> I doubt anyone in this forum can honestly say they would.
No offense, pizza boy, but I can honestly say I wouldn't trust you to
tell the truth if there were consequences for you.
I am not 100% sure, but I believe this is what they call "life." This
is why we watch sports - to get away from life, no?
R
Anton Berlin
I wouldn't count on me to give the same opinion as 1 in a million
people - but you can rely on me telling the truth. There's a huge
difference.
BL
context."
Further, I made no claims at all, FuckTard. I pointed out one aspect of
her statement that I found interesting. Other readers will be
interestred in other aspects of her statement. That does not mean that
anyone is taking any part of her statement out of context. I suggest
you go back to your room and finish whacking off to your Lance poster
collection. And shut the door so you don't disturb Mommy.
Substance McGravitas
I said that no reasonable person would read this article as being about
Lance's legal team, and you defend your reasonableness with an obscenity
laced tirade.
You are not required to confirm everything I type, just so you know.
Substance McGravitas
Really? You don't tell lies when it's in your interest to do so? Never?
There's Jim Carey movie based on a guy like that.
Fred Flintstein
I would 100% count on you to tell the truth as you wish
to see it.
Fred Flintstein
Frederick the Great
BL <B...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"I spoke to David because I felt that by not talking I
was a part of a problem that is actually bigger than
Lance. The big problem is drugs in cycling."
She thinks Lance is a problem.
"If my word is so worthless, Mr. Strickland, why did
Lance feel the need to terrorize me for more than two
years? Why did Lance feel the need to try and break me?"
Help! I'm being repressed.
"So I generally get harassment on both sides all
because I was stupid enough to speak the truth."
Sometimes breaking a confidence is not adherence to truth.
Calling somebody a problem, then complaining
that they take action against you is naive,
stupid, or cunning.
Emma O'Reilly was and is to this day on a crusade. To
be on a crusade is to pick a fight. I am not obliged,
or likely, to cheer her on. I do enjoy watching a good scrap.
--
Old Fritz
Michael Press
Substance McGravitas <Fr...@Burger.com> wrote:
She is in it for the action. Ten years after she is
tweaking people. Those who think they made a naive and
youthful mistake do their level best to live it down.
Emma is still scrapping.
--
Michael Press
RicodJour
> On Apr 30, 11:55 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 9:27 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Wait a sec - she was asked to tell the truth. Put under oath and
> > > appears to have done so. Because of that she's paid a price -
> > > suffered consequences. We all know this can happen.
>
> > True. We also know that people commit perjury, juggle kittens and
> > steal library books. So let me take the opportunity to say I hate
> > Vino. He's a dick and I hope he Rasmussen's himself in his next time
> > trial.
>
> > > Would you trust Lance Armstrong to tell the truth when there would be
> > > consequences for him ?
>
> > > I doubt anyone in this forum can honestly say they would.
>
> > No offense, pizza boy, but I can honestly say I wouldn't trust you to
> > tell the truth if there were consequences for you.
> > I am not 100% sure, but I believe this is what they call "life." This
> > is why we watch sports - to get away from life, no?
>
>
> people - but you can rely on me telling the truth. There's a huge
> difference.
Of course. No one has ever lied after they said they were telling the
truth. Or before. Or during.
Now put money, reputation and other penalties to be named later on the
other side of that balance beam.
I don't even believe you about your fookin' pizza. I've never tasted
it. I keep pricking up my ears and barking when the FedEx truck rolls
by - maybe it's the dog barking, I don't know - but no pizza ever
arrives. Liar.
R
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Newsflash: Some top athletes are aggressive and
competitive off the playing field! To the point of being
jackasses even!
WTF do you aunties expect. LANCE is famous for talking
about The Shit That Will Kill Them, not the spit that will
make them slightly uncomfortable.
This is kind of like NFL fans talking about what a shame
it is that their favorite spectacle damages the brains of
the gladiators they contract to watch. If only someone
would do something about it! But not, you know, anything
that would affect the game's watchability.
Fredmaster Ben
Michael Press
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
> You didn't take anything "out" of context so much as create an extremely
> misleading idea of what the article was actually about. You wouldn't score
> very high on the verbal SAT if you had read that article and said it was
> about Lance's legal team being unable to rattle Emma.
As far as that goes, they do seem to have rattled her cage.
She might even enjoy the attention.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<f2787347-e7f3-4c75...@m10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Anton Berlin <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 29, 4:31 pm, BL <B...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > Interesting how Armstrong went after her with his legal team but
> > couldn't crack her.http://bicycling.com/blogs/theselection/2011/04/27/emma-o%E2%80%99rei...
>
> BL anyone with a 3rd grade reading ability would read this section of
> the article and come up with the conclusion you wrote.
>
> "why did Lance’s legal team feel the need to go to the High Court the
> morning of my testimony for the above case so they could sit in on it?
> They would have known that I was without my lawyer, another bullying
> tactic
Taking advantage of a tactical mistake.
You too cheap to stay lawyered up in a legal battle, Emma?
> that I had become accustomed too. Unfortunately, it’s hard to
> effectively bully someone who is telling the truth."
>
>
> Yes - Lance's legal team went after her and couldn't crack her and
> the rest of these RBR jokers are being stupid cunts. It must be
> some kind of silly grade school game they play.
Emma is on a crusade. One object of her crusade
is Lance Armstrong. You are saying LA should
lie back and enjoy it.
They may not have "cracked" her. They continue
to make her life choice uncomfortable for her.
--
Michael Press