I'm sorry this is long but it's worth reading IMO.
Emma O?Reilly Responds to Lance Armstrong Story
The former Armstrong assistant addresses doping allegations in Bicycling magazine?s Lance Armstrong feature.
Dear Mr. Strickland,
After reading your article ?Endgame,? (Bicycling, May 2011), which included a sidebar detailing 10 allegations against Lance Armstrong and your opinion of how each might be viewed by a jury, I felt compelled to reply. Allegation 6, labeled ?The Saddle Sore,? involves a dispute over a prescription Armstrong produced in 1999 to excuse a positive result for corticosteroid use in Stage 1 of that year?s Tour de France. You note that I, a soigneur for Armstrong?s team at the time, told journalist David Walsh that the prescription was illegitimate because it had been created and backdated after the test result was revealed. Then, in the section of that allegation called ?Our Take,? you say: ?At this point it?s Armstrong?s word against O?Reilly?s. Unless other witnesses corroborate her story, Armstrong wins this one.?
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. Unfortunately, I was somewhat naïve and thought that David?s book was about helping to cure cycling of its scourge of drugs. Since I gave the interview, I feel that nothing positive has come from it. All it has led to is pitching people against each other and basically forcing them to choose whose side they are on. The whole subject is much deeper than some spat in the playground. 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.
However, for those in cycling, that idea is way too simple and too many people are making their living out of cycling and feel the need to protect that. 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. Because I was prepared to lift my head out of the trenches and say it as it was, I became fair game. This is disgraceful.
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.
Since I spoke to David Walsh, I have received so many subpoenas that the policewoman who brought them got friendly enough with my boyfriend that she would call before coming and he?d put the kettle on for her. If my word is so worthless, why did I go to France and testify to the French Drug Squad? I worked the ?98 Tour de France, and I know how scary these guys can be, yet I was prepared to go to France, to their territory. I went because I was telling the truth, and also because a certain Mr. Armstrong sued me for a million euros because of my interview with David. 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? Why did I have his solicitor in my house trying to get me to retract parts of my interview?
Why, if my word is so worthless, did SCA drag me into their case against Lance over their refusal to pay him a Tour-winning bonus because of drug allegations? I did not want to get involved in the SCA case, as that is about a business deal that went wrong. I spoke to David because I wanted to help clean up cycling. I now know how naïve (code for stupid) I was. If my word is so worthless, why did SCA go through a lot of hassle and expense to get me subpoenaed for their case? If my word is so worthless, 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.
I have been called all things under the sun since I spoke the truth?strange that, isn?t it? 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. I have had their legal people call me at all hours demanding information and to backup what I?ve said. So I generally get harassment on both sides all because I was stupid enough to speak the truth.
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. 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? Perhaps you should talk to Lance. He didn?t seem to think it was so worthless when he got his legal team to go after me for a couple of years. I also find it interesting to see that you decide the allegation will be in favor of someone who used his privilege of oath to call me disgusting names he wouldn?t say without protection.
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. I had a couple of my most enjoyable years working alongside him, and really enjoyed his company, no matter what has happened since.
Emma O?Reilly