Posted on 10/13/2012 4:43:34 PM PDT by Vision
Ms. O’Reilly said Mr. Armstrong demonized her as a prostitute with a drinking problem, and had her hauled into court in England. Ultimately, a legal settlement was reached, and Ms. O’Reilly tried to pick up her life, sometimes talking about Mr. Armstrong and drugs, but to little notice.
Ms. O’Reilly said she was once in a room giving Mr. Armstrong a massage when he and officials on the team fabricated a story to conceal a positive drug test result. Ms. O’Reilly said Mr. Armstrong told her, “You know enough to bring me down.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
That’s why I’m not arguing with you.
I had heard of them before, but thought they were simply making sure to harrass our olympic athletes, which you could stretch an argument to say, since they compete for our government, that the government has a compelling reason to keep them clean (also, the olympics may require that a government have a testing authority in place).
This was the first time I’d seen them asserting a right to investigate a retired athlete for things done in foreign countries years ago.
Saw this today:
http://www.nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/49406637/ns/sports-cycling/
First, while I denounce the USADA as an entity, if the result of this incident is that cyclists feel free to come forward with charges, and it means the sport gets cleaned up, that will be one good thing to come out of this.
Second, for those who bash people here for "not reading the report", I note this line from this article: "after the USADA published a 1,000-page report on Wednesday". It is now Monday morning. Let me say that I am skeptical that any of those attacking people for not "reading the report" actually sat down and read a 1000-page report between Wednesday and today. This isn't like reading a good novel (well, maybe it is like readong a novel). I apologize if someone actually did take time off from work and actually read through every page, cover to cover, of a 1000-word report, but my belief is this is just a poor debating tactic by people to try to get the upper hand without actually discussing the issues.
Third, my guess is he will only take a lie detector test if he is sure he can pass it. And if he does, it could easily be argued that he trained until he could pass the test. I'm sure it won't matter to the people arguing against him here. But it would truly cement the argument as a hearsay "who do you believe" argument, which is where I think Lance would like to leave it.
I really don’t have a horse in this race - except that I get upset when I see physiogical data being over-interpreted.
However, allow me to be contrarian, and look at the payments to Dr Ferrari from another angle.
If one reads Dr Ferrari’s blog he appears to be a very competent physiologist - in a way much more knowledgable than many of his detractors. (I say this based on my own expertise in neighbouring subjects.) Apparently Lance Armstrong trusted him - and some comments I’ve read indicates that Ferrari to a large extent ran the team’s training schedule, diet, resting periods etc, etc. Now let us suspend disbelief and assume that he did not provide doping drugs. Would he still be paid these sums?
Well, if the team or Lance Armstrong felt that his expertise was a major (or the major) factor behind the success in TdF, I don’t see this as extreme remunerations.
From the link I was sent it appears the LA during 2004 only paid Dr Ferrari once, in July 2004. The next payment was in March 2005. Compared with the number of payments during the previous year, could this last payment be a payment for 2004 initially withheld in waiting for the outcome of the court case in Italy? The next payment occurred well after Ferrari’s conviction had been overturned in the Court of Appelation.
Thus, again, if one is convinced LA is quilty, the accounting records count as yet more evidence against Armstrong. If not then it just shows that Armstrong used Ferrari as consultant, something that has never been contested.
“...within his first 10 days.”
...within Romney/Ryan’s first 10 days.
Can you point that out in the article???
Note that I am not directly accusing her of these things
Oh no?? Sure could have fooled me. You wrote:
"The girl in this story apparently lied, cheated, and participated in the drug trade for years."
If that 's not an accusation then I don't know what is???
She participated in the drug trade. She helped hide the evidence, thus cheating. She actually distributed prescription drugs, and since she isn't a pharmacist, that could well be a criminal violation.
She was doing all of this for the USPS team of Lance Armstrong. LOL
So she was an international drug trafficker.
Yeh -- for the USPS team of Lance Armstrong. LOL
She was intimately involved in the drug use cover-up, perpetuating the lies by hiding the evidence.
Yeh -- for the USPS team of Lance Armstrong. LOL
She finally told the truth, by her words, only when someone PAID her to do so.
But she told the truth, right???
Why is it going to his Swiss Company??? and what's all that extra money for???
Why yes, I did. Fortunately I read it all because hidden in the last paragraph (where such disclaimers usually are) was this inconvenient statement:
"... I can’t offer dramatic proof that Armstrong doped—the evidence I saw and heard was convincing to me, but it was also circumstantial"
So let me throw it back in YOUR lap Vision, did you read THIS article? You should have, it was linked in the 6th paragraph of the same article you are asserting I didn't read
Is Mikey A Disgruntled Former Employee?
(I changed the title a little bit...)
I seem to remember some $100k and $150k sums being mentioned, but in the overall scheme of TdF monies, fees, royalties, endorsements - which probably run well into the many tens if not hundreds of millions (especially for a staggering 7 titles) - that’s barely even chump change. If Dr Ferrari was in charge of the team’s doping regimen, he’d certainly be worth far more than those paltry sums, wouldn’t he? Just wondering.
But just so others aren't confused by your infantile response.
The word "apparently" is not a placeholder. It has an actual meaning, and a purpose. In this case, the purpose was to denote that things might not be as they seem.
And as I clearly stated in my second response to you, what I was writing in that response is based on your own belief in what the woman said. As my argument is that we cannot know if she is truthful now or not, I can't accuse her of doing things based on what she said, I can only point out what SHE is accusing HERSELF of.
You seem to then think that, because her claims were that she cheated, lied, and broke the rules, and engaged in possibly illegal drug trafficking FOR the U.S. postal service, that this somehow means that this isn't part of her own character.
Then you bizarrely claim that, because SHE says she finally told the truth, that this means that she finally told the truth. In fact, we can't KNOW whether she told the truth later -- all we know is that she was doing things for money, and then people offered her money to say things, and she said them.
But she told the truth, right??
She SAID she told the truth. Lance says he told the truth. Unless you are a mind reader, you would have to leap to a conclusion to assert that she told the truth. All we know is that she CLAIMS that, when offered money, she then stopped being a conspirator, and started telling the truth.
Oh no?? Sure could have fooled me
Of that, I am certain, but I would take no pride in it, as it would not seem to be a hard thing to do.
I’ve possibly read the wrong $100k & $150k numbers; here’s a USADA report about $1mm+ paid to Dr Ferrari from 1996 to 2009:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-lance-armstrong-paid-ferrari-more-than-dollar-1-million
Don’t know how much credence to put into it, though. But I know when I was reading many articles, on Sat-Sun, about this controversy, I did see the $100 & $150k fees paid to him, in some article, somewhere. It appears that they have his bank/financial records.
In the report it shows the largest payments were for the 5 years 2002 thru 2006 for over a million dollars, averaging $200,000/yr over those 5 years.
I thought you were one.
And as I clearly stated in my second response to you
You haven't clearly stated anything in days
what I was writing in that response is based on your own belief in what the woman said.
Are you a mind reader???
All we know is that she CLAIMS that, when offered money, she then stopped being a conspirator, and started telling the truth.
Can you show me that lie in the article???
You thought I was an adult conversation? Maybe you have been drinking an adult beverage.
You haven't clearly stated anything in days
I don't know how to type slower so you can understand better.
CW: what I was writing in that response is based on your own belief in what the woman said.: Are you a mind reader???
What I was writing in that response is based on whether or not you believe what the woman said; i.e. your "belief", or lack thereof, in what the woman said will inform whether you would find that she was a conspirator, a drug dealer, and a cheat. I wouldn't try to read your mind -- although it does amaze me that after all the exchanges, you would suggest that you do NOT believe what the woman said.
If you don't believe the woman, you should probably say so, and explain why. If you DO believe the woman, you probably shouldn't object to someone suggesting you believe her, even though you were mistaken in that conclusion.
CW: "All we know is that she CLAIMS that, when offered money, she then stopped being a conspirator, and started telling the truth." : Can you show me that lie in the article???
If you think she was lying there, that is your opinion, not something I stated. However, here again is the quote from the article, since apparently you have a short memory:
Ms. O’Reilly first went public in 2003, when she was paid to cooperate on a book,However, to give you a bit of credit, the article didn't explicitly CLAIM that she stopped being a conspirator when she sold her story to the book. I would however assume she did, since the team would hardly allow her to continue after that. Remember, this is based on whether you believe her or not -- I'm not saying that she is telling the truth, and there may not have been any conspiracy for her to stop being a part of.
Again to summarize what this woman CLAIMS: She carried illegal drugs across international borders. She disposed of drugs to hide them from investigators. She used her skills to hide evidence of drug use. She gave out prescription medication without a license. She knew virtually from when she started working that she was part of a cheating organization, and did nothing to stop the cheating, or to report the cheating, and instead aided and abetted that cheating, until someone offered her money to sell her story.
I won't say that this is the woman you choose to believe, because you seem to be confused on that point. When you figure out if you believe her or not, let us know.
So then this statement is true and your statement was the lie.
Thanks for the admission.
You don't see my point or you refuse to accept my point?
Your claim that Mr. Anderson is somehow the arbiter of truth based on his interview with Outdoor is now totally debunked and he's revealed to be the wacked out nutjob that he is.......
Armstrong ruined his life and forced him to move to NZ and you believe it???
Give me a break, you're just as nuts as Anderson is..........
USADA is not an agency of the U.S. government. They receive some funding from the government, but USADA is the just the branch of the World Anti-Doping Agency that deals with American athletes. The Union Cycliste International is a signatory of the WADA code. The cyclists themselves through their acquisition of a racing license are who give these entities the authority to rule on these matters.
Ok, so you think Anderson is nuts. There are about 30 names behind him. Are they all nuts?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.