Joe Papp pleads guilty Options

[lakeArrowheadrider]

I did not know he was a drug dealer as well.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...mpgj_AD9DU18RG0

[D-Queued]

I did not know he was a drug dealer as well.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...mpgj_AD9DU18RG0

Whose names appear on the customer list?

Dave.

[Old Runner Guy]

Here is a little more color

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=ap-cy...p&type=lgns

Papp earned more than $80,000 selling the drugs from September 2006 to September 2007 to 187 customers “including cyclists and other athletes, throughout the United States and internationally,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Mary McKeen Houghton said.

None of the customers was identified in court, and Houghton, Papp and his attorney, William Ward, declined to comment on terms of the plea agreement, which was sealed by the court. Often that is done if a defendant is cooperating with the government, but Ward and Houghton refused to say if that was the case.

Papp’s Chinese connection is identified only by the name “Chen” and authorities did not say if that person would be charged. The evidence against Papp is largely in e-mails between him and his customers, a Web site he operated through which the drugs were sold, and a private mail box where Papp allegedly received the drugs.

--

So, Papp was dealing while he was testifying for USADA against Landis in May 2007. He was testifying under a plea agreement with USADA at the time.

This post has been edited by Old Runner Guy: Feb 17 2010, 08:06 PM

[D-Queued]

Here is a little more color

...

--

So, Papp was dealing while he was testifying for USADA against Landis in May 2007. He was testifying under a plea agreement with USADA at the time.

And...?

And Landis was ripping people off through the FFF at the same time, while buddy Will was making obscene phone calls.

With respect to Joe's testimony, which centered on his personal knowledge of drug use in cycling, doesn't this make him an even greater expert on the doping behavior in the Peloton? Apparently he has extensive information beyond his own personal use.

Using Balco as an analogy, who would you believe, Victor Conte who claimed Marion Jones was a uer and a customer, or Marion who claimed that she was not.

an accusation she vehemently denied over and over again

Personally, I'm going to stick wth Victor on that.

Your point?

Dave.

[lakeArrowheadrider]

And...?

And Landis was ripping people off through the FFF at the same time, while buddy Will was making obscene phone calls.

With respect to Joe's testimony, which centered on his personal knowledge of drug use in cycling, doesn't this make him an even greater expert on the doping behavior in the Peloton? Apparently he has extensive information beyond his own personal use.

Using Balco as an analogy, who would you believe, Victor Conte who claimed Marion Jones was a uer and a customer, or Marion who claimed that she was not.

an accusation she vehemently denied over and over again

Personally, I'm going to stick wth Victor on that.

Your point?

Dave.

The point is that he had an agenda, where he made it appear he had none. He was doing it for the good of the sport remember? I am sure he was just trying to get a good deal with the feds.

[Surftel]

The point is that he had an agenda, where he made it appear he had none. He was doing it for the good of the sport remember? I am sure he was just trying to get a good deal with the feds.

Are you implying that Papp's testimony was wrong?

Agenda or not Floyd's contention that Testosterone had no value was one of the more absurd parts of his defense.

[patrick]

And...?

And Landis was ripping people off through the FFF at the same time, while buddy Will was making obscene phone calls.

With respect to Joe's testimony, which centered on his personal knowledge of drug use in cycling, doesn't this make him an even greater expert on the doping behavior in the Peloton? Apparently he has extensive information beyond his own personal use.

Using Balco as an analogy, who would you believe, Victor Conte who claimed Marion Jones was a uer and a customer, or Marion who claimed that she was not.

an accusation she vehemently denied over and over again

Personally, I'm going to stick wth Victor on that.

Your point?

Dave.

it does have some bearing if he was testifying because he was getting a deal. credibility is based on knowledge, which he obviously has, but also motivation. i think you have to weigh both in making a judgement on the weight you give his testimony.

[floridacyclist]

it does have some bearing if he was testifying because he was getting a deal. credibility is based on knowledge, which he obviously has, but also motivation. i think you have to weigh both in making a judgement on the weight you give his testimony.

Indeed. Although it's a bit of a mischaracterization to say "he was testifying because he was getting a deal." He was testifying because he was served a summons and required to appear, put under oath, and required either to take the 5th, testify truthfully, or face potential jeopardy for perjury.

Frankly, had this greater information been fully available during the Landis hearing, the basic propositions his testimony was to support and bolster -- (1) that doping works, (2) that sophisticated dopers follow sophisticated routines to evade testing, and (3) that doping is pervasive -- would have been far more credible, not less.

That is unless you think he invented the number of customers, the sheer number of them who managed to routinely evade anti-doping controls, and the improved results they achieved (that is unless you believe the whole $80k's worth of dope provided no competitive benefit, but was actually just a gigantic con job scam).

The bigger question is why the Feds (and USADA) have elected to cover up the legion of coaches and dopers who were on Papp's customer list.

Surely you're not saying you find Papp's testimony less credible in light of this new information. I agree with the general proposition you've stated. But let's not be coy. Do you or do you not find Papp's testimony in any way, to any degree, less credible now?

[Old Runner Guy]

Indeed. Although it's a bit of a mischaracterization to say "he was testifying because he was getting a deal." He was testifying because he was served a summons and required to appear, put under oath, and required either to take the 5th, testify truthfully, or face potential jeopardy for perjury.

You forget it was not a court but an arbitration hearing. Although the arbritration technically had the power of supoena, it elected not to use it. So, Papp was free to not testify if he decided not too.

So, while Papp was dealing drugs, USADA cut a deal with him to testify on their behalf. Papp continued to deal drugs to cyclists after the May 2007 hearing until September. Obviously USADA felt Papp's testimony was important or they would have not put him on the stand in the first place.

What did USADA gain from this? Had you known at the time that Papp was a dealer trying to save his hide, would that have changed your opinion about what Papp said? Was Papp willing to lie? That is, say whatever USADA wanted to hear to get a deal? If so, and USADA knew he was willing to lie, what does that say about USADA and the fact they did not disclose that had the cycling version of Victor Conte on the stand without disclosing it?

Added later .....

Papp was shut down in September 2007. That was the same month that Landis hearing award came down. Did USADA allow Papp continue his drug dealings until the award was public was out fear that a Papp arrest could generate negative publicity for them (Possible headline "USADA cuts deals with drug dealer, sells out others to get Landis")? If so, how many athletes were allowed to ride while juiced until Spetmber 2007? How many clean athletes did USADA allow to be cheated until September 2007 because getting Landis was more important than policing drugs out of sports?

This post has been edited by Old Runner Guy: Feb 17 2010, 11:18 PM

[MacRoadie]

Had you known at the time that Papp was a dealer trying to save his hide, would that have changed your opinion about what Papp said? Was Papp willing to lie? That is, say whatever USADA wanted to hear to get a deal? If so, and USADA knew he was willing to lie, what does that say about USADA and the fact they did not disclose that had the cycling version of Victor Conte on the stand without disclosing it?

While this is a valid question to ask, it's the same question that arises with every plea deal when an accused turns state's witness and testifies against a co-defendant in return for a lesser sentence.

Papp was shut down in September 2007. That was the same month that Landis hearing award came down. Did USADA allow Papp continue his drug dealings until the award was public was out fear that a Papp arrest could generate negative publicity for them (Possible headline "USADA cuts deals with drug dealer, sells out others to get Landis")? If so, how many athletes were allowed to ride while juiced until Spetmber 2007? How many clean athletes did USADA allow to be cheated until September 2007 because getting Landis was more important than policing drugs out of sports?

One for the tin foil hat wearer's hall of fame.

[patrick]

Indeed. Although it's a bit of a mischaracterization to say "he was testifying because he was getting a deal." He was testifying because he was served a summons and required to appear, put under oath, and required either to take the 5th, testify truthfully, or face potential jeopardy for perjury.

Frankly, had this greater information been fully available during the Landis hearing, the basic propositions his testimony was to support and bolster -- (1) that doping works, (2) that sophisticated dopers follow sophisticated routines to evade testing, and (3) that doping is pervasive -- would have been far more credible, not less.

That is unless you think he invented the number of customers, the sheer number of them who managed to routinely evade anti-doping controls, and the improved results they achieved (that is unless you believe the whole $80k's worth of dope provided no competitive benefit, but was actually just a gigantic con job scam).

The bigger question is why the Feds (and USADA) have elected to cover up the legion of coaches and dopers who were on Papp's customer list.

Surely you're not saying you find Papp's testimony less credible in light of this new information. I agree with the general proposition you've stated. But let's not be coy. Do you or do you not find Papp's testimony in any way, to any degree, less credible now?

notice that i said if he was getting a deal. i don't know that he was getting any benefits for his testimony.

and i wouldn't hold my breath waiting to see that customer list.

This post has been edited by patrick: Feb 18 2010, 12:44 AM

[Old Runner Guy]

While this is a valid question to ask, it's the same question that arises with every plea deal when an accused turns state's witness and testifies against a co-defendant in return for a lesser sentence.

Yes and that is why these deals have to be disclosed in real court. Since this was an arbitration hearing disclosure was not required. So we are left wondering exactly why Papp voluntarily testified and what was in it for him and USADA.

One for the tin foil hat wearer's hall of fame.

Naah, this is minor league stuff. Here's a major league tin foil hat theory ....

During a break at the Landis hearing while Papp was testifying, he is talking to USADA lawyers Richard Young and Mat Barnett. Papp thanks them for the deal to speak and promises then to turn the corner.

Papp's cell phone rings. Papp excuses himself from Young and Barnett moves just out of earshot. It's a cyclist looking to secure PEDs. Papp arranges delivery of PEDs to that cyclist.

Papp finishes, puts his phone in his pocket and returns to Young and Barnett. Young reminds Papp that USADA is "taking a chance on him" and thanks him for his testimony as he believes it will help the public relations aspect of the case. Papp reiterates to Young they did the right thing in not passing his case to a prosecutor and promises to continue to help USADA get PEDs out of sports.

Later that summer that cyclist outperforms his prior results, wins a race and the prize money and attention that goes with it. A clean rider finish second. That fall this same cyclist is rushed to the hospital with shortness of breath and heart palpitations.

As the same moment that rider is in the emergency room fighting for his life, Richard Young is speaking at a Law School tells the students how USADA's case against Landis was fair and necessary to rid sports of PEDs.

The next day Young meets with Barnett and Tygert and says; "now that the Landis case is secured, we need to get Papp off the street."

notice that i said if he was getting a deal. i don't know that he was getting any benefits for his testimony.

and i wouldn't hold my breath waiting to see that customer list.

Then way in god's name would a low-life pusher like Papp agree to testify? Scum like Papp do nothing unless they get something out of it.

It not an "if" it's a "what". This is the only thing we are sure of.


This post has been edited by Old Runner Guy: Feb 18 2010, 12:57 AM

[floridacyclist]

notice that i said if he was getting a deal. i don't know that he was getting any benefits for his testimony.

and i wouldn't hold my breath waiting to see that customer list.

All right. Let's assume he did receive consideration in exchange for his willing testimony. My question stands. Do you think that makes the testimony any less credible? Or in fact, does it only serve to reinforce the basic premise the testimony was provided to support?

Not to worry, I won't hold my breath on the customer list. USADA certainly wouldn't want to admit the humiliating truth -- that anti-doping testing programs are beaten by scores of dopers on a regular basis. A list full of a hundred or more people who'd been tested and come up clean, but Papp's list indicated were doping, is something WADA, the USADA, the USOC, etc, etc, would fight tooth and nail to keep under wraps. As for the Feds, just as when they busted the steroid ring that was supplying Mark McGwire and scores of other athletes years ago, and ran across the evidence of their use, they simply don't want the extra work that can of worms would open up, not to mention the political heat.

[Old Runner Guy]

Joe Papp commented on his testimony for "trust but verify".

Read this now with the information that he was a drug pusher and sold $80k of PEDs to 187 different people literally while he was writing this and tell me you don't see it in a different light?

The Winnowing: Joe Papp

http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2008/12/winnowing-joe-papp.html


Joe Papp is an American sometime-professional cyclist who was busted for testosterone use and testified for USADA at the AAA hearing. He has openly admitted his own guilt.


When TBV invited me to share my thoughts on the puzzle that was the Landis Affair, I eagerly accepted – though weeks passed before I could finally articulate my perspective on the case.

As I said during the arbitration hearing in Malibu last May, I didn’t – and don’t – have any ill-will towards Floyd Landis. I understood how my testimony as a witness for USADA could have been perceived by Landis and his supporters, but I took the stand to share with the world my own story, and to state for the record that testosterone, along with many other drugs that wouldn’t seem ideal choices for endurance athletes, are hungrily gobbled-up by professional cyclists and used exactly as I described.

The claim that there is no “scientific” evidence to support the use of testosterone for recovery by professional cyclists during multi-day stage races is a red herring – scientists and medical professionals are ethically-prohibited from carrying out the very research studies that would be required to support or disprove the theory that Androgel® works beyond having a placebo effect. Besides, with finite resources available to support the anti-doping movement, would that research represent the best allocation of funding in pursuit of the goal of “clean-sport?” I would rather see money spent to improve the efficiency and the integrity of the testing and reporting process, to ensure that other athletes accused of doping don’t suffer the same injustice that befell Floyd.

Yes, even though he was convicted of doping, I think that the anti-doping system failed Floyd Landis.

I don’t place the blame on USADA – an agency that treated me justly and respected the basic tenets of fairness during the adjudication of my case – but rather, with the foreign parties who violated Landis’ rights as an athlete and precipitously disclosed the results of his A-sample to the media.

Floyd was criticized for his public “wiki” defense, and I think he erred tactically in some of his statements, but if parties to the case other than Landis hadn’t violated their legal and ethical obligations of confidentiality, there would have been less questioning of the integrity of the entire testing process.

The anti-doping agencies should aggressively fight cheating in sport, but in a manner that leaves no room for conspiracy theories or the challenging of test results based on gross violations of an athlete’s privacy. The laboratories charged with analyzing samples must be held to the same standards to which accused athletes are subjected, because when a process and protocols are intentionally contravened (as in the case of LNDD’s leaking Landis’s results to the media), one can reasonably question the motivation and reliability of those who should be scrupulously neutral.




And, in the comment sections, Papp wrote said this ....



joep said... jrd, no need to congratulate me for anything. please.

i would much rather have never been in a position to EVER be considered as a possible witness in a doping arbitration (as an athlete with some knowledge of some facet of doping), because to have been so is indicative of the colossal, epic error in judgment on my part that landed me in such company.

I would trade infamy/notoriety/15min/a blog/being a cyclingnews.com diarist/"mentioned" with Floyd/whatever for the chance to go back to 2001 and not dope, finish my master's and not destroy so many aspects of my life.

If I'd taken more than 500 words, I would have written about anti-doping education...that while focusing on the possible health risks is important, that what may also be of value is inventorying all the ways that being caught cheating will impact one's life from a practical standpoint. How it will effect employment prospects, standing in one's community, possible legal repercussions, shame cast on family, limitless stifling of what could have been unlimited opportunity, perpetual ethics-cloud, etc.

And all just to go faster on a bike... Talk about distorted calculus.

As for whether or not Floyd did what he was accused and convicted of doing, I don't know. But I have seen - with my own eyes - dozens of other (P)rofessional cyclists do the same and worse...including guys who rode the Giro, the Vuelta, the Classics, the Tour...

All right. Let's assume he did receive consideration in exchange for his willing testimony. My question stands. Do you think that makes the testimony any less credible? Or in fact, does it only serve to reinforce the basic premise the testimony was provided to support?

Of course it is less credible! Does the fact a car salesman makes money if you buy a car have no effect on what he says?




This post has been edited by Old Runner Guy: Feb 18 2010, 11:29 AM

[patrick]

All right. Let's assume he did receive consideration in exchange for his willing testimony. My question stands. Do you think that makes the testimony any less credible? Or in fact, does it only serve to reinforce the basic premise the testimony was provided to support?

Not to worry, I won't hold my breath on the customer list. USADA certainly wouldn't want to admit the humiliating truth -- that anti-doping testing programs are beaten by scores of dopers on a regular basis. A list full of a hundred or more people who'd been tested and come up clean, but Papp's list indicated were doping, is something WADA, the USADA, the USOC, etc, etc, would fight tooth and nail to keep under wraps. As for the Feds, just as when they busted the steroid ring that was supplying Mark McGwire and scores of other athletes years ago, and ran across the evidence of their use, they simply don't want the extra work that can of worms would open up, not to mention the political heat.

assuming that he did receive consideration, i would certainly take his testimony with a grain of salt if it had anything to do with specific people. but as i said before, credibility is based on two things, knowledge and motivation. watching miami vice re-runs doesn't make you a knowledgeable witness regarding drug dealing, dealing drugs does.

[D-Queued]

...
Of course it is less credible! Does the fact a car salesman makes money if you buy a car have no effect on what he says?

Red Herring.

Actually, as you point out, it turns out that Joe Papp is quite the subject matter expert.

Joe Papp commented on his testimony for "trust but verify".

...

I have seen - with my own eyes - dozens of other (P)rofessional cyclists do the same and worse...including guys who rode the Giro, the Vuelta, the Classics, the Tour...
...

Add to this, his knowledge of 187 other dopers and their PED purchasing behavior. He was supplying a peloton's equivalent.

Floyd's legal team could have pursued this further at the hearing, and did not. Why not? Why didn't they question the degree to which Joe is a subject matter expert?

Would you have thought it wise for them to probe further into Joe's expertise? Floyd spent a fortune on them. Was that fortune misspent, or did they know when to stop pursuing a subject?

Perhaps Joe Papp was selected by the USADA in case Floyd's team did want to question Joe's credibility even further. Now we have that evidence of his expertise.

As for used-car analogies would you buy a used car from this guy?



Dae

[ludwig]

I guess what needs to be clarified is the extent to which Papp was working with the authorities during the summer in question (summer 2007). For example I've read that Leogrande was one of his buyers, and that Papp was partly responsible for Leogrande getting busted.

[patrick]

Red Herring.

Actually, as you point out, it turns out that Joe Papp is quite the subject matter expert.

Add to this, his knowledge of 187 other dopers and their PED purchasing behavior. He was supplying a peloton's equivalent.

Floyd's legal team could have pursued this further at the hearing, and did not. Why not? Why didn't they question the degree to which Joe is a subject matter expert?

Would you have thought it wise for them to probe further into Joe's expertise? Floyd spent a fortune on them. Was that fortune misspent, or did they know when to stop pursuing a subject?

Perhaps Joe Papp was selected by the USADA in case Floyd's team did want to question Joe's credibility even further. Now we have that evidence of his expertise.

As for used-car analogies would you buy a used car from this guy?



Dae

joe papp may be well versed in the subject matter, but i wouldn't consider him a paragon of virtue. don't put too much trust in him because of who he isn't.

[vaunTrevi]

joe papp may be well versed in the subject matter, but i wouldn't consider him a paragon of virtue. don't put too much trust in him because of who he isn't.

Expert or not there is a question of credibility and vested interest or implied reward for the tenor of the testimony.

Its no secret that lawyers have used convicted incarcerated felons to convict another with am implied or promised lessened jail time as reward.

That said, given the scenario of a prosecutor bringing in a covicted mafia hit man to testify as an expert witness in a case, not because he has any knowledge of that case to testify about but to testify as an expert how it is done or has been done has two problems: on one hand he isn't a witness to the case, two, his testimony may be colored to protect himself and other participants... so yeah there is a question of crediblity and that question becomes larger and more sequitor when you find out later that he was actively plotting murders and carrying them out and involved in an ongoing a criminal enterprise during the time of his testimony.

It makes it hard to trust info from a source like that.

If the prosecutors knew that and ignored it then they are culpable for any of the murders that took place at the time.

A lot of unanswered questions here; including the credibility of the prosecutors and witnesses at this point.

It seems to me that a win at all cost strategy was employed up the line.

Justice systems aren't always on a search for truth as some of us would like to believe. Sometimes they are about punishing someone - anyone, to set an example.
Much of what is done works to inflame a emotional response from the participants and public as opposed to a cool and calm logical search for the truth of what happened.

I guess in that way they are a lot like public forums... cest l'vie

[Surftel]

Expert or not there is a question of credibility and vested interest or implied reward for the tenor of the testimony.

Its no secret that lawyers have used convicted incarcerated felons to convict another with am implied or promised lessened jail time as reward.

That said, given the scenario of a prosecutor bringing in a covicted mafia hit man to testify as an expert witness in a case, not because he has any knowledge of that case to testify about but to testify as an expert how it is done or has been done has two problems: on one hand he isn't a witness to the case, two, his testimony may be colored to protect himself and other participants... so yeah there is a question of crediblity and that question becomes larger and more sequitor when you find out later that he was actively plotting murders and carrying them out and involved in an ongoing a criminal enterprise during the time of his testimony.

It makes it hard to trust info from a source like that.

If the prosecutors knew that and ignored it then they are culpable for any of the murders that took place at the time.

A lot of unanswered questions here; including the credibility of the prosecutors and witnesses at this point.

It seems to me that a win at all cost strategy was employed up the line.

Justice systems aren't always on a search for truth as some of us would like to believe. Sometimes they are about punishing someone - anyone, to set an example.
Much of what is done works to inflame a emotional response from the participants and public as opposed to a cool and calm logical search for the truth of what happened.

I guess in that way they are a lot like public forums... cest l'vie

What part of Papp's testimony was incorrect?

It is possible that Joe's creditability is questionable but the facts of his testimony are correct. It would be easy to find hundred's of Pros who could testify to the performance benefits of Testosterone. Floyd's ridiculous claim that one of the most popular drugs in the sport was useless only served make his defense look like like even more of a joke.