Joe Papp pleads guilty Options

[vaunTrevi]

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.

I wasn't saying it wasn't credible.
But that was Joe Papp's experience with not only testosterone but myriads of other drugs he was he taking at the same time. So one couldn't say it was a an objective dissertation on just the use of testosterone.
It may have been illustrative of his experience or what he observed but it wasn't a scientific dissertation on testosterone; but was an expression of what he experienced and observed during his period doping.
As far as I know, in speaking with Joe on the phone no benefit was derived by him from his testimony from USADA or Wada, he still was penalized for 2 years and more.
He is extremely sorry that he ever got involved with drugs.
I don't see any winners in the cast of characters involved.

[D-Queued]

...
But that was Joe Papp's experience with not only testosterone but myriads of other drugs he was he taking at the same time. So one couldn't say it was a an objective dissertation on just the use of testosterone.
...

You may have a point in that we know he was taking lots of other drugs.

At the same time, Floyd almost certainly was also taking other drugs - as testosterone itself is often part of a comprehensive regime. And, if the pannier story and the blood bag down the toilet story have any truth to them, he was almost certainly blood doping as well.

Not arguing with you, just pointing out more of the obvious.

They are both dopers, and nothing Floyd has said on this subject could be characterized as an objective dissertation.

Dave.

[patrick]

You may have a point in that we know he was taking lots of other drugs.

At the same time, Floyd almost certainly was also taking other drugs - as testosterone itself is often part of a comprehensive regime. And, if the pannier story and the blood bag down the toilet story have any truth to them, he was almost certainly blood doping as well.

Not arguing with you, just pointing out more of the obvious.

They are both dopers, and nothing Floyd has said on this subject could be characterized as an objective dissertation.

Dave.

i wouldn't buy a used car from either one of them.

[Old Runner Guy]

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.

What did USADA offer Papp and did they look the other way while he was dealing?

[D-Queued]

What did USADA offer Papp and did they look the other way while he was dealing?

Good questions.

Add: Is Joe's inbox now full of requests for new 'training' programs?

Dave.

[Ali]

It seems that the stars are finally coming into alignment.

USADA's star witness a confirmed liar. Gee, not that it's a surprise, but it's a pity the AAA never knew that before he buried Floyd. The more I learn, the more I wish I didn't know.

[Surftel]

It seems that the stars are finally coming into alignment.

USADA's star witness a confirmed liar. Gee, not that it's a surprise, but it's a pity the AAA never knew that before he buried Floyd. The more I learn, the more I wish I didn't know.

No matter how many times you say "Star Witness" it is still not true. Floyd was found guilty because it was proven he is a doper, not because of Joe Papp

What did Papp say that was not correct? They could have had hundreds of Pro's on the stand that would say the same thing.

Floyd's lie that Testosterone was worthless was one of the more pathetic parts of his pathetic case.

[MacRoadie]

It seems that the stars are finally coming into alignment.

USADA's star witness a confirmed liar. Gee, not that it's a surprise, but it's a pity the AAA never knew that before he buried Floyd.

Can you provide a cite or link to Papp's specific testimony burying Floyd? Maybe something where Papp testified to witnessing Floyd doping, hearing Floyd admitting he doped, selling Floyd dope, etc?

I've looked, but all I can find is a lot of testimony on the popularity and effectiveness of T as a cycling PED. I can't find anything where Papp specifically mentions any knowledge of Floyd's alleged doping.

Maybe if you help....

[Surftel]

It seems that the stars are finally coming into alignment.

USADA's star witness a confirmed liar. Gee, not that it's a surprise, but it's a pity the AAA never knew that before he buried Floyd. The more I learn, the more I wish I didn't know.

Star witness? The Panel said that Papp's testimony played no role in their decision.

[D-Queued]

Star witness? The Panel said that Papp's testimony played no role in their decision.

Someone might want pass this on to Floyd & Dr. Kay to help clarify things for them.

They appear very confused about what actually happened at the arbitration hearing - in all areas.

Dave.

[lakeArrowheadrider]

Star witness? The Panel said that Papp's testimony played no role in their decision.

Ya right. I don't care what they wrote, it would be naive to think that they did not take what he said very seriously.

[D-Queued]

Ya right. I don't care what they wrote, it would be naive to think that they did not take what he said very seriously.

It would be naive to think that they didn't take their jobs or the arbitration hearing seriously. Or, just more ludicrous spin.

The PR campaign is over.

He's a doper.

Dave.

[Ali]

Can you provide a cite or link to Papp's specific testimony burying Floyd? Maybe something where Papp testified to witnessing Floyd doping, hearing Floyd admitting he doped, selling Floyd dope, etc?

I've looked, but all I can find is a lot of testimony on the popularity and effectiveness of T as a cycling PED. I can't find anything where Papp specifically mentions any knowledge of Floyd's alleged doping.

Maybe if you help....

You're wrong. Papp disputed a claim made by the Landis team (and their scientific advisors) that testosterone would not have been of benefit on stage 17 ... remember ? You can consider him USADA's expert witness on the physiological effects of T-doping, if you like. Please, correct me if I'm wrong here. He influenced the panel, regardless of what the record says. That's why USADA called him.

In retrospect, one would have to consider it unfortunate for the Landis team that Joe Papp is a f*cking liar who was prepared to say anything to lessen the blow that was about to fall on his head, no ?

[Old Runner Guy]

You're wrong. Papp disputed a claim made by the Landis team (and their scientific advisors) that testosterone would not have been of benefit on stage 17 ... remember ? You can consider him USADA's expert witness on the physiological effects of T-doping, if you like. Please, correct me if I'm wrong here. He influenced the panel, regardless of what the record says. That's why USADA called him.

In retrospect, one would have to consider it unfortunate for the Landis team that Joe Papp is a f*cking liar who was prepared to say anything to lessen the blow that was about to fall on his head, no ?

Remember you cannot argue the science before a AAA. Whether T is beneficial or not is immaterial to the panel. The case was about the t/e ratio and the IRMS test only and nothing more.

(D-Quene, the panel also said that Lemond's testimony was irrelevant and had no bearing on the case as well. So both Lemond and Will's threat also played no role in the decision. So, you can stop citing it over and over.)

Papp (like Lemond) was their to generate headlines because it was a rare open case with many reporters in the room. He was their to make sensational and unsubstantiated claims to get headlines. In other words, he was a professional liar to make Landis look bad in the press.

Why did USADA feel this was necessary? Was it they were looking to "send a message?" I think they wanted Floyd to not only lose but crush him in every way possible to send a message to others that might think of challenging the system?

Is this how you want you tax money (USADA is tax payer financed) used against its own citizens? We treat foreigners that try and blow up their underwear on a plane better.

[Surftel]

I'm wrong here.

Yes, you are.

The claim that Testosterone was not helpful as a recovery aid during the Tour was stupid. Joe Papp's career choice does not change this.

Ya right. I don't care what they wrote, it would be naive to think that they did not take what he said very seriously.

I have asked this a few times but it appears nobody can answer. What part of Papp's testimony was incorrect?

[D-Queued]

...

(D-Quene, the panel also said that Lemond's testimony was irrelevant and had no bearing on the case as well. So both Lemond and Will's threat also played no role in the decision. So, you can stop citing it over and over.)

...

D-Quene? If you are going to try and mar my handle, at least try and spell the marring correctly.

I am not arguing that LeMond's testimony was relevant. That is irrelevant to the point. The point is that Will, with Floyd sitting right bside him, chose to harrass a witness the evening before his testimony.

Will, with Floyd sitting beside him, was clearly too stupid to even consider whether the testimony would be relevant or not. He, with Floyd sitting beside him, decided that he was above the law and could do as he pleased.

LeMond could have elected not to speak at all the next day - it wouldn't matter. The salient point is that Will, with Floyd sitting beside him, exposed his true character and further underscored the entire nature of Landis' defense.

The entirety of actions are inexcusable.

Dave.

[Old Runner Guy]

I have asked this a few times but it appears nobody can answer. What part of Papp's testimony was incorrect?

Here is a portion of Papp's testimony. Now that we know he was under investigation and still a pusher on May 18, 2007 when he gave this testimony, it sure looks like all these answers were lies.

Why do you think he was being asked about trafficking? Because everyone knew he was the subject of an investigation ... that is everyone but Papp.


http://.usocpressbox.org/usoc/pressbox.nsf/ac7bf642f496016a87256d0d006a340c/a60a03cd19670d0285257300007a3e53/$FILE/MAY%2014-23%202007%20-%20Landis%20Official%20Transcript.pdf

Page 1001:

Q. You said you have been cooperating with the U.S. Attorneys’ offices?
A. That’s right.


Q. And which U.S. Attorneys’ offices are you cooperating with?
A. Okay. I met with the U.S. Attorneys’ office in the Southern District of California.

Q. Which is in San Diego, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And did you meet with any member of U.S. attorneys’ office in New York?
A. I did not.

Q. So the only U.S. attorneys’ office you’re cooperating with was one in San Diego?
A. The only U.S. attorneys’ office where I traveled to speak with representatives of the federal government was in San Diego.

Q. I just wouldn’t include just the places you’ve traveled to. I’m just talking about any contact with any — how about this? Have you talked to any member of the United States Department of Justice about doping violations?
A. Yes.

Q. And which representatives of the Department of Justice?
A. Those based in the San Diego office.

Q. Just those in the San Diego office?
A. That’s correct.

Q. And that’s in conjunction with the doping case, correct?
A. I don’t know what it’s in conjunction with. I’m not privy to the details of their investigation.

Q. Well, what was the purpose for you to meet with them?
A. To share information.

Q. And what kind of information did you share with them?
A. The same kind of information I’m sharing here today.

Q. So you were sharing information with them in conjunction with the doping violation, correct?
A. I shared with them the same kind of information that I’m sharing here today.

Q. Have you been notified that you were; I’d like to show you Part 14, the anti-doping rules of the UCI, and I’d like to turn your attention to the definition of potential subject of their investigation?
A. I have not.

Q. So you don’t know whether you are a subject or not a subject of their investigation, correct?
A. As of this time, I have not been notified that I’m a subject of their investigation.

Q. Do you see that the definition of trafficking is to sell, give, administer, transport, send, deliver, or distribute a prohibited substance or prohibited method to any person either directly or through one or more third parties, but excluding the sale or distribution of a prohibited substance, for a genuine and legal therapeutic purposes. And that the penalty for trafficking is substantially greater than two years, even on a first offense. Did you know that?
A. I wasn’t aware of that.

Q. Did anybody here talk to you about resolving your trafficking case –
A. No, they did not.

Q. — in exchange for your testimony here today?
A. No. No one talked to me about it in any context.

Q. Is this trafficking a component of what you were discussing with the U.S. attorney’s office in San Diego?
A. No, it’s not.

This post has been edited by Old Runner Guy: Feb 20 2010, 05:00 PM

[lakeArrowheadrider]

Here is a portion of Papp's testimony. Now that we know he was under investigation and still a pusher on May 18, 2007 when he gave this testimony, it sure looks like all these answers were lies.

Why do you think he was being asked about trafficking? Because everyone knew he was the subject of an investigation ... that is everyone but Papp.


http://.usocpressbox.org/usoc/pressbox.nsf/ac7bf642f496016a87256d0d006a340c/a60a03cd19670d0285257300007a3e53/$FILE/MAY%2014-23%202007%20-%20Landis%20Official%20Transcript.pdf

Page 1001:

Q. You said you have been cooperating with the U.S. Attorneys’ offices?
A. That’s right.


Q. And which U.S. Attorneys’ offices are you cooperating with?
A. Okay. I met with the U.S. Attorneys’ office in the Southern District of California.

Q. Which is in San Diego, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And did you meet with any member of U.S. attorneys’ office in New York?
A. I did not.

Q. So the only U.S. attorneys’ office you’re cooperating with was one in San Diego?
A. The only U.S. attorneys’ office where I traveled to speak with representatives of the federal government was in San Diego.

Q. I just wouldn’t include just the places you’ve traveled to. I’m just talking about any contact with any — how about this? Have you talked to any member of the United States Department of Justice about doping violations?
A. Yes.

Q. And which representatives of the Department of Justice?
A. Those based in the San Diego office.

Q. Just those in the San Diego office?
A. That’s correct.

Q. And that’s in conjunction with the doping case, correct?
A. I don’t know what it’s in conjunction with. I’m not privy to the details of their investigation.

Q. Well, what was the purpose for you to meet with them?
A. To share information.

Q. And what kind of information did you share with them?
A. The same kind of information I’m sharing here today.

Q. So you were sharing information with them in conjunction with the doping violation, correct?
A. I shared with them the same kind of information that I’m sharing here today.

Q. Have you been notified that you were; I’d like to show you Part 14, the anti-doping rules of the UCI, and I’d like to turn your attention to the definition of potential subject of their investigation?
A. I have not.

Q. So you don’t know whether you are a subject or not a subject of their investigation, correct?
A. As of this time, I have not been notified that I’m a subject of their investigation.

Q. Do you see that the definition of trafficking is to sell, give, administer, transport, send, deliver, or distribute a prohibited substance or prohibited method to any person either directly or through one or more third parties, but excluding the sale or distribution of a prohibited substance, for a genuine and legal therapeutic purposes. And that the penalty for trafficking is substantially greater than two years, even on a first offense. Did you know that?
A. I wasn’t aware of that.

Q. Did anybody here talk to you about resolving your trafficking case –
A. No, they did not.

Q. — in exchange for your testimony here today?
A. No. No one talked to me about it in any context.

Q. Is this trafficking a component of what you were discussing with the U.S. attorney’s office in San Diego?
A. No, it’s not.

It now looks like very coached testimony to me.

I have asked this a few times but it appears nobody can answer. What part of Papp's testimony was incorrect?

Knowone except people with direct knowledge of the practices knows. Papp was probably telling the truth, what is disturbing was his motives. To me is is a doper and a straight criminal, who has no credibility.

This post has been edited by lakeArrowheadrider: Feb 20 2010, 07:48 PM

[MacRoadie]

Aside from two or three somewhat evasive answers, I guess I'm having a hard time seeing where he so clearly and repeatedly lies:

Q. You said you have been cooperating with the U.S. Attorneys’ offices?
A. That’s right.

Ok, we know he was cooperating. Truth


Q. And which U.S. Attorneys’ offices are you cooperating with?
A. Okay. I met with the U.S. Attorneys’ office in the Southern District of California.

We don't know if he cooperated with any other offices, so at the very least partially true.

Q. Which is in San Diego, correct?
A. Correct.

Ok, this is correct. Truth

Q. And did you meet with any member of U.S. attorneys’ office in New York?
A. I did not.

We don't know who else he met with, or when (these questions are from 2007).He freely admits he met with the Feds.

Q. So the only U.S. attorneys’ office you’re cooperating with was one in San Diego?
A. The only U.S. attorneys’ office where I traveled to speak with representatives of the federal government was in San Diego.

Again, as of May 8, 2007 we don't know who he met with or when, but he is freely admitting to meeting with the Feds regardless.

Q. I just wouldn’t include just the places you’ve traveled to. I’m just talking about any contact with any — how about this? Have you talked to any member of the United States Department of Justice about doping violations?
A. Yes.

Ok, another affirmative answer. Truth.

Q. And which representatives of the Department of Justice?
A. Those based in the San Diego office.

Same question as above, same answer. He admits to meeting with the Feds.

Q. Just those in the San Diego office?
A. That’s correct.

Again, as of May 8, 2007 we don't know who he met with or when, but he is freely admitting to meeting with the Feds regardless.

Q. And that’s in conjunction with the doping case, correct?
A. I don’t know what it’s in conjunction with. I’m not privy to the details of their investigation.

This is the first "funny" one. He likely wasn't meeting with US officials over a USADA doping case, and the question was specific to a doping case not a trafficking investigation. We don't know if they showed him their cards at this meeting or not, so I'll leave this one open.

Q. Well, what was the purpose for you to meet with them?
A. To share information.

A little bit vague and possibly evasive, but he does answer the question (just doesn't divulge the information which he may have been told by the Feds to specifically avoid).

Q. And what kind of information did you share with them?
A. The same kind of information I’m sharing here today.

Again, evasive, but we don't know the line of questioning in San Diego so we can't really go either way. We don't know where the Feds were taking their case at the time, of how they approached questioning Papp.

Q. So you were sharing information with them in conjunction with the doping violation, correct?
A. I shared with them the same kind of information that I’m sharing here today.

Once more, if they were building a trafficking case against him, they likely weren't interested in his doping violation. That beef was with USADA. We don't know what he told the Feds.

Q. Have you been notified that you were; I’d like to show you Part 14, the anti-doping rules of the UCI, and I’d like to turn your attention to the definition of potential subject of their investigation?
A. I have not.

Ok, now we switch from the US Justice Department to the UCI. This is the first mention of the UCI, and I don't think there has been any discussion on these boards relative to the timing of that investigation. Had he been asked about the Justice Department investigation and responded "I have not", then I would have some serious issues here.

Q. So you don’t know whether you are a subject or not a subject of their investigation, correct?
A. As of this time, I have not been notified that I’m a subject of their investigation.

Does anyone here have any credible information on Papp's UCI investigation? Wasn't the lion's share of the work done by USADA as his resident ADA? Post-Landis, all we have heard about is his USADA suspension (which we all knew about even before the Landis hearing), and his Federal rap.

Q. Do you see that the definition of trafficking is to sell, give, administer, transport, send, deliver, or distribute a prohibited substance or prohibited method to any person either directly or through one or more third parties, but excluding the sale or distribution of a prohibited substance, for a genuine and legal therapeutic purposes. And that the penalty for trafficking is substantially greater than two years, even on a first offense. Did you know that?
A. I wasn’t aware of that.

He may or may not have been aware of that. Seems kinda fishy that he wouldn't know the potential ramifications of adding trafficking to doping, so I'm perfectly willing to give this one but it's a pretty lame one.

Q. Did anybody here talk to you about resolving your trafficking case –
A. No, they did not.

He is asked if "anyone here" had talked to him. I suppose we need a roll call of who was in the court room when he was asked this question, but I'm pretty sure there wasn't anyone from Justice or anyone from the UCI (or if a UCI representive was there if they were part of this UCI investigation since it was ostensibly a hearing on Landis' AAF, not Papp).

Q. — in exchange for your testimony here today?
A. No. No one talked to me about it in any context.

Again, I'm not sure that anyone in that room was even empowered to negotiate on the UCI charges and there's no way Justice is working a plea bargain to get one of their suspects to testify in some USADA hearing.

Q. Is this trafficking a component of what you were discussing with the U.S. attorney’s office in San Diego?
A. No, it’s not

Again, this one is a bit "funny", but you just don't know what the line of questioning was in San Diego. If it was early on in their investigation, they may not have told Papp specifically what they were looking at him for (not an uncommon ploy). Did he likely know what they were sniffing for, I would bet the house on it.


Definitely two or three questionable responses, with some evasion built in. I wholly agree that it was likely a concern on his and Tygart's that too much info on the Federal investigation would cast him in a poor light as a witness, and I have a real problem with that, but I just don't see this excerpt as being one lie after another.

[Old Runner Guy]

You're willing to give a doper, criminal and professional liar the benefit of the doubt. Too bad others are not at least will to give Landis this much slack.

He knew he was subject of an investigation. He was pushing drugs while on the stand. He's going to jail for years. All the places you say "we don't know", replace with "lie."

Again, the questions about a trafficking investigation were not randomly made up. It was understood he was the subject of an investigation and he used weasel words ("As of this time, I have not been notified that I'm a subject of their investigation.") to say he did not know.