I did not know he was a drug dealer as well.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...mpgj_AD9DU18RG0
Full Version: Joe Papp pleads guilty
QUOTE(lakeArrowheadrider @ Feb 17 2010, 10:30 AM) 
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.
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.
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.
QUOTE(Old Runner Guy @ Feb 17 2010, 12:06 PM)
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 againPersonally, I'm going to stick wth Victor on that.
Your point?
Dave.
QUOTE(D-Queued @ Feb 17 2010, 01:15 PM)
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 againPersonally, 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.
QUOTE(lakeArrowheadrider @ Feb 17 2010, 01:59 PM)
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.
QUOTE(D-Queued @ Feb 17 2010, 03:15 PM)
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 againPersonally, 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.
QUOTE(patrick @ Feb 17 2010, 05:13 PM)
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?
QUOTE(floridacyclist @ Feb 17 2010, 05:36 PM)
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?
QUOTE(Old Runner Guy @ Feb 17 2010, 03:05 PM)
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.
QUOTE(Old Runner Guy @ Feb 17 2010, 03:05 PM)
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.
QUOTE(floridacyclist @ Feb 17 2010, 04:36 PM)
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.
QUOTE(MacRoadie @ Feb 17 2010, 06:39 PM)
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.
QUOTE(MacRoadie @ Feb 17 2010, 06:39 PM)
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."
QUOTE(patrick @ Feb 17 2010, 07:41 PM)
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.
QUOTE(patrick @ Feb 17 2010, 07:41 PM)
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.
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?
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...
QUOTE(floridacyclist @ Feb 18 2010, 01:00 AM)
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?
QUOTE(floridacyclist @ Feb 18 2010, 12:00 AM)
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.
QUOTE(Old Runner Guy @ Feb 18 2010, 03:35 AM)
...
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.
QUOTE(Old Runner Guy @ Feb 18 2010, 03:35 AM)
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...
...
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
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.
QUOTE(D-Queued @ Feb 18 2010, 08:28 AM)
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.
QUOTE(patrick @ Feb 18 2010, 10:05 AM)
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
QUOTE(vaunTrevi @ Feb 18 2010, 12:52 PM)
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.
QUOTE(Surftel @ Feb 18 2010, 01:45 PM)
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.
QUOTE(vaunTrevi @ Feb 18 2010, 02:14 PM)
...
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.
QUOTE(D-Queued @ Feb 18 2010, 07:16 PM)
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.
QUOTE(vaunTrevi @ Feb 18 2010, 03:52 PM)
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?
QUOTE(Old Runner Guy @ Feb 18 2010, 10:41 PM)
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.
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.
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.
QUOTE(Ali @ Feb 19 2010, 02:30 PM)
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.
QUOTE(Ali @ Feb 19 2010, 02:30 PM)
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....
QUOTE(Ali @ Feb 19 2010, 02:30 PM)
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.
QUOTE(Surftel @ Feb 19 2010, 07:31 PM)
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.
QUOTE(Surftel @ Feb 19 2010, 07:31 PM)
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.
QUOTE(lakeArrowheadrider @ Feb 19 2010, 09:59 PM)
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.
QUOTE(MacRoadie @ Feb 20 2010, 03:07 AM)
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 ?
QUOTE(Ali @ Feb 20 2010, 05:15 AM)
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.
QUOTE(Ali @ Feb 20 2010, 02:15 AM)
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.
QUOTE(lakeArrowheadrider @ Feb 19 2010, 09:59 PM)
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?
QUOTE(Old Runner Guy @ Feb 20 2010, 06:37 AM)
...
(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.
QUOTE(Surftel @ Feb 20 2010, 09:46 AM)
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.
QUOTE(Old Runner Guy @ Feb 20 2010, 08:57 AM)
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.
QUOTE(Surftel @ Feb 20 2010, 06:46 AM)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
QUOTE(Old Runner Guy @ Feb 21 2010, 07:02 AM)
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.
Keep pounding away there. Sooner or later, you might just convince one other person that the Papp testimony had any bearing on the Landis outcome.
You really don't get it do you? No one here is holding up Joe Papp as a pargon of virtue, or integrity. Conversely, no matter how much you'd like it to happen, no one is going to ascribe any real level of importance to ANYTHING Papp said on the stand.
It was a waste of everyone's time. He was there to refute the Landis claim that T was of no benefit to a cyclist and nothing more. Maybe Papp should have simply said "Yes, I'm under investigation for drug trafficking. In fact, I sell boatloads of #### to guys just like Floyd and have made over $80,000 doing it. It's so popular and in such great demand, it's worth going to jail for." After all, he wasn't there to testify clinically as to the effect of T, just to describe his own use and the wide use of T as a cycling PED.
A guilty plea in Federal Court, $80,000 in the bank, and a list of 187 other Floyds suggests that Joe was honest about at least one thing: cyclists use T. Lots of them.
QUOTE(MacRoadie @ Feb 21 2010, 10:26 AM)
Keep pounding away there. Sooner or later, you might just convince one other person that the Papp testimony had any bearing on the Landis outcome.
I already said it had no bearing earlier on the case
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/ind...st&p=162364
repeating part of that ....
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.
QUOTE(Old Runner Guy @ Feb 21 2010, 08:02 AM)
I already said it had no bearing earlier on the case
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/ind...st&p=162364
repeating part of that ....
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.
What part of Papp's testimony was a lie? Do you really believe the Flandis lie that Testosterone is useless? This lie was a central part of the Landis case and Arnie's Powerpoint's why would you expect USDA to not try to show that this was a bogus claim?
I do not mind my tax money going to prosecute those who break the rules.
QUOTE(Old Runner Guy @ Feb 21 2010, 07:02 AM)
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.
...
Are you suggesting that Landis is even worse than a doper, criminal and professional liar? I, for one, will give him that much slack if you suggest, and not continue observing how he appears to fit Dr. Hare's sociopathic traits. Yes, we can probably draw the line on Landis being a doper, criminal, and professional liar.
Even in your mind now, however, there likely isn't much question left that he qualifies for all three.
What else were you thinking of?
Dave.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.