• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

G.I. JOEEEEEE! [Tsunami of USADA cases against cyclists]

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Hey - let Lance join and engage with the posters as JP has done - I would relish the opportunity and would never need to make my views of a personal nature.

I would think the the likelyhood that Lance would join and engage in the Clinic is about the same as the likelyhood that you or Joe would meet with the President of France. Would not expect either to happen realistically.

Oldman said:
Read the Chardoff case on CN. His internet account at Yale.edu was used to buy the stuff from a Chinese company. That's not a precedent; lot's of crime is traced to internet transactions. How many similar transactions do USPS team members/management have in their background? Don't know but expect we'll find out.

I would guess Lance's connections were mostly Spanish or Italian Doctors and transactions probably made in those locales as opposed to the interwebs.
Were the interwebs invented when lance was using EPO?:)
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
So you are saying that because Joe was a crook once then he should always be a crook?

No. I'm saying he should have accepted whatever punishment he had coming his way, and not used others in order to try to lessen that punishment.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
stephens said:
Since when did you care about the law? That's what people here are trying to say Joe. You broke the rules, profited from helping others do so, trusted and benefited from the omerta...and now we're supposed to believe you're identifying others because it's the right thing to do or because the law requires it? Yeah, sure.

The law does not require one to testify against others. People do so in order to lessen their own punishment. It's another case of harming others for profit.

That is what YOU are trying to say.

Again, the proliferation of "I am detached from all of this though I only ever really give lip service to my dislike of doping" people is funny. I think Shakespeare said something about that once...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
stephens said:
No. I'm saying he should have accepted whatever punishment he had coming his way, and not used others in order to try to lessen that punishment.

Only stupid people do that.

I bet you'd sing like a bird if you were faced with Federal prison. Its easy to pontificate from the cheap seats, huh?
 
Jul 2, 2009
1,079
0
0
Visit site
stephens said:
No. I'm saying he should have accepted whatever punishment he had coming his way, and not used others in order to try to lessen that punishment.


i assume his punishment began when he replied to something like this,

"Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?"

btw: (so help me god") is no longer a requirement
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
Polish said:
I would guess Lance's connections were mostly Spanish or Italian Doctors and transactions probably made in those locales as opposed to the interwebs.
Were the interwebs invented when lance was using EPO?:)

Think more current day when Bush was President and the interweb was fully functional. You think the Italians and Spanish use carrier pigeons to communicate? As much as Lance talked to doctors that would be one big guano buildup.
 
Jul 2, 2009
1,079
0
0
Visit site
Oldman said:
Think more current day when Bush was President and the interweb was fully functional. You think the Italians and Spanish use carrier pigeons to communicate? As much as Lance talked to doctors that would be one big guano buildup.

Canadian Doc, Tiger's, spent a lot of time in a clinic in California.

Maybe lots of teams went to that clinic :D over the years
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
stephens said:
No. I'm saying he should have accepted whatever punishment he had coming his way, and not used others in order to try to lessen that punishment.

Omerta = Good

Joe Papp = Bad

Omerta = Good

Floyd = Bad

I think the forum gets your point.
 

jimmypop

BANNED
Jul 16, 2010
376
1
0
Visit site
stephens said:
No. I'm saying he should have accepted whatever punishment he had coming his way, and not used others in order to try to lessen that punishment.

The "whys" dont' matter. You know this, but you belabor the point because you're aim here is obfuscation and distraction.

So, STFU. The fact that Joe is speaking is all that matters. I'm not going to split hairs over why he's talking. Then again, you don't really want to do that either, because you don't have the intellectual acumen to keep up with the discussion as soon as you're called to the mat. You're here to make sure we all understand that Omerta is honorable, because you've got a sacred cow to defend.
 
Mar 26, 2010
92
0
0
Visit site
stephens said:
No. I'm saying he should have accepted whatever punishment he had coming his way, and not used others in order to try to lessen that punishment.

Cooperation is part plea deals all the time. While I don't know for sure if that's the case with Joe, I suspect there's some element of that. I have absolutely no problem with someone cooperating to lessen their punishment.

I hope Joe is able to "buy" some leniency in his criminal case through his cooperation, whatever his motivations, especially since the information he has provided has

On the other hand, I'm ambivalent about any leniency he may get through USADA. While I agree with the concept of leniency in sanctions in return for cooperation, I have a hard time seeing it in Joe's case, where he apparently was engaged in some pretty serious stuff (dealing) while in the midst of serving a two-year ban. I think a life time ban would be very appropriate. If that's handed down, will he tweet it?
 
Mar 19, 2009
832
0
0
Visit site
alanshearer said:
Cooperation is part plea deals all the time. While I don't know for sure if that's the case with Joe, I suspect there's some element of that. I have absolutely no problem with someone cooperating to lessen their punishment.

I hope Joe is able to "buy" some leniency in his criminal case through his cooperation, whatever his motivations, especially since the information he has provided has

It seems to me drug dealers don't usually get sentences reduced for naming their clients. Doesn't it usually go the other way...sentences are reduced for providing bigger fish in the form of suppliers.
 
alanshearer said:
Cooperation is part plea deals all the time. While I don't know for sure if that's the case with Joe, I suspect there's some element of that. I have absolutely no problem with someone cooperating to lessen their punishment.

I hope Joe is able to "buy" some leniency in his criminal case through his cooperation, whatever his motivations, especially since the information he has provided has

On the other hand, I'm ambivalent about any leniency he may get through USADA. While I agree with the concept of leniency in sanctions in return for cooperation, I have a hard time seeing it in Joe's case, where he apparently was engaged in some pretty serious stuff (dealing) while in the midst of serving a two-year ban. I think a life time ban would be very appropriate. If that's handed down, will he tweet it?

Sorry to pick your post as the one to reply to (this is a general reply to this thread, not to your post), but at this point, I feel the need to point out that no one on this forum has a complete and informed understanding of what's really happening, why, where it's leading, what has happened, when, why, what is designed to happen, how, etc. (although there are several regular posters who do have a very sophisticated and correct overall understanding and can intuit where I've been, where I am now and where I'm probably going, along with "my case.").

The haters can keep breaking balls if they want, but should realize that, for the most part, they don't know enough to make most of the pronouncements they think they're qualified to make. And as I said last month, I'm not going to provide information to you all that isn't already in the public domain, and if you don't understand why that is, then it's probably because you don't understand how the US legal system works and have no idea what you'd do under similar circumstances.
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
Visit site
joe_papp said:
Sorry to pick your post as the one to reply to (this is a general reply to this thread, not to your post), but at this point, I feel the need to point out that no one on this forum has a complete and informed understanding of what's really happening, why, where it's leading, what has happened, when, why, what is designed to happen, how, etc. (although there are several regular posters who do have a very sophisticated and correct overall understanding and can intuit where I've been, where I am now and where I'm probably going, along with "my case.").

We can't change the past, we can only do the best we can with today. It sounds like you're doing that. (The 187 possible cases made my jaw drop, but in a good way). Please keep doing your part in helping clean up the sport.

To the others: It would be really easy for Joe to avoid this Forum and live his life in a way where he doesn't have to see or hear all the things people are saying about him. He doesn't have to give you access to him, or know that you're alive. He's been coming here voluntarily before news of recent cases came up, and sharing news and opinion, just like a lot of us.

The same goes for Floyd. He could have sat home, watched football and enjoyed the weather. Instead, he wants to go to Australia and sit down with people from various walks of life and provide insight into ways that people like Ashenden can help clean up the sport in the future. He's apparently willing to subject himself to nasty headlines in a hundred languages to sit in a conference room on a college campus and have that chat.

So, how many of the people here are angry because of the 187 people who might be busted, or because you or someone you know might be implicated, or because you cheat at your own level of cycling and don't like the trend?

That wasn't aimed at anyone in particular - I read the last page and had no interest in reading earlier posts.

People - if you care about clean cycling, the UCI isn't going to make it happen. Neither is the ASO, or US Cycling. I'm not sure about the USADA. Our chance right now is for people like Floyd and Joe who were involved in the activities to get information to the people outside of cycling who have power. I trust the AFLD. I trust CONI. I think that WADA has interesting things in mind for the UCI, and can't wait for their Independent Observer report. I trust Novitsky, the FDA and the grand jury. But they need help. Bordry working with Interpol and Customs is a big deal. Bordry working with Novitsky is a big deal. Having someone who can expose 187 International cheaters, plus a Chinese supplier, with evidence, is a big deal. Thank you.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,392
0
0
Visit site
joe_papp said:
Sorry to pick your post as the one to reply to (this is a general reply to this thread, not to your post), but at this point, I feel the need to point out that no one on this forum has a complete and informed understanding of what's really happening, why, where it's leading, what has happened, when, why, what is designed to happen, how, etc. (although there are several regular posters who do have a very sophisticated and correct overall understanding and can intuit where I've been, where I am now and where I'm probably going, along with "my case.").

The haters can keep breaking balls if they want, but should realize that, for the most part, they don't know enough to make most of the pronouncements they think they're qualified to make. And as I said last month, I'm not going to provide information to you all that isn't already in the public domain, and if you don't understand why that is, then it's probably because you don't understand how the US legal system works and have no idea what you'd do under similar circumstances.

Look, you can go on about what people do and don't know and dismiss your critics as 'haters' as much as you like.

But the fact remains that you have pleaded guilty in a court of law to being a drug dealer. And before that you were a convicted doper.

Most people on here have lead decent lives, worked hard and done the best they could honestly.

So when you try and claim the moral high ground, after all that you've done, it's going to seem a little repulsive to many.

You made your choices. Now deal with the consequences like a man and stop trying to pretend that you're some sort of crusader.
 
Oct 13, 2009
72
0
0
Visit site
Mambo95 said:
Look, you can go on about what people do and don't know and dismiss your critics as 'haters' as much as you like.

But the fact remains that you have pleaded guilty in a court of law to being a drug dealer. And before that you were a convicted doper.

Most people on here have lead decent lives, worked hard and done the best they could honestly.

So when you try and claim the moral high ground, after all that you've done, it's going to seem a little repulsive to many.

You made your choices. Now deal with the consequences like a man and stop trying to pretend that you're some sort of crusader.

A++ I can wait untill Joes 15min.s are over and he moves back to his Dads basement...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
mitchman said:
A++ I can wait untill Joes 15min.s are over and he moves back to his Dads basement...

Bad deeds then make amends versus bad deeds and STFU.

I'm sure this is how you'd teach your kids.

I think Joe's 15 minutes are going to be more spectacular than you can possibly imagine IF you are interested in clean sport which I suspect you care nothing about.
 
Sep 4, 2009
60
0
0
Visit site
Yahtzee!!

Mambo95 said:
Look, you can go on about what people do and don't know and dismiss your critics as 'haters' as much as you like.

But the fact remains that you have pleaded guilty in a court of law to being a drug dealer. And before that you were a convicted doper.

Most people on here have lead decent lives, worked hard and done the best they could honestly.

So when you try and claim the moral high ground, after all that you've done, it's going to seem a little repulsive to many.

You made your choices. Now deal with the consequences like a man and stop trying to pretend that you're some sort of crusader.

Joe you should print this off. Re-read it every time your in the bathroom.
 
Mar 26, 2010
92
0
0
Visit site
Epicycle said:
It seems to me drug dealers don't usually get sentences reduced for naming their clients. Doesn't it usually go the other way...sentences are reduced for providing bigger fish in the form of suppliers.

There are drug dealers and then there are drug dealers. And as Joe mentioned, we don't know the details of the plea, but I suspect when compared to what we typically think of as a drug dealer, he's a small fish.

But your wrong in that drug dealers often get reduced sentences as part of a plea deal. And one of the obligations of plea deals is that they cooperate. When considering "street" drugs, law enforcement may have little interest in ever going after the clients, so cooperation may not involve naming them. But in this case, the identity of Joe's clients does have value to USADA.
 
Mar 26, 2010
92
0
0
Visit site
MacRoadie said:
If I were Joe, I'd have it printed on 4"x4" squares of tissue paper...

There are those that are ****ed off at Joe because he doped and because, while service a suspension, dealt drugs. And there are those that are ****ed off at him because he's now naming names.

I understand the first group, but I don't the second.

And I think the jury is out on what his motivations are now. Maybe he's cooperating out of necessity. Maybe it's convencience. Or it could be opportunistic. Maybe he's truly seen the light and has changed. And it could be a combination of some of those things. Regardless, his cooperation is good for the sport and should be applauded. So while I think it's fair to criticize him for the cheating and the dealing, it's not to fair to attack his cooperation. (And I understand that some of the attacks on his cooperation are disguised as criticism of the former.)

As I've also stated, I think his conduct merits a lifetime ban from the sport, or at least a lifetime ban with an opportunity to apply for reconsideration after a number of years. I simply don't see how any amount of cooperation can make up for dealing PEDs while serving a 2-year ban. He may have some future around the edges of the sport, as a blogger, quasi-journalist, internet forum rock star, anti-doping advocate and counselor. But I have a hard time seeing a future directly involved in cycling.
 
Image one or maybe even more of those 187 develop cancer which they wouldn't if it wasn't for eposino.com and the who ran it. EPO is tested with renal patients making their pitiable lives a little bit livable. Nobody knows what happens when young, healthy athletes push their HB > 17.

Wonder if the could live with the guilt. And don't tell me "Everybody is resposible for himself. They weren't forced to buy it." There is a reason why the drug market is heavily regulated *. Not every sould sell **** to unknown people.

Bye Joe, hope you receive 10 years.



*) OK, you Americans get anything anyway if your Anti-Aging "doctor" needs another Porsche for his wife.
 
Mr.38% said:
Image one or maybe even more of those 187 develop cancer which they wouldn't if it wasn't for eposino.com and the asshole who ran it. EPO is tested with renal patients making their pitiable lives a little bit livable. Nobody knows what happens when young, healthy athletes push their HB > 17.

Nobody knows, you say. Is this an admission that you're just making this stuff up?
 
Mar 15, 2009
246
0
0
Visit site
alanshearer said:
There are drug dealers and then there are drug dealers. And as Joe mentioned, we don't know the details of the plea, but I suspect when compared to what we typically think of as a drug dealer, he's a small fish.

But your wrong in that drug dealers often get reduced sentences as part of a plea deal. And one of the obligations of plea deals is that they cooperate. When considering "street" drugs, law enforcement may have little interest in ever going after the clients, so cooperation may not involve naming them. But in this case, the identity of Joe's clients does have value to USADA.

Yes, but normally, drug dealers are given reduced sentences for leading authorities to the bigger fish upstream who are the major traffickers and drug smugglers with connections to major crime syndicates. When there is a real REASON to pursue. WHat we have here is a bunch of minnows and guppies.

Papp will be given, in all likelihood, a reduced sentence for handing over the names--excuse me, he simply corroborated since they prob seized his computers, cell phones etc--of a bunch of Cat III and Masters racers. Way to go Federal Prosecutors! Way to go USADA!! And what about all the other non-cyclists? Where are there cases and why arent we hearing about them?

Back to the main points:
1. Yes, one CAN advance a reasonable argument that without Joe Papp and his ilk, Chodroff might have looked for but not obtained EPO. THe blame does not entirely fall on Papp of course, but what responsibility is HE taking here in supplying this stuff? HE should apologize to each and every one of these buyers publicly instead of adopting this high and mighty stance where HE decides what the honorable thing to do is, and preaching to the "others" to admit their guilt like Chodroff. Putting HGH and EPO on the internet in the US is like sprinkling crack rocks outside the exit of a Cocaine Anonymous meeting. Athletes read about this stuff and are curious enough to try it...then we know what happens next.


3. The races and careers of people competing against Chodroff and the Chodroffs of the world are what is at stake. I dont really care about him one bit at this point. or Papp.

Its not simply a matter of everyone getting to advance one step higher on the podium or race results once Chodroff's cheating is revealed THREE YEARS LATER.--the entire race was different, even a time trial if you know CHodroff is out there torching the course--finishing faster than most or all of the pros as a Cat III at Fitchburg. Dude I was there. It changed things. YOu dont line up against him and not think about that the next ten times you race against him. TTs are very mental/psychological, right???

People race differently, tactics are different, breaks stay away, teams give up, riders get demoralized not being able to get results, not being able to cat up, finish higher in standings and then eventually quit the sport or just dont train as much. If you are an up and coming young rider, and suddenly this whirlwind appears and advances three categories in a year and gets a pro contract, that affects you. And sorry, there are only one or two Lemonds and Armstrongs who do that in thirty years. Maybe Taylor Phinney.

So your coach can tell you that you have what it takes, you can have a VO2Max in the high seventies low eighties, you can train your brains out, but when you crush people in the early season and then cant even hang three months later, it suddenly makes a lot of sense when you recall who was in that break and driving the race, (and on what team, thank you Bear Mountain RR--cant wait to see who is out after the list is revealed) THREE AND TWO years ago...

Chodroff is saying he wants to go to medical school. What a joke. Sorry Jon, we dont like to accept kids who illegally purchase controlled substances online over the internet. Its just one of those funny doctor things.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
Visit site
cromagnon said:
Joe wtf man I am disappoint.

...

That tie is f***ing horrible. Good job on the rest. Maybe if I have kids I will actually consider letting them near competitive sports one day.

The TIE? Nah, it's not too bad. The color is acceptable, but the tie should be inside the coat, and the knot looks like it could have been done a LOT better. The knot should be tight, coming down to a sharp bottom v. And, you could consider a red tie and white shirt. Yellow or red, with small decoration, you are in the ballpark. No blue - too political, and other colors are just too - hmmm - attention getting. Suit coat is very good, I like that grey pinstripe - good. Blue shirt is good, too, but it looks like you should be wearing one neck size smaller - the collar looks a little loose (I'm serious here - no double entendre). The neck should form a smooth shape - if it comes down to a significant "V" shape, you are probably wearing a collar size too large. If the shirt fits properly, you will get two fingers inside the buttoned collar - and you can snug the tie tight without choking yourself. Now, the haircut and shave - you look like Nixon with that 5'o-clock, and the sideburns could use a trim.

NVM, this is all MINOR stuff. You look good, dude. Good luck.