How The Pro's Defeat The Anti Doping System

[lean mean &green]

Really? You're going to go down that road? Come on now. He's done the right thing since he got caught - been honest, open, and is trying to educate people on doping. If anyone deserves a second chance, it's him. Or would you have preferred he did a Vino or Ricco? I realise you're angry but you aren't doing yourself any favours with comments like that.

Edit: p.s. I also think you'll find Mr Papp has suffered much much more due to his drug use than anyone he beat at your local crit did.

i'll admit to using a heavy dose of sarcasm but only to drive home the point which is that a confessed doper has little credibility with me, only slightly more than one who has not confessed.

i think we're missing the point and it's where this discussion should be headed. so i'll ask a rhetorical question...what incentive is there not to dope if all you have to do is confess and you'll be accepted unconditionally by the general public again?

 

[Anonymous]

i'll admit to using a heavy dose of sarcasm but only to drive home the point which is that a confessed doper has little credibility with me, only slightly more than one who has not confessed.

i think we're missing the point and it's where this discussion should be headed. so i'll ask a rhetorical question...what incentive is there not to dope if all you have to do is confess and you'll be accepted unconditionally by the general public?

I'll ask a rhetorical question: What incentive is there not to __________ if all you have to do is confess and you'll be accepted unconditionally by the general public?

You can fill in the blank with you own dirty little secrets. I have always found that people with your attitude are hiding some slimy little foibles. Never fails.

 

[Anonymous]

i'll admit to using a heavy dose of sarcasm but only to drive home the point which is that a confessed doper has little credibility with me, only slightly more than one who has not confessed.

i think we're missing the point and it's where this discussion should be headed. so i'll ask a rhetorical question...what incentive is there not to dope if all you have to do is confess and you'll be accepted unconditionally by the general public again?

Seriously? That is your outlook when someone asks for forgiveness for a wrong? I hope you don't have children. If not, please refrain from reproduction in the future.

Your feewings got hwort because he won a race near your house? That is your beef?

 

[Anonymous]

i'll admit to using a heavy dose of sarcasm but only to drive home the point which is that a confessed doper has little credibility with me, only slightly more than one who has not confessed.

i think we're missing the point and it's where this discussion should be headed. so i'll ask a rhetorical question...what incentive is there not to dope if all you have to do is confess and you'll be accepted unconditionally by the general public again?

So what's the point of confessing if they're going to get vilified and cast out for it anyway? Might as well try the Landis continual denial thing then. I agree the risk/reward balance is way out at the moment for doping, but surely confessing/whistleblowing should be encouraged.

And I'd bet you'd find JP wouldn't be accepted unconditionally if he was pro racing again. Look at David Millar. He's supposed to be a born again rider, but he is not accepted unconditionally and will always have people keeping an eye on him.

Edit: Yeah, and what TFF said about forgiveness. What's that famous saying? To err is human, to forgive divine? There's something in that. Not saying forgive them all (yes, you, Ricco), but at least forgive the ones that have earned it.

 

[Anonymous]

Just carrying on my thoughts on the risk/reward balance, here's what I'd do:

- prison sentences and life bans for all found guilty of intentionally doping, life ban to cover all forms of working within the sport.

- 12 months ban for "accidental" doping, first offence.

- 3 yr ban for "accidental" doping, second offence;

- 5yr ban for "accidental" doping, third offence (by which time they'd be at retirement age anyway).

- 12 month ban for anyone subject to doping but who blows the whistle without being prompted to (i.e. after doing a deal from a positive test)

- 2 year ban for anyone who after a positive test confesses all and blows the whistle on the facilitators and other dopers.

- All coaches found guilty of administering drugs to receive jail sentences and lifetime bans from the sport.

Then we'd see it a bit cleaner. But it'll never happen.

 

[lean mean &green]

Seriously? That is your outlook when someone asks for forgiveness for a wrong? I hope you don't have children. If not, please refrain from reproduction in the future.

Your feewings got hwort because he won a race near your house? That is your beef?

pro cyclists are not children. with an adults ability to measure the consequences they make a choice to dope or not to. funny you mentioned it, i work with young people everyday. when doing so i ALWAYS refrain from calling them douchebags or ever talking down to them.

realistically joe can never contribute to the sport without skepticism. it is probably best for the sport and for him on a personal level if he seek a career elsewhere. i'm not locking him in jail and throwing away the key. i'd rather not see him involved in bike racing tho. he can do ANYTHING else he wants. opening a bike shop would be a grey area (he wouldn't really be making money off of name recognition or racing experience) i'd rather he open a flower shop tho

many dopers remain in the sport as journalists, coaches, directors, etc and are attacked here on a daily basis. ever heard of bjarne riis? why the double standard? maybe because you haven't been directly effected by his actions because he never raced at quite high enough a level for you to care. that's not the case with me. i didn't race that day but i've seen the frustration of teamates i know to have been clean. questioning their preparation, their talent, their own dedication as to why they couldn't keep up with joe's group that day.

my original post was meant to shed light on the fact that i'll never be a joe papp fanboy. you're entitled to your own opinion of him. don't be afraid to entertain a different view about joe than the one you've previously accepted. you don't have to hate him, but let's not make him the anti-omerta superhero.

it's fri nite, so i'm gonna go live a little. adios.

 

[Ferminal]

No, he did not say that.

Do you have the link to the original report (translated)?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

pro cyclists are not children. with an adults ability to measure the consequences they make a choice to dope or not to. funny you mentioned it, i work with young people everyday. when doing so i ALWAYS refrain from calling them douchebags or ever talking down to them.

realistically joe can never contribute to the sport without skepticism. it is probably best for the sport and for him on a personal level if he seek a career elsewhere. i'm not locking him in jail and throwing away the key. i'd rather not see him involved in bike racing tho. he can do ANYTHING else he wants. opening a bike shop would be a grey area (he wouldn't really be making money off of name recognition or racing experience) i'd rather he open a flower shop tho

many dopers remain in the sport as journalists, coaches, directors, etc and are attacked here on a daily basis. ever heard of bjarne riis? why the double standard? maybe because you haven't been directly effected by his actions because he never raced at quite high enough a level for you to care. that's not the case with me. i didn't race that day but i've seen the frustration of teamates i know to have been clean. questioning their preparation, their talent, their own dedication as to why they couldn't keep up with joe's group that day.

my original post was meant to shed light on the fact that i'll never be a joe papp fanboy. you're entitled to your own opinion of him. don't be afraid to entertain a different view about joe than the one you've previously accepted. you don't have to hate him, but let's not make him the anti-omerta superhero.

it's fri nite, so i'm gonna go live a little. adios.

Firstly - I do agree with you that what Joe did was wrong, however he did the time.

In fact Joe could have kept his mouth shut and been rightly present at the race you mentioned in 2009 - and he would also be entitled to the same presumption of suspicion/innocence as any other rider there.
Do you seriously believe Joe has made any financial gain from his admissions?

The reason Joe is not a Pro cyclist anymore - is not because he doped, it is because he talked.

Joe did not hide from his responsibilities - and even went beyond that by naming names, and his admissions have provided a valuable insight in to the thoughts and methods that dopers employ.

You mentioned Riis in your post - his confession was self serving, as he was about to be named. He did not name names, and his 'admission' only covered the years that he could not be sanctioned for. His 'punishment' was that he was not allowed drive in the Tour, for one edition.

Enjoy your Fri nite...

 

[joe_papp]

...Probably the last one that has come clean.

+1

The insinuation that I somehow benefited from doing anything but deny, deny, deny is other-worldly. I don't know who 'that guy' is but - hey buddy, there is nothing lucrative about what happens when you admit to dishonest, unethical behavior.

 

[lean mean &green]

Firstly - I do agree with you that what Joe did was wrong, however he did the time.

In fact Joe could have kept his mouth shut and been rightly present at the race you mentioned in 2009 - and he would also be entitled to the same presumption of suspicion/innocence as any other rider there.
Do you seriously believe Joe has made any financial gain from his admissions?

The reason Joe is not a Pro cyclist anymore - is not because he doped, it is because he talked.

Joe did not hide from his responsibilities - and even went beyond that by naming names, and his admissions have provided a valuable insight in to the thoughts and methods that dopers employ.

You mentioned Riis in your post - his confession was self serving, as he was about to be named. He did not name names, and his 'admission' only covered the years that he could not be sanctioned for. His 'punishment' was that he was not allowed drive in the Tour, for one edition.

Enjoy your Fri nite...

dr, shall we?

joe's nickname is mr. 58%, but you're right, he's a good guy, forget all those bad things i said about him he didn't dope to stay competitive, he egregiously took every shortcut he could find. dare i say, hog-like.

isn't joe's admission self-serving? the quickest way to turn around public perception is to confess. he's now got people lined up in this forum to defend him. for the life of me i can't figure out why but it seems to have worked beautifully.

naming names? he testified against landis (who would have gone down anyway) and leogrande who i have to admit i've never heard of. it sounds like he may have made a bargain for leogrande so he himself didn't get busted for trafficking. it seems he was a supplier in this case. i don't care to dig anymore, i'm disgusted. either way he should get a nobel prize.

what are the valuable insights again? the one's he posted in the referenced blog, yawn.

joe's not a pro cyclist anymore because he recieved a ban that wouldn't allow him to race again until he was into his mid thirties. never more than a good continental pro heavily doped his options were limited. probably figured why continue to put your body thru this for very little earning potential and life lived far away from home? going against the omerta in your mid twenties takes alot more guts than going against it in your mid thirties. he actually seems to be walking a very fine line, confessing just enough to establish trust with the gullible types around here but not so much that he destroys relationships that would damage future opportunities in coaching/team management/journalism etc.

joe would still have been banned for the 2008 edition. it's pretty unlikely that joe would be able to win the 2009 race clean after two years off at age 34 when he needed to dope heavily in his physiological peak years earlier.

you lost every part of this argument. embarrassingly i might add.

i did a little digging. it sounds like joe has had multiple positives/admissions which under today's rules would normally result in a lifetime ban. he seems to have plea bargained years of transgressions into one first time 2 year ban but is considered to be disqualified from ALL RESULTS BACK TO 2001!!!! ...so he didn't win my hometown crit in 2005

http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=291

 

[Dr. Maserati]

dr, shall we?

joe's nickname is mr. 58%, but you're right, he's a good guy, forget all those bad things i said about him he didn't dope to stay competitive, he egregiously took every shortcut he could find. dare i say, hog-like.

isn't joe's admission self-serving? the quickest way to turn around public perception is to confess. he's now got people lined up in this forum to defend him. for the life of me i can't figure out why but it seems to have worked beautifully.

naming names? he testified against landis (who would have gone down anyway) and leogrande who i have to admit i've never heard of. it sounds like he may have made a bargain for leogrande so he himself didn't get busted for trafficking. it seems he was a supplier in this case. i don't care to dig anymore, i'm disgusted. either way he should get a nobel prize.

what are the valuable insights again? the one's he posted in the referenced blog, yawn.

joe's not a pro cyclist anymore because he recieved a ban that wouldn't allow him to race again until he was into his mid thirties. never more than a good continental pro heavily doped his options were limited. probably figured why continue to put your body thru this for very little earning potential and life lived far away from home? going against the omerta in your mid twenties takes alot more guts than going against it in your mid thirties. he actually seems to be walking a very fine line, confessing just enough to establish trust with the gullible types around here but not so much that he destroys relationships that would damage future opportunities in coaching/team management/journalism etc.

joe would still have been banned for the 2008 edition. it's pretty unlikely that joe would be able to win the 2009 race clean after two years off at age 34 when he needed to dope heavily in his physiological peak years earlier.

you lost every part of this argument. embarrassingly i might add.

i did a little digging. it sounds like joe has had multiple positives/admissions which under today's rules would normally result in a lifetime ban. he seems to have plea bargained years of transgressions into one first time 2 year ban but is considered to be disqualified from ALL RESULTS BACK TO 2001!!!! ...so he didn't win my hometown crit in 2005

http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=291

Perhaps you should read my post.

Where did I say Joe "is a good guy"? .....Where did I say he "doped to stay competitive"?

I said what he did was wrong.

The only reason the USADA knew about Joe's "years of transgressions" was because he told them.
How much did Joe make during his years off - did you buy his book? Plastic bracelet? Watch him on Letterman? Drink whatever beer he promoted? Give to the 'Set Joe Free Fund'?

BTW: - You are not the only one who can 'go digging'...

there were a number of problems at phonak, numerous doping positives from their old roster prior to 2006. not defending landis but you cannot blame EVERYTHING on him. they established a very obvious negative pattern, landis was a very big and final straw.
....

Strange how you can't show the same level of tolerance or forgiveness to Joe as you did to Floyd?

 

[lean mean &green]

Strange how you can't show the same level of tolerance or forgiveness to Joe as you did to Floyd?

you got reemed in the above post and the best you could do was so take an old post out of context and then desparately try to derail the entire discussion with a mention of LA?

in the quoted thread about landis he was being blamed entirely for the downfall of phonak. he was one of many doping positives for that team in a 2-3 year span. have you ever heard of a guys by the name of tyler hamilton, oscar camenzind? at no point did a say i excuse landis' behavior either. if landis starts posting comments in the clinic and people shower him with praise you can expect me to try and provide everyone with perspective in that case too.

 

[Hugh Januss]

you got reemed in the above post and the best you could do was so take an old post out of context and then desparately try to derail the entire discussion with a mention of LA?

in the quoted thread about landis he was being blamed entirely for the downfall of phonak. he was one of many doping positives for that team in a 2-3 year span. have you ever heard of a guys by the name of tyler hamilton, oscar camenzind? at no point did a say i excuse landis' behavior either. if landis starts posting comments in the clinic and people shower him with praise you can expect me to try and provide everyone with perspective in that case too.

I had to read back for two pages three times over to find your "mention of LA that derailed the entire thread" , finally found it:

How much did Joe make during his years off - did you buy his book? Plastic bracelet? Watch him on Letterman?

Is that really the best you can do?

 

[Carboncrank]

Do you have the link to the original report (translated)?

“The hemoglobin values are too low for it to be possible to manipulate them down there,” he told Dagbladet. “I interpret this to mean that he must be clean.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/analysis-armstrongs-tour-blood-levels-debated

 

[Carboncrank]

They did.

When Armstrong first released his numbers the Hct Value for 2/4/09 was 45.8. This was a questionable value as it was during a period of heavy racing and training when a normal persons Hct would drop.

When he released his number a second time he changed the Hct number from 2/4/09 to 43.1.

Wonder why?

Don't suppose you can prove that.

Neither value is illegal.

Why do YOU think he did, if he did.

The Passport people could give a rats a$$ what Lance posts on his website. They have his blood and his data.

 

[frenchfry]

The Passport people could give a rats a$$ what Lance posts on his website. They have his blood and his data.

...and his money

 

[Digger]

Don't suppose you can prove that.

Neither value is illegal.

Why do YOU think he did, if he did.

The Passport people could give a rats a$$ what Lance posts on his website. They have his blood and his data.

Neither is it likely without doping or serious diarrhoea.

 

[Ferminal]

“The hemoglobin values are too low for it to be possible to manipulate them down there,” he told Dagbladet. “I interpret this to mean that he must be clean.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/analysis-armstrongs-tour-blood-levels-debated

As far as I'm aware, cyclingnews didn't conduct the interview.

So again, do you have the proper translation of the original report by Dagbladet.

That sentence in itself reads incorrectly as you can have a blood transfusion whether your haemoglobin is 12 or 120. A clean translation would be good.

Edit: This is the original report, we just need a Norwegian

 

[maltiv]

As far as I'm aware, cyclingnews didn't conduct the interview.

So again, do you have the proper translation of the original report by Dagbladet.

That sentence in itself reads incorrectly as you can have a blood transfusion whether your haemoglobin is 12 or 120. A clean translation would be good.

Edit: This is the original report, we just need a Norwegian

He says that it is "impossible" to manipulate your haemoglobin levels to such a low level.

 

[Anonymous]

dr, shall we?

joe's nickname is mr. 58%, but you're right, he's a good guy, forget all those bad things i said about him he didn't dope to stay competitive, he egregiously took every shortcut he could find. dare i say, hog-like.

isn't joe's admission self-serving? the quickest way to turn around public perception is to confess. he's now got people lined up in this forum to defend him. for the life of me i can't figure out why but it seems to have worked beautifully.

naming names? he testified against landis (who would have gone down anyway) and leogrande who i have to admit i've never heard of. it sounds like he may have made a bargain for leogrande so he himself didn't get busted for trafficking. it seems he was a supplier in this case. i don't care to dig anymore, i'm disgusted. either way he should get a nobel prize.

what are the valuable insights again? the one's he posted in the referenced blog, yawn.

joe's not a pro cyclist anymore because he recieved a ban that wouldn't allow him to race again until he was into his mid thirties. never more than a good continental pro heavily doped his options were limited. probably figured why continue to put your body thru this for very little earning potential and life lived far away from home? going against the omerta in your mid twenties takes alot more guts than going against it in your mid thirties. he actually seems to be walking a very fine line, confessing just enough to establish trust with the gullible types around here but not so much that he destroys relationships that would damage future opportunities in coaching/team management/journalism etc.

joe would still have been banned for the 2008 edition. it's pretty unlikely that joe would be able to win the 2009 race clean after two years off at age 34 when he needed to dope heavily in his physiological peak years earlier.

you lost every part of this argument. embarrassingly i might add.

i did a little digging. it sounds like joe has had multiple positives/admissions which under today's rules would normally result in a lifetime ban. he seems to have plea bargained years of transgressions into one first time 2 year ban but is considered to be disqualified from ALL RESULTS BACK TO 2001!!!! ...so he didn't win my hometown crit in 2005

http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=291

You quote "rant your head off" and then the Landis post comes back to haunt you. Now we see your true colors. You are a Flandis apologist. You have absolutely 0 credibility now. Hey, why not move on to talking about Lemond's sexual abuse. Sorry that Flandis is a lying sack of donkey vomit, and that he was busted, and that Joe testified honestly because he was ASKED to. Sucks for the Mennonite fraud parading around in Rock Racing gear. Maybe he can win a local crit or two to pay his rent? Wow, I thought you were a douchebag before, but now you have exceeded even my lowest expectations.

Oh, and don't bother with the denial of being a FLandis supporter to hide your true motives. They are very easy to see now.

See, there is a difference between Joe and FLandis, and you obviously miss it completely. Wow, your interpretation of what is and is not proper human behavior is really twisted. You somehow believe that Joe is making a fortune off of having admitted to doping? I do not have the words to express the level of stupid you have attained.

 

[Race Radio]

“The hemoglobin values are too low for it to be possible to manipulate them down there,” he told Dagbladet. “I interpret this to mean that he must be clean.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/analysis-armstrongs-tour-blood-levels-debated

Let us know when you have the original report.

 

[Race Radio]

Don't suppose you can prove that.

Of course, but you already know the answer to that question.

Note the 2/4 value with his original release of numbers.

Why do YOU think he did, if he did.
.

He changed it because a 16.5% increase over his off season baseline during a period of heavy training and racing (TDU followed by 30 hour week at training camp) is very questionable. It is understandable why Armstrong would dope as he was heading into his first team training camp where he had to show everyone he had not lost it.

 

[lean mean &green]

You quote "rant your head off" and then the Landis post comes back to haunt you. Now we see your true colors. You are a Flandis apologist. You have absolutely 0 credibility now. Hey, why not move on to talking about Lemond's sexual abuse. Sorry that Flandis is a lying sack of donkey vomit, and that he was busted, and that Joe testified honestly because he was ASKED to. Sucks for the Mennonite fraud parading around in Rock Racing gear. Maybe he can win a local crit or two to pay his rent? Wow, I thought you were a douchebag before, but now you have exceeded even my lowest expectations.

Oh, and don't bother with the denial of being a FLandis supporter to hide your true motives. They are very easy to see now.

See, there is a difference between Joe and FLandis, and you obviously miss it completely. Wow, your interpretation of what is and is not proper human behavior is really twisted. You somehow believe that Joe is making a fortune off of having admitted to doping? I do not have the words to express the level of stupid you have attained.

how is it that i appear to be an apologist for landis? i really can't even follow that logic enough to make a rebuttal.

the web page i linked to explained joe's positive. if it is a pro-landis site i wouldn't know b/c i only googled it last night and never previously visited it.

i think i've said all i need to say on this matter. i'm perfectly ok with joe posting his thoughts in here anonymously.

just some friendly advice, name calling is the fastest route to destroying credibility.

 

[Oldman]

I hate to say this but from 2 sources I heard Greg LeMond enhanced.

From another source I heard the only great American cyclist who was clean was Andy Hamsted. I talked with an American 6 day rider from the 30s his drug of choice was bennies.

That is why when people point the finger at Hamilton,Landis,Armstrong my first instinct is to wonder if the finger pointer is gaining financially,trying to make someone else look bad ,to cover their own doping transgressions, or are old grey and fat, have nothing better to do, or just crave the limelight.

His name is Hampsten. He won the Giro. All indications are he was clean, but there are others...Roy Knickman comes to mind. He was a good talent that suffered at the GT's because he apparently kept his concience clear. I saw him beat some pretty good jacked riders in a tough stage race but you can't handle entire teams in a big race.

As for Joe Papp being lumped with the rest...he has provided insight as requested by folks on this forum. For LMG to become an Inquisitor this late in the interchange diverts the whole point. Sorry, buddy...but almost all of those crits were won by somebody that was hot.

 

[lean mean &green]

...but almost all of those crits were won by somebody that was hot.

i am completely aware of that fact. however, none of those guys are posting in here with links back to their for-profit website and blog.