Joe Papp Doping Timeline

[QuickStepper]

You addressed me in your post and I responded. I hope you are better determining chain of events with your clients.

No response.

*Ignore*.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

.... Who did he sell it to? .... was Mr. Papp also working with the Feds in some sort of undercover operation and how might that play into the current investigation?....whether there really is any connection between information that Mr. Papp may possess or may have provided to the federal investigators [snipped for brevity] has any bearing on the current reported investigation...

Except for a select few who are extremely well connected with US cycling, most of us can only speculate about these fascinating questions. There have been no definitive answers that I've seen, either on this site or in the press.

However, there have been a number of little comments made here that, taken in totality, might indicate that the investigations are somehow linked.

And just as an aside, I really don't know why this topic should have created such a firestorm ......If we can all just stop insulting each other long enough to provide some relevant or useful information, that might go a long way towards informing the rest of us who aren't "insiders" about what's real and what's just speculation at best, or libelous and baseless allegations at worst.

In part because the OP has a writing style extraordinarily similar to BPC. Also because some people need to show a little more RESTRAINT. They need to quit reacting to every little faux pas or raw nerve, hit by trolls or those new to the detail around doping in cycling. Some forum members appear to have become so completely defeated by the trolling and public strategies shtick, that they have descended to the same level as BPC and largely post thread-derailing ad hominem comments, instead of the insights they posses. It's kind of like a watered down version of victims of repeat abuse ending up participating in their own degradation....but i digress

 

[Cobblestoned]

So you like classic porn? Good to know you are working things out with that. Hey, do they have the internet in Bangladesh, or do you have to use magazines and mail your posts in?

No Bangladesh, no magazines and no mailposts

But good old VHS.

 

[Anonymous]

No response.

*Ignore*.

Actually, that is a response. "No response" would have necessitated actually not responding You wanted me to know you weren't responding which is a rhetorical response. I honestly hope you are sharper in your practice.

 

[Anonymous]

No Bangladesh, no magazines and no mailposts

But good old VHS.

You post with a VCR???!!! I might find your choice of hero suspect, but I have to admire a man who can post in the internet with a VCR. Necessity is the mother of invention.

 

[Anonymous]

Except for a select few who are extremely well connected with US cycling, most of us can only speculate about these fascinating questions. There have been no definitive answers that I've seen, either on this site or in the press.

However, there have been a number of little comments made here that, taken in totality, might indicate that the investigations are somehow linked.



In part because the OP has a writing style extraordinarily similar to BPC. Also because some people need to show a little more RESTRAINT. They need to quit reacting to every little faux pas or raw nerve, hit by trolls or those new to the detail around doping in cycling. Some forum members appear to have become so completely defeated by the trolling and public strategies shtick, that they have descended to the same level as BPC and largely post thread-derailing ad hominem comments, instead of the insights they posses. It's kind of like a watered down version of victims of repeat abuse ending up participating in their own degradation....but i digress

Yea, I have gotten to the point that I refuse to respond in a substantive manner to anyone with a post count of less than 50. Sorry, but the hundreds of people (or is it just a handful with hundreds of accounts?) who have shown up, posted a thread about LeMond, Joe, Landis, etc., and then gone away after less than 10 posts has left me jaded...is there a new Lance fan out there who can renew my faith in humanity? Well, Wonderlance does, but he is special.

 

[forty four]

Yea, Uniballer fans who are not aware of cycling before 1999 generally use the word "classic" pretty loosely.[/QUOTE
have you read my posts? evidently not somehow im an la fan because i think freely and use common sense and logic when making decisions. anyways vague personal attacks do not make you right lol.

 

[krebs303]

, Wonderlance does, but he is special.

Like a breath of fresh air

 

[QuickStepper]

Except for a select few who are extremely well connected with US cycling, most of us can only speculate about these fascinating questions. There have been no definitive answers that I've seen, either on this site or in the press.

However, there have been a number of little comments made here that, taken in totality, might indicate that the investigations are somehow linked.

Thanks for the straightforward reply.

Any thoughts on who those "few who are extremely well connected" might be?

 

[Anonymous]

have you read my posts? evidently not somehow im an la fan because i think freely and use common sense and logic when making decisions. anyways vague personal attacks do not make you right lol.

Actually, I skim them. There just isn't much there that warrants attention.

 

[Cobblestoned]

You post with a VCR???!!! I might find your choice of hero suspect, but I have to admire a man who can post in the internet with a VCR. Necessity is the mother of invention.

No, no. VCR just for the classics.

For the internet I use my Z3. takes a while - but still good

 

[Anonymous]

No, no. VCR just for the classics.

For the internet I use my Z3. takes a while - but still good

You use a BMW to post???!!!! You are soooo much cooler than I ever imagined.

Hey, nice pussy.

 

[Anonymous]

......

Now that is not responding there...

 

[python]

OK, I want to thank TFF for the interruption once again and his completely irrelevant response. (And as a side note, I'm now beginning to appreciate Cali_Joe's observation that TFF responds not to the substance of a post, but instead responds by attacking the poster's character or motivations or intentions, an excellent rehtorical trick to divert attention).

So, I'll ask again: Does anyone know the answer to Question No. 2?

but tff's questions are as relevant as your irrelevant question, or should I say off-topic questions. let's read the topic:

joe papp's doping timeline. none of your question deal with timeline.

and if you're so inclined to ask questions about joe's depositions and the nature of his cooperation with the authorities, i'd expect a lawyer you said you are to know the legal limitations joe is under and the sensitivity of any speculation about that. so, your inquisitiveness would be best served asking relevant questions about armstrong who is certainly a better case to learn from. unless of course your inquisitiveness has another purpose.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Thanks for the straightforward reply.

Any thoughts on who those "few who are extremely well connected" might be?

Tough question to ask an innocent bystander. In the US, 131313 obviously, and Race Radio... maybe Oldman. There are a few others but they aren't springing to mind at this moment.

 

[python]

Any thoughts on who those "few who are extremely well connected" might be?

are you on an intelligence gathering mission ? what relevance do those 'well connected' you are seeking an information on have to do with the time line of joe papp's doping ?

 

[Cobblestoned]

You use a BMW to post???!!!! You are soooo much cooler than I ever imagined.

Hey, nice pussy.

No no, never. That´s a car for women.
That´s my Z3

http://www.silicon.de/i/s/a/2009/04/z3.jpg

 

[QuickStepper]

but tff's questions are as relevant as your irrelevant question, or should I say off-topic questions. let's read the topic:

joe papp's doping timeline. none of your question deal with timeline.

and if you're so inclined to ask questions about joe's depositions and the nature of his cooperation with the authorities, i'd expect a lawyer you said you are to know the legal limitations joe is under and the sensitivity of any speculation about that. so, your inquisitiveness would be best served asking relevant questions about armstrong who is certainly a better case to learn from. unless of course your inquisitiveness has another purpose.

Thank you for your response, but I was responding not to the OP's question, nor even the title the OP posted, but rather MacRoadie's explanation of questions that he felt would be more relevant and probative. That explanation appeared in the middle of this thread, so since it was here, I assumed it was "on topic".

I did not realize that the posting etiquette requires that we all respond only to the title contained in the thread. If that was the case, then clearly about 90% of the posts here have nothing to do with anything other than demonstrating how well people can argue with one another about nonsensical drivel, spelling errors or other minutae.

I also didn't realize that the "relevance" of a question was to be defined by whether or not the question posed does or doesn't mention Armstrong. I see that some believe that is how relevance is defined, but is that the only test? And I am uncertain why a post which mentions him by name, as opposed to any other cyclist who either is suspected of using PED's or, in the case of Papp, someone who has admitted to it, is "more instructive" than any other situation involving PED's and cycling.

I simply asked whether the extent and nature of (a) the lists of people he sold to or (b) the extent and nature of his cooperation with the feds extended to what the media and others have speculated is the current subject of the investigation being conducted in Los Angeles has been made public or not. I didn't ask about "depositions" (were any taken? that would be unusual in a criminal case, btw). The extent of his cooperation could indeed be "sensitive" and I appreciate that. What I asked though (referring to the background info I was aware of as a lead-in to the questions) was whether or not, since his plea bargain, any of that information might have been made public. As simple, "yes," or "no," or "I don't know" or some other succinct reply would have sufficed.

But I do thank you for the civil nature of your reply.

 

[Martin318is]

I've been watching this thread over the last 24hrs or so and I will take the time now to ask:

Can anybody give me a valid reason why I shouldn't lock this thread right here and force you guys to have your 5 seperate conversations in 5 different threads?

(I have no problem with the original topic being opened in a new thread by the way - or the OP could just join an existing one)

 

[Anonymous]

No no, never. That´s a car for women.
That´s my Z3

http://www.silicon.de/i/s/a/2009/04/z3.jpg

What a strange bookcase???

 

[Anonymous]

I've been watching this thread over the last 24hrs or so and I will take the time now to ask:

Can anybody give me a valid reason why I shouldn't lock this thread right here and force you guys to have your 5 seperate conversations in 5 different threads?

(I have no problem with the original topic being opened in a new thread by the way - or the OP could just join an existing one)

....ummm........well, there's...no, that doesn't work..........nope, can't think of a single reason.

 

[QuickStepper]

are you on an intelligence gathering mission ? what relevance do those 'well connected' you are seeking an information on have to do with the time line of joe papp's doping ?

Again, I did not realize the context of this thread was so limited that the only questions that were "relevant" require that every question must relate to the OP's original title.

Aren't we all on an "intelligence gathering" mission of sorts? I mean, the idea is to discover as much truth as we can, isn't it, about who is doping, who is suspected of doping, and in the case of the current investigation, what's really going on and who might know about it or be able to shed some light on it? The goal is to gather as much concrete information and to avoid speculation if at all posible. So why not ask the question. If the answer is "none of your business" or "I can't say because that would compromise an existing investigation" then just say so. On the other hand, if you don't know, then why not just say that. If, on the other hand, the standard is that we can't even ask the question here in the Clinic about who might have real, credible information, then what's the real purpose of discussing these issues all about?

 

[Anonymous]

Again, I did not realize the context of this thread was so limited that the only questions that were "relevant" require that every question must relate to the OP's original title.

Aren't we all on an "intelligence gathering" mission of sorts? I mean, the idea is to discover as much truth as we can, isn't it, about who is doping, who is suspected of doping, and in the case of the current investigation, what's really going on and who might know about it or be able to shed some light on it? The goal is to gather as much concrete information and to avoid speculation if at all posible. So why not ask the question. If the answer is "none of your business" or "I can't say because that would compromise an existing investigation" then just say so. On the other hand, if you don't know, then why not just say that. If, on the other hand, the standard is that we can't even ask the question here in the Clinic about who might have real, credible information, then what's the real purpose of discussing these issues all about?

Man, for an attorney, you sure lose your cool pretty easily.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I've been watching this thread over the last 24hrs or so and I will take the time now to ask:

Can anybody give me a valid reason why I shouldn't lock this thread right here and force you guys to have your 5 seperate conversations in 5 different threads?

(I have no problem with the original topic being opened in a new thread by the way - or the OP could just join an existing one)

Personally I am against 'locking' threads - (unless for blatant trolling).
If the info or question is new then great -but if the subject/questions have been answered before it should be merged in to the original thread.

I also believe it would make posters search out old threads - rather than just make a thread for a thought that springs to mind.

As to the OPs question - I was intrigued as to why they asked a question when they had all the answers in their first post, but assumed that their real question/motivation would come to light in their response. I think TFF went in to heavy - but when the OP responded they took away any doubt to their motivation (IMO).

 

[Anonymous]

Personally I am against 'locking' threads - (unless for blatant trolling).
If the info or question is new then great -but if the subject/questions have been answered before it should be merged in to the original thread.

I also believe it would make posters search out old threads - rather than just make a thread for a thought that springs to mind.

As to the OPs question - I was intrigued as to why they asked a question when they had all the answers in their first post, but assumed that there real question/motivation would come to light in their response. I think TFF went in to heavy - but when the OP responded they took away any doubt to their motivation (IMO).

Yea, probably so...but I was right.