Joe Papp interview

[Martin318is]

My apologies but this morning I split the off topic conversation about whether Lance is a sociopath into this thread

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=9855

I tried to post a link to that but had technical issues.

Please stay on topic in this thread.

 

[amp300]

Do Pozzatto and Contador get any s--- off other riders for those terrible Sidi adverts? Joe Papp: Not when they realize how many zeroes are at the end of the numbers on the cheques.

Those commercials crack me up. I would make it my mission to give them **** (good natured type) if I was riding with them.

 

[Anonymous]

Obviously like many of us I don't really know Joe and only have a passing familiarity with his story. I found the watching the interview really helpful for many reasons - several have been mentioned already. I do hope that Joe is able to fulfil his ambition to get back into cycling in a meaningful way. It is obvious that he is passionate about his chosen sport.

I suspect there is a way to go before this is possible. Fortunately time is a great healer.

I think it was a great interview, a good insight into joe, but also into doping. The main things that stood out for me:

The comment that when he returned to racing suddenly everyone was quicker, stronger, faster. Heard this many times before and seems to be a current theme amongst riders who eventually chose to dope.

The discussion about riders who come clean and assist being basically shafted. If the UCI genuinly wants to clean up the sport then riders who co-operate and name names deserve to be treated more leniently. Im sure 4 year bans, with 1 year bans for riders that co-operate will change things a lot.

 

[powerste]

The discussion about riders who come clean and assist being basically shafted. If the UCI genuinly wants to clean up the sport then riders who co-operate and name names deserve to be treated more leniently. Im sure 4 year bans, with 1 year bans for riders that co-operate will change things a lot.

+1000, TSF!

Police all over the world "work" with criminals in order to solve bigger crimes. Bust a drug user, cut him a break to get to his dealer, repeat, and so on up the food chain. The UCI don't - it seems they would rather ignore or vilify ("he's a bitter, p***ed-off liar") talkative dopers instead of investigating claims, determining credibility, and following up.

Why the difference? Simple: police are concerned about reducing criminal behavior. The UCI is concerned with perpetuating its own self-importance. The latter have come to the conclusion that maintaining the status quo (whatever it is, regardless of how clean or dirty it is) is the best way to achieve that goal.

Net-net: The UCI should be given no PED policing role whatsoever in cycling because performing it well simply isn't in their best interests.

 

[redranger]

Joe, really enjoys both interviews. just wondering what you meant about Cancellara and a deal with the devil.

 

[Orinda8]

Good interview,especially to see a personality attached to one of the forum posters. A bit too personal, I appreciate the hard times in the past but I think that it is unrelated to the use of doping agents since everyone in the peloton was doing it. The statement that if he was aware of the future employment problems associated with a positive drug test he would not have done it;well this reminds me of many cigarette smokers I diagnosed with emphysema who stated that if only they had been told of the risk of this they would never have smoked (of course they knew the cancer risk but the possibility of emphysema would allegedly have meant more to them). Peer pressure trumps all other risks especially among young healthy athletes, so unfortunately only stiff sanctions and sensitive testing can discourage doping.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

1) Good interview,especially to see a personality attached to one of the forum posters. A bit too personal, I appreciate the hard times in the past but I think that it is unrelated to the use of doping agents since everyone in the peloton was doing it......2) The statement that if he was aware of the future employment problems associated with a positive drug test he would not have done it......Peer pressure trumps all other risks especially among young healthy athletes, so unfortunately only stiff sanctions and sensitive testing can discourage doping.

1) Different people are motivated by different things. For some it's money, for some it's peer pressure, for many its a combination of all kinds of factors. Identifying ways to dissuade people from doping involves first understanding their motivations. I appreciate Joe's efforts to explain how life experience can lead people to take huge risks to protect their psychological escape routes. Cycling seems so ideally suited to people seeking escape, that I think the relevance of this type of motivator should be recognized.

Your objection that Joe's statements were too personal comes across as omerta of a different kind; that's disappointing from any medical professional.

2) Sure, hindsight is 2020 and who knows what information might have been key to Joe making a different decision. But that is the point of this kind of discussion; it's to find as many influential ideas as possible. Given that you state peer pressure trumps ALL other risks, why would increasing the RISK of getting caught and increasing the POTENTIAL consequences solve the problem? Surely trying to figure out how to change the culture holds more chance of eventual success.

 

[MarkvW]

avoidance

The "interview" avoids the most troubling aspect of Mr. Papp's behavior--the behavior that led to his federal conviction. As I'm reading accounts of that case, he was found guilty for behavior occurring while he was participating in the Landis Hearing.

Papp is no moral credibility. He is only an information source that must be corroborated.

 

[lean mean &green]

The "interview" avoids the most troubling aspect of Mr. Papp's behavior--the behavior that led to his federal conviction. As I'm reading accounts of that case, he was found guilty for behavior occurring while he was participating in the Landis Hearing.

Papp is no moral credibility. He is only an information source that must be corroborated.

yep, I question everything Papp says, and I do mean EVERYTHING.

 

[joe_papp]

Joe, really enjoys both interviews. just wondering what you meant about Cancellara and a deal with the devil.

Glad you enjoyed the interviews - I enjoyed giving them and feel honored to have been afforded the opportunity to speak to such a unique audience.

Regarding Cancellara - I was just trying to be funny by implying that Cancellara made a Faustian Bargainto become so dominant in the time trials, but that it came at a cost: never being able to climb in the high mountains.

Michael Rogers comes to mind as another world-class time triallist who attempted to convert his diesel engine into one that could conquer the mtns, but in the end he lost his TT-ability w/o gaining supremacy on the climbs. Fab's deal with the devil ensured that he'd be dominant in at least one of the two scenarios, but...not both. Lucifer only offered that sweetness once, and he renewed it six years in a row for the lucky rider who signed with him.

The "interview" avoids the most troubling aspect of Mr. Papp's behavior--the behavior that led to his federal conviction. As I'm reading accounts of that case, he was found guilty for behavior occurring while he was participating in the Landis Hearing.

Papp is no moral credibility. He is only an information source that must be corroborated.

As I've said several times before, you 3-post-Rookie, you, I'm not about to publicly discuss any aspect of my case that isn't already in the public domain until such time as doing so no longer represents a potential threat to ongoing investigations and my own legal position. Highlighting your 3-post-displeasure is great, insofar as you think it determines moral credibility, but its ultimately irrelevant because there shouldn't be any expectation on your part that I would. Furthermore, the tie-in to the Landis case is also a Red Herring, since it wouldn't have mattered if I was fornicating with a goat when I took the stand, because I testified truthfully about my own use of testosterone, and I correctly intuited another rider's use of the same substance - whether intentional or not.

 

[JPM London]

As I've said several times before, you 3-post-Rookie, you, I'm not about to publicly discuss any aspect of my case that isn't already in the public domain until such time as doing so no longer represents a potential threat to ongoing investigations and my own legal position. Highlighting your 3-post-displeasure is great, insofar as you think it determines moral credibility, but its ultimately irrelevant because there shouldn't be any expectation on your part that I would. Furthermore, the tie-in to the Landis case is also a Red Herring, since it wouldn't have mattered if I was fornicating with a goat when I took the stand, because I testified truthfully about my own use of testosterone, and I correctly intuited another rider's use of the same substance - whether intentional or not.

You've got to love writing like that! Hadn't heard about the goat before, though, can't have been too comfy while giving testimony...

 

[powerste]

The "interview" avoids the most troubling aspect of Mr. Papp's behavior--the behavior that led to his federal conviction. As I'm reading accounts of that case, he was found guilty for behavior occurring while he was participating in the Landis Hearing.

Papp is no moral credibility. He is only an information source that must be corroborated.

I don't read him trying to sell us any moral credibility in the printed interview. He says what he thinks. He's not trying to impress you, me, or anyone else.

Every information source must be corroborated, especially these days.

 

[Orinda8]

Glad you enjoyed the interviews - I enjoyed giving them and feel honored to have been afforded the opportunity to speak to such a unique audience.

Regarding Cancellara - I was just trying to be funny by implying that Cancellara made a Faustian Bargainto become so dominant in the time trials, but that it came at a cost: never being able to climb in the high mountains.

Remember that Lance was able to do both;some would say that proves he really is Lucifer!

 

[MarkvW]

It does matter.

A dope dealer may be competent to testify how drugs are used.
A drug user may be competent to testify how drugs are used.

When a person testifies about how drugs are used, that person owes the parties examining him an HONEST, WHOLE TRUTH, statement regarding their basis of knowledge. They are entitled to know whether the witness is a dealer, a user, or both.

Mr. Papp omitted material facts. If he had freely admitted that he was doing the conduct he later pled to, that information would have helped WADA and Landis present their evidence.

Mr. Papp talks about fornicating goats, but he arrogates to himself the authority to determine what is relevant in a proceeding where somebody else's rights were at stake. That does not indicate trustworthiness.

Contrary to what Mr. Papp implies, trustworthiness matters.

 

[Mambo95]

On one hand certain cyclists who have doped, and one in particular, are reviled with no little passion by posters on here. Nothing wrong with that.

Yet on the other hand, Joe Papp, a convicted doper, who then lectured about the ills of doping while simultaneously dealing to nearly 200 sportsmen, is seen as some sort of hero.

What explains this dichotomy - or dare I say it hypocrisy?

Is it because posters are excited at communicating with a vaguely well known US domestic pro?
Is it because he tells them what they want to hear?
Maybe it's because he breaks the alleged omerta, which may be a genuine desire to do the right thing, or may be the last resort of a scoundrel.

I really don't get it.

To me he's a drug dealer, which makes him worse than any simple doper. So why the praise?

 

[Escarabajo]

On one hand certain cyclists who have doped, and one in particular, are reviled with no little passion by posters on here. Nothing wrong with that.

Yet on the other hand, Joe Papp, a convicted doper, who then lectured about the ills of doping while simultaneously dealing to nearly 200 sportsmen, is seen as some sort of hero.

What explains this dichotomy - or dare I say it hypocrisy?

Is it because posters are excited at communicating with a vaguely well known US domestic pro?
Is it because he tells them what they want to hear?
Maybe it's because he breaks the alleged omerta, which may be a genuine desire to do the right thing, or may be the last resort of a scoundrel.

I really don't get it.

To me he's a drug dealer, which makes him worse than any simple doper. So why the praise?

I am OK people who accept their mistakes and are truly repentant of what they did. I don't feel so good about the ones who keep dragging their lies for a long time. Instead of keep telling lies at least be quiet about it. There’s where I stand.

 

[Cal_Joe]

On one hand certain cyclists who have doped, and one in particular, are reviled with no little passion by posters on here. Nothing wrong with that.

Yet on the other hand, Joe Papp, a convicted doper, who then lectured about the ills of doping while simultaneously dealing to nearly 200 sportsmen, is seen as some sort of hero.

What explains this dichotomy - or dare I say it hypocrisy?

Is it because posters are excited at communicating with a vaguely well known US domestic pro?
Is it because he tells them what they want to hear?
Maybe it's because he breaks the alleged omerta, which may be a genuine desire to do the right thing, or may be the last resort of a scoundrel.

I really don't get it.

To me he's a drug dealer, which makes him worse than any simple doper. So why the praise?

Thanks - my thoughts exactly.

I've had a tiny bit of back and forth with Joe on this forum - when he decided to play dumb regarding the Levi Wikipedia entry and his known conflict of interest, I lost the last remaining shred of potential respect. Someone who has a checkered past and continues to serve up too much BS should be regarded with a a 10 kilo bag - not a few grains - of salt.

 

[pedaling squares]

To me he's a drug dealer, which makes him worse than any simple doper. So why the praise?

I think you'll find that many people here have been critical of some of Joe Papp's past behaviours while also being supportive of his admissions and willingness to communicate with us about doping in pro cycling from a user's perspective.

Back on topic, I enjoyed the interviews. And somewhat off topic again, fornicating with a goat while giving testimony would surely have led to a conviction for contempt of court. Good decision to have left the goat at home.

 

[Anonymous]

A dope dealer may be competent to testify how drugs are used.
A drug user may be competent to testify how drugs are used.

When a person testifies about how drugs are used, that person owes the parties examining him an HONEST, WHOLE TRUTH, statement regarding their basis of knowledge. They are entitled to know whether the witness is a dealer, a user, or both.

Mr. Papp omitted material facts. If he had freely admitted that he was doing the conduct he later pled to, that information would have helped WADA and Landis present their evidence.

Mr. Papp talks about fornicating goats, but he arrogates to himself the authority to determine what is relevant in a proceeding where somebody else's rights were at stake. That does not indicate trustworthiness.

Contrary to what Mr. Papp implies, trustworthiness matters.

For him to satisfy the burden you place upon him, Landis would have to have been clean. Landis' rights were at stake, and he was found responsible for his behavior, not Mr Papp's. Nor was he found guilty because of anything Mr Papp said. He was found guilty of doping because there was synthetic test in his p!ss. Joe just testified as to how it was used by cyclists. You are here again with an agenda. It was weak and stupid last time, and is now also.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks - my thoughts exactly.

I've had a tiny bit of back and forth with Joe on this forum - when he decided to play dumb regarding the Levi Wikipedia entry and his known conflict of interest, I lost the last remaining shred of potential respect. Someone who has a checkered past and continues to serve up too much BS should be regarded with a a 10 kilo bag - not a few grains - of salt.

The BS is that Levi is a convicted doper and it isn't talked about, nor will he admit it.

 

[Hugh Januss]

The BS is that Levi is a convicted doper and it isn't talked about, nor will he admit it.

I find it very interesting that all of the same people who are coming down hard on Papp and Landis and so on are able to cut the lying sack of Armstrong so much slack.
At the same time I must say I think "convicted doper" is a bit strong in the Levi case. True technically he is, but the drug in question and the punishment as well were relatively minor. I don't think that particular positive goes nearly as far in suggesting that Levi is a doper as the extent that he has gone to to cover it up does.

 

[Cal_Joe]

I find it very interesting that all of the same people who are coming down hard on Papp and Landis and so on are able to cut the lying sack of Armstrong so much slack.
At the same time I must say I think "convicted doper" is a bit strong in the Levi case. True technically he is, but the drug in question and the punishment as well were relatively minor. I don't think that particular positive goes nearly as far in suggesting that Levi is a doper as the extent that he has gone to to cover it up does.

Hugh - I think there are three separate issues you have noted here...

1) Coming down hard on Papp

2) Coming down hard on Landis

3) Cutting the lying sack of Armstrong so much slack

My posts in this thread regard Papp, right? Can we keep the thread on that topic?

 

[flicker]

Is Joe in a 12 step program now or has he ever been?

 

[lean mean &green]

Um, what I was noting was how neatly they all seem to tie together.
Like as if fanboys get up in the morning saying "must defend Lance, must attack Landis and Joe Papp and Lemond, argh".

not everyone who has issues with papp fits into this "fanboy box". for instance i have no issues with lemond, he could be a little more media savvy but how can you not like lemond?

i don't care to change anyone's opinion of papp, he's essentially nobody so who really cares? what i can't fathom is how someone who is willing to overlook his PED use/trafficking in the past can't understand that others just aren't willing to do so. some people draw that line differently. for some, a sob story and the ken burns effect applied to old family photos isn't enough. it is a difference of opinion. quite simple really.

 

[Anonymous]

A perfect example of why the sponsors would want to stand clear of Papp, Landis, LeMond. No potential buyer would want to accept their negativity.

...uh, I am not any of those people. As for anger, your hero thrives on it. Just read his books for direct quotes. So I guess you should become a TFF fan. I will make up a red bracelet with "Angry" on it and sell them. You can be the first to buy.