• 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!

Joe Papp interview

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
...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.
Anger is a valid expression. What I am speaking about is people like Papp throwing a bunch of private crap towards sponsored US pros. Same with LeMond, targeted crap. That is what will cause regression in US cycling, the negativity. TTF carry on with your diatribe I am all ears.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
What I have seen here including myself is a general ugliness that I guess is our frustration with cheating is about. I will offer my hand out to Mr. Papp, let us try new beginnings without bitterness and anger. I am sure we have opinions with our own agendas. I will heretofore try to express myself in a way that is not unpleasant but is fair. Flicker. PS I still retain the right to have a sense of humor.
 
Jan 27, 2010
921
0
0
Visit site
flicker said:
Sorry, what I was trying to say is Greg is his own enemy. He is not my enemy but he is an enemy to American cycling. The beauty of it is if Lance was a bad man it will be prosecuted. It now seems Contador is not so clean....

Wait, you actually think Lance was clean and AC may be clean? Really?

Back to Joe, this man made his bed, came forth and told the truth (either forced or otherwise) and talks about some cycling issues without landing himself in more hot water and you have a problem with it? What should he do? What can he do to prove to you that he is telling the 'truth'?

How many other cyclists like JP and B Kohl are assisting this way? The future of cycling depends of antidoping protagonists rather than antagonists don't you think?

What is the end-game for JP?

NW
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
Neworld said:
Wait, you actually think Lance was clean and AC may be clean? Really?

Back to Joe, this man made his bed, came forth and told the truth (either forced or otherwise) and talks about some cycling issues without landing himself in more hot water and you have a problem with it? What should he do? What can he do to prove to you that he is telling the 'truth'?

How many other cyclists like JP and B Kohl are assisting this way? The future of cycling depends of antidoping protagonists rather than antagonists don't you think?

What is the end-game for JP?

NW
The wikipedia crap about Levi I could not stomach. Although it was probably true, dropping bombs before the ToC was distasteful.
I hope JP is using this thread as therapy. BKohl and the rest same thing.
In my opinion if they had not have been caught they would have still been out there raking in the palmeres and the money. I do not think they are sorry about anything except being caught.
 
Neworld said:
Back to Joe, this man made his bed, came forth and told the truth (either forced or otherwise) and talks about some cycling issues without landing himself in more hot water and you have a problem with it? What should he do? What can he do to prove to you that he is telling the 'truth'?

How many other cyclists like JP and B Kohl are assisting this way? The future of cycling depends of antidoping protagonists rather than antagonists don't you think?

What is the end-game for JP?

NW

fantastic question.

i suggest you look at JP's story very carefully. it's a much different set of circumstances than those surrounding Kohl and i wouldn't be so quick to lump them together. Kohl spilled the beans and walked away fed up with the system as a much younger racer. Kohl could have easily stayed quiet and returned for many more lucrative years.

JP's positive came in his early 30's after many years of heavy PED use and a two year ban essentially ended his competitive career. soon after, he began to make a name for himself speaking out against doping. testimony in the landis hearings provided exposure and he probably hoped for some leniency as a result. same with the leogrande situation. while providing testimony and trying to broker leniency joe continued to sell large quantities of PEDs to a large number of customers. ie not just distributed to a few friends/teammates. at what point federal investigators got involved i am unsure of but i would guess they've been applying pressure for at least a few years and would have made withholding information or keeping quiet completely futile. joe has exhausted every option, the only one left is...well...you're looking at it.

so what's the end game? you might say that everyone deserves a second chance or whatever that means but do they deserve a third, a fourth, or a fifth? i'll leave it to the justice system to arrive at the appropriate incarceration/fines but as far as the sport is concerned i'd like to see joe make his living outside of cycling. if a "joe papp" is welcomed back into the fold in any meaningful way (as a coach, director, team mngmt, etc) it sets an example to those that follow that even the most egregious have a future in the sport. will it discourage others from making disclosures about techniques and suppliers? probably, but only minimally and you can't have it both ways. there should be incentives for helping an investigation but i think JP is beyond that at this point. lastly, it's not so much about punishing someone like joe as it is about taking an opportunity away from one of the countless people who have made a name for themselves making good decisions.

it's a judgement call and i'm certain some would disagree, that's fine too. i'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, just explaining where i stand.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
Visit site
lean said:
....if a "joe papp" is welcomed back into the fold in any meaningful way (as a coach, director, team mngmt, etc) it sets an example to those that follow that even the most egregious have a future in the sport. will it discourage others from making disclosures about techniques and suppliers? probably, but only minimally and you can't have it both ways. there should be incentives for helping an investigation but i think JP is beyond that at this point....

Sadly, I think you are right here. I can't see how allowing anyone who was supplying on that scale back, as a team coach/manager/DS, would send a message that helped clean up cycling. Maybe event organizer, or anti-doping educator or commentator would be ok though.

I have considerable sympathy for Joe, and really believe he deserves more chances to get his life onto a track he wants it to be on. But in the end, if leniency for him means others get the message that supplying is condoned, it would just lead to more athletes ending up in the same predicament.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
flicker said:
The wikipedia crap about Levi I could not stomach. Although it was probably true, dropping bombs before the ToC was distasteful.
I hope JP is using this thread as therapy. BKohl and the rest same thing.
In my opinion if they had not have been caught they would have still been out there raking in the palmeres and the money. I do not think they are sorry about anything except being caught.

Why was it distasteful? It was hardly dropping a bomb, it was born out of conversations here over a period of time, and then was added to his wiki. It was more that wiki initially refused to accept it was the reason so much was made of it. The timing had nothing to do with the tour of california.. Oh hang on, yes it was, and didnt it send waves of controversy through the tour. NOT. And besides Joe wasnt really involved in the editing of the wiki page until the final tidy up. He was involved more in the discussions about what would be condsidered sources. If you read the discussion and history you will see it was me (dim) that did the main edit. Joe and others just tidied up my grammar.
Sorry, next time we decide to post a doping allegation about a rider we will do it in the depths of november when nobody will notice. ;)

And its most certainly true. Its on wiki :D
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
TeamSkyFans said:
Why was it distasteful? It was hardly dropping a bomb, it was born out of conversations here over a period of time, and then was added to his wiki. It was more that wiki initially refused to accept it was the reason so much was made of it. The timing had nothing to do with the tour of california.. Oh hang on, yes it was, and didnt it send waves of controversy through the tour. NOT. And besides Joe wasnt really involved in the editing of the wiki page until the final tidy up. He was involved more in the discussions about what would be condsidered sources. If you read the discussion and history you will see it was me (dim) that did the main edit. Joe and others just tidied up my grammar.
Sorry, next time we decide to post a doping allegation about a rider we will do it in the depths of november when nobody will notice. ;)

And its most certainly true. Its on wiki :D
It didn't bother me I just thought the timing because The ToC has been Levis to lose and the intuition that Levi could get a second strike I thought rude.
Plus the fact that Papp got lapped in the 96 Nat. race where Joe was lapped.
 
flicker said:
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.

Seemingly so many logical fallacies in a single thread in an attempt to discredit the same people. Your efforts to poison the well still don't change the fundamental truths that you find to be so threatening to your cycling worldview.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
joe_papp said:
Seemingly so many logical fallacies in a single thread in an attempt to discredit the same people. Your efforts to poison the well still don't change the fundamental truths that you find to be so threatening to your cycling worldview.

The truth is it is not good to drive off sponsors. If we want to follow cycling we need sponsors. No falacy there. I have a pretty good idea of what is going on in the darkside. It is not personal Joe.
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,035
0
0
Visit site
Warning!

I just deleted 38 - thats right Thirty eight - ridiculously off topic posts in this thread.

Please make an effort to stay on topic. The next off topic post from a certain small list of people in this thread will result in a short suspension.
 
Jan 27, 2010
921
0
0
Visit site
flicker said:
The truth is it is not good to drive off sponsors. If we want to follow cycling we need sponsors. No falacy there. I have a pretty good idea of what is going on in the darkside. It is not personal Joe.

I cannot speak for Joe or you, but who cares about the sponsers if the product is fake, charged and full of cut-throat bullies!

I would rather have a diminutive clean sport rather than a dopefest. So if it takes bringing the whole charade down, including the number one 7Time liar/doper, and discarding the old generation and losing sponsers in the process so be it. That is the point.

NW
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
Visit site
Joe, do you have an opinion on what appropriate criteria could be set, that would allow a return to cycling for someone convicted of PED supply? Breaking omerta? Involvment in education programs? Suspension of x years?....

I'm guessing that a fair amount of trading goes on between team mates and close friends. But is there a scale of supplying that crosses a line of no return in your view? If so, where would you draw the line?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
To the moderator who erased the bulk of the posts: A guy comes on here and makes a BASELESS claim and you leave it up and erase the questions regarding it? Absolutely STUPID.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cal_Joe said:
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.

So I ask again, explain how it was a "known conflict of interest." Please, do tell.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
So I ask again, explain how it was a "known conflict of interest." Please, do tell.

The whole "Levi Ephedrin Exposé" started because of a Taylor Phinney tweet mocking doper Vino. "Gosh, what a hypocrite you are, Mr Phinney" says Dim. "Don't badmouth Vino" says fanboy Joe.

Some Conflict there. Some Interest there.

Joe almost had a "big scoop" IIRC...."ABC/NBC/CBS were interested" per Joe.
Then Floyd dropped the Real Bomb on Levi and the gang.
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,035
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
To the moderator who erased the bulk of the posts: A guy comes on here and makes a BASELESS claim and you leave it up and erase the questions regarding it? Absolutely STUPID.

The claim was on topic. You weren't questioning it - you were having a longwinded pointless argument about various definitions of "conflict of interest". The fighting ran to 38 posts without approaching the topic of this thread. I have left in place your challenge to the original comment as that was on topic.

That is an end to the matter of the junk posts in this thread. As I said - further postings off topic will be treated appropriately.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I Watch Cycling In July said:
Joe, do you have an opinion on what appropriate criteria could be set, that would allow a return to cycling for someone convicted of PED supply? Breaking omerta? Involvment in education programs? Suspension of x years?....

I'm guessing that a fair amount of trading goes on between team mates and close friends. But is there a scale of supplying that crosses a line of no return in your view? If so, where would you draw the line?

Was Joe supplying PED's any different to what some DS's do. Yet some of them, are managing teams, and some of them after being involved in doping cases return to manage teams. Its all BS, the system is broke and needs fixing.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thoughtforfood said:
So I ask again, explain how it was a "known conflict of interest." Please, do tell.

Because Joe should crawl into a hole and never come out again? Former dopers arent allowed to put up facts about other riders doping histories? He who is without sin and all that blah. In other words, Joe should stick by the omerta and shut up.

I think the poster is doing the stone/glass houses thing.

The conflict of intrest thing on wikki was crap. Just because someone has doped and is now involved in trying in their own small way to clean up the sport, does not mean they cannot mention other peoples doping habits. If thats the case, then Kohl should not name his supplier, or Landis shouldnt be accusing armstrong of doping.

Does Floyd have a conflict of intrest?
 
Jan 27, 2010
921
0
0
Visit site
TeamSkyFans said:
Because Joe should crawl into a hole and never come out again? Former dopers arent allowed to put up facts about other riders doping histories? He who is without sin and all that blah. In other words, Joe should stick by the omerta and shut up.

I think the poster is doing the stone/glass houses thing.

The conflict of intrest thing on wikki was crap. Just because someone has doped and is now involved in trying in their own small way to clean up the sport, does not mean they cannot mention other peoples doping habits. If thats the case, then Kohl should not name his supplier, or Landis shouldnt be accusing armstrong of doping.

Does Floyd have a conflict of intrest?

Well put! We need a clean sport. What Joe did is small time, not good, but small time. Now he is helping, 'nuff said.

Lets clean the sport up.

NW
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
Visit site
TeamSkyFans said:
Was Joe supplying PED's any different to what some DS's do. Yet some of them, are managing teams, and some of them after being involved in doping cases return to manage teams. Its all BS, the system is broke and needs fixing.

Yeah burn it down. I'm just pondering what might be rebuilt afterwards and hadn't expected the imaginary-future-clean-cycling would have much place for former dodgy DSs or entrepreneurial former suppliers. Maybe that's a naive idea, that overlooks the current realities of cycling though.....it's just that I can't see past it without more detail about how the alternative might work. Any suggestions?
 
TeamSkyFans said:
Because Joe should crawl into a hole and never come out again? Former dopers arent allowed to put up facts about other riders doping histories? He who is without sin and all that blah. In other words, Joe should stick by the omerta and shut up.

I think the poster is doing the stone/glass houses thing.

The conflict of intrest thing on wikki was crap. Just because someone has doped and is now involved in trying in their own small way to clean up the sport, does not mean they cannot mention other peoples doping habits. If thats the case, then Kohl should not name his supplier, or Landis shouldnt be accusing armstrong of doping.

Does Floyd have a conflict of intrest?
+1

..................................
Very well put.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
TeamSkyFans said:
Why was it distasteful? It was hardly dropping a bomb, it was born out of conversations here over a period of time, and then was added to his wiki. It was more that wiki initially refused to accept it was the reason so much was made of it. The timing had nothing to do with the tour of california.. Oh hang on, yes it was, and didnt it send waves of controversy through the tour. NOT. And besides Joe wasnt really involved in the editing of the wiki page until the final tidy up. He was involved more in the discussions about what would be condsidered sources. If you read the discussion and history you will see it was me (dim) that did the main edit. Joe and others just tidied up my grammar.
Sorry, next time we decide to post a doping allegation about a rider we will do it in the depths of november when nobody will notice. ;)

And its most certainly true. Its on wiki :D

I get it. In my opinion anyone including Mr. Papp would do well to say the truth. To me the way to do that is to say look at me I screwed up and look at the mess that I am in. Do not walk in my footsteps as it leads to a messed up life. Pointing at active riders to me is a way of taking the blame away from ourselves/our cycling heroes. Typical criminal behavior, in my opinion, so much like evangelists who say one thing and do another. That is my opinion.
About Levi and Wikipedia, that is a distraction from the sport. Without pointing in anyone in particular we know the nature of the beast cycling. Always has been that way. I do not care one way or another what happened to Levi in 1996 but I am interested in seeing American riders do well. Obviously Levi made a mistake at that time. Obviously you guys are not newbies but I do not like it that a newbie might get the wrong idea about cycling. Phinney T. just a very talented kid, good looking, from a fantastic gene pool, extremely financially privleged a golden boy. But Phinney T. does not have it upstairs he is immature, I give Phinney T. the benefit of the doubt he will mature and not take potshots at other riders. We on the other hand are vetrens and need to watch ourselves. I am as guilty of taking potshots as anyone else. I/we need to watch ourselves.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
Hey clean sport good. Anyone who can help including Mr. Papp is a friend. Hopefully Mr. Papp can have function and continue in the sport in a clean and fair manner. Obviously Mr. Papp cares is a thoughtful person and could function in a positive way. No hate towards Mr. Papp, I wish him the best.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TeamSkyFans said:
Because Joe should crawl into a hole and never come out again? Former dopers arent allowed to put up facts about other riders doping histories? He who is without sin and all that blah. In other words, Joe should stick by the omerta and shut up.

I think the poster is doing the stone/glass houses thing.

The conflict of intrest thing on wikki was crap. Just because someone has doped and is now involved in trying in their own small way to clean up the sport, does not mean they cannot mention other peoples doping habits. If thats the case, then Kohl should not name his supplier, or Landis shouldnt be accusing armstrong of doping.

Does Floyd have a conflict of intrest?

And that was my whole point, thanks Dim.

A conflict of interest means that Joe had an "interest" in posting info about Levi. "Interest" means he receives a benefit from that which would conflict with another "interest" he had elsewhere. In this case, any such suggestion of "interest" would be hypothetical and pejorative.