Joe Papp interview

[Anonymous]

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.

The reason the Levi wikki thing escalated so, was not just about Joe, it wasnt about a vendetta or anything else, it wasnt about Joe passing blame. It blew up because certain "admin" on wikipedia did everything they could to stop that entry being put on. One in particular is a regular editor on the wiki page of a certain Lance Armstrong.
we had to battle and battle to get that entry included. It wasnt a war against levi, or ulterior motives or anything else, but a discovery that Wikipedia in many ways is completely corrupt. It basically came to the point where there were multiple parties trying to cover Levi's doping result. US Cycling were obstructive in providing the details even suggesting Joe contact levi direct, Wiki admin tried with various tactics to stop it appearing.

Conflict of Interest - Joe Papp posting doping entries on Levi's wiki page, or Conflict of Interest - someone being a wiki editor and having admin powers who it would seem has more than a passing relationship with Lance Armstrong. You decide.

AS far as Joe go's. Yes i defend the guy. He did wrong and I would never defend what he did, he knows that. But his actions since have been good, he raises awareness against doping, he talks about doping, all this is better than him just denying and getting a job on a newspaper somewhere. And hes always been freindly, honest, and open in all dealings Ive had with him. Its weird round here, the very ones who say the Omerta should be smashed, also spend half their lives saying thats dopers should not be able to repent, dopers should keep quiet and go away.. Either you want Omerta or you dont. You really cant have both. And if we as fans are going to slate and hate every rider who comes forward and confesses and gives details and tries to help fight doping, why should any rider bother. Joe puts himself on the block every time he comes here, he doesnt have to, but he does. Why is that?

 

[Polish]

We should be thanking Joe and Dim for updating Wiki.

Not only did they destroy the myth that Levi cheated as a amatuer, they also brought to light the fact that certain allergy meds are now ok.

Per the Dim/Joe updated Wike entry:

"Leipheimer had innocently used the allergy medicine Claritin-D, which contains a form of the banned substance ephedrine, to relieve hay fever and that USA Cycling subsequently relaxed its standards regarding the use of such allergy medicines in competition"

 

[powerste]

It wasnt a war against levi, or ulterior motives or anything else, but a discovery that Wikipedia in many ways is completely corrupt. It basically came to the point where there were multiple parties trying to cover Levi's doping result. US Cycling were obstructive in providing the details even suggesting Joe contact levi direct, Wiki admin tried with various tactics to stop it appearing.

Conflict of Interest - Joe Papp posting doping entries on Levi's wiki page, or Conflict of Interest - someone being a wiki editor and having admin powers who it would seem has more than a passing relationship with Lance Armstrong. You decide.

A point that can't be made often enough - Wikipedia is not a reliable source for any potentially subjective topic. It's often a great first stop, but rarely a solid objective source.

Demographic information for Boston> Wikipedia for sure (they get it from the census bureau)
Climate data for Portland > again, Wikipedia, no problem (who get it from NOAA)
Comprehensive bio. of just about anyone > Wikipedia probably has some info, but don't treat them as your sole source

I am constantly harping on my 5th and 7th graders when they research school papers using Wikipedia. "Please tell me you're going to use additional sources for that paper."

 

[Anonymous]

We should be thanking Joe and Dim for updating Wiki.

Not only did they destroy the myth that Levi cheated as a amatuer, they also brought to light the fact that certain allergy meds are now ok.

Per the Dim/Joe updated Wike entry:

"Leipheimer had innocently used the allergy medicine Claritin-D, which contains a form of the banned substance ephedrine, to relieve hay fever and that USA Cycling subsequently relaxed its standards regarding the use of such allergy medicines in competition"

erm.. You miss critically "The leipheimer family CLAIMED that he had innocently used..." Claritin B is still banned, and so is ephradrine. THe levi family claim was false but included as it shows admission of the failed test.

The wiki entry has clearly been misquoted by you. Play nicely

 

[Dr. Maserati]

erm.. You miss critically "The leipheimer family CLAIMED that he had innocently used..."

The wiki entry has clearly been misquoted by you. Play nicely

When I checked Claritin-D on the 'Global Dro' part of the USADA site:

Brand: .......................................... Claritin-D®
Route of Administration: ................Route Independent
In-Competition: .......................... Prohibited
Out-of-Competition: .....................Not Prohibited

 

[Anonymous]

When I checked Claritin-D on the 'Global Dro' part of the USADA site:

Brand: .......................................... Claritin-D®
Route of Administration: ................Route Independent
In-Competition: .......................... Prohibited
Out-of-Competition: .....................Not Prohibited

Yeh, its still banned, if it was unbanned it was very breif. Polish is just stirring.

 

[Hugh Januss]

A point that can't be made often enough - Wikipedia is not a reliable source for any potentially subjective topic. It's often a great first stop, but rarely a solid objective source.

Demographic information for Boston> Wikipedia for sure (they get it from the census bureau)
Climate data for Portland > again, Wikipedia, no problem (who get it from NOAA)
Comprehensive bio. of just about anyone > Wikipedia probably has some info, but don't treat them as your sole source

I am constantly harping on my 5th and 7th graders when they research school papers using Wikipedia. "Please tell me you're going to use additional sources for that paper."

So then you are very experienced at deciphering writing of the caliber of Flicker and Polish. Can we refer to you when we get stuck on the meaning of something?

 

[powerste]

So then you are very experienced at deciphering writing of the caliber of Flicker and Polish. Can we refer to you when we get stuck on the meaning of something?

Well, after this:

Although Lance was old and injured, he was able to stand on the Final Podium in Paris with head held high, knowing that he finished with Sporting Honor and Studdly Grace.

and this:

Lance is a manly stud, Floyd is a dirty winging wharf rat. Lance flies by gulf-stream and Floyd flies by thumb. No issue of intimidation by the ancient stud only an old lion standing proud amoungest the hyenas. Long live my Lord Lance Armstrong!!!!

about the only concrete deciphering I can come up with is that posting = severe man-crush (which, admittedly, is no great feat).

There are a couple of common ideas worth further examination though:
- some religiosity: Polish's (Studdly) "Grace" and flicker's "my Lord" (note capitalization)
- a focus on LA being past his prime: Polish's "old and injured" and flicker's "ancient" (stud, that is)
- an aversion to spell check
- playing fast and loose with capitalization and punctuation

Sadly I cannot tell anyone what exactly "Studdly Grace" or "winging wharf rat" means in Polish-flicker-speak, although I do know this Wharf Rat from over the years. I'll ask the kids when they get home from school and let you know if we get anywhere.

 

[Deagol]

....who cares about the sponsers if the product is fake, charged and full of cut-throat bullies!.....

Very well stated.

 

[Cal_Joe]

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

In light of the moderators deletions and warnings on this thread, I feel it would be best if you posted this in the Levi Wikipedia thread - and I think that would make the mods very very happy.

Then all things will be explained.

Not sure why you say you are asking again - I can't find a post in this thread where you raised the question previously.

 

[Martin318is]

Cal_Joe,
The original question was on topic and responding to an on topic post. It was asked in the collection of posts that were deleted a day or two ago. (and I accidentally deleted back too far)

To clarify: I have no problem whatsoever with that question being asked, in fact I would like to hear the answer too.

What I have a problem with is that when the receiver of that question ducked it and didn't answer it, the discussion went across to a long-winded off topic back and forth about ridiculous things such as the legal vs wikipedia definitions of the term "conflict of interest".

So... Cal_Joe, the question was clear and on topic and we have heard what other people think you meant by Joe having a conflict of interest. How about you tell us what YOU meant by it?

 

[Cal_Joe]

Cal_Joe,
The original question was on topic and responding to an on topic post. It was asked in the collection of posts that were deleted a day or two ago. (and I accidentally deleted back too far)

To clarify: I have no problem whatsoever with that question being asked, in fact I would like to hear the answer too.

What I have a problem with is that when the receiver of that question ducked it and didn't answer it, the discussion went across to a long-winded off topic back and forth about ridiculous things such as the legal vs wikipedia definitions of the term "conflict of interest".

So... Cal_Joe, the question was clear and on topic and we have heard what other people think you meant by Joe having a conflict of interest. How about you tell us what YOU meant by it?

I would be more than happy to say what I meant by it. I feel that there would be more continuity if those questions were asked and answered in the thread that dealt with the Wiki article - that way forum members would not have to bop across different threads to ascertain the entire conversation.

By all means, if you think it would be appropriate to continue that thread in this thread, fine by me. My interpretation of the deletions/warnings was that such a discussion would not be tolerated in this thread.

Let me know if you want to continue pursuing this direction in this thread - if not, perhaps those who are interested in my post regarding conflict of interest would post in the Levi Wikipedia thread.

Not sure what you mean by "ducked" - since so many posts were deleted, it was a bit difficult, from memory, to separate the wheat from the chaff. If by ducked you mean I did not respond to many posts before they were deleted, many times I am not near a computer and do not check in here. I would appreciate it if that circumstance was acknowledged.

Let me know.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I would be more than happy to say what I meant by it. I feel that there would be more continuity if those questions were asked and answered in the thread that dealt with the Wiki article - that way forum members would not have to bop across different threads to ascertain the entire conversation.

By all means, if you think it would be appropriate to continue that thread in this thread, fine by me. My interpretation of the deletions/warnings was that such a discussion would not be tolerated in this thread.

Let me know if you want to continue pursuing this direction in this thread - if not, perhaps those who are interested in my post regarding conflict of interest would post in the Levi Wikipedia thread.

Not sure what you mean by "ducked" - since so many posts were deleted, it was a bit difficult, from memory, to separate the wheat from the chaff. If by ducked you mean I did not respond to many posts before they were deleted, many times I am not near a computer and do not check in here. I would appreciate it if that circumstance was acknowledged.

Let me know.

You made the claim here...... answer it here, simple.

Here is your original post:

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.

What "conflict of interest" are you on about?
Also - what BS does he continue to serve up?

 

[Martin318is]

As the good Dr points out - if its so clear cut that you can make that sweeping statement then surely it would only take a sentence or two to say:

" I was referring to fact A and statement B made on X date which demonstrates a clear conflict of interest. This is further discussed in detail in this linked thread: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=7096"

Clearly this is more valid than pointing people to read a 500+ post thread in the hope of finding what you are talking about... Levi doping is not relevant to the responses to the Joe Papp interview whereas your accusation that he has displayed a conflict of interest, is.

Defend it or drop it - just don't deflect it.

 

[Cal_Joe]

You made the claim here...... answer it here, simple.

Here is your original post:


What "conflict of interest" are you on about?
Also - what BS does he continue to serve up?

Maserati - thank you for input. As I am not aware that you are a moderator, I think it would be best to wait for a moderator's input as to where this discussion will be continued - I thought that was evident in my post, but I am often accused of having no reading skills whatsoever.

This topic would surely benefit from a lack of the flaming and baiting that saw this thread eviscerated. Patience is sometimes perceived as a virtue.

 

[flicker]

My main issue here is feral cat and abused chiuajuajua rescue. Those are important charities the mighty one has championed. You could add that to the Levi Wiki page.

 

[Anonymous]

Its funny, my request was to first have a precise definition of "conflict of interest." I thought it would be clear to everyone that was for a specific reason, that being that by precisely defining the term, it would become evident that there WAS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I wasn't asking him to define the term because I needed to know, or wanted him to know. It was PRECISELY because in defining the term, the clear revelation that THERE WAS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST would be produced.

I got the warnings in my mailbox about being off topic. How in the world have any of the posts since this morning been any more on topic than were mine?

I understand that the back and forth may have been tedious for many to read. I completely understand that. However, I was chided by Martin because I was off topic. I refuse to acquiesce to that suggestion. I was parsing out the definition because MANY times an argument made by someone can be voided if that person is forced to actually define precisely the terms contained in their argument. "Conflict of interest" was the causal term in his ENTIRE PREMISE. If he is incorrectly using his causal term, he doesn't need to explain anything because there was never anything to explain because what he is actually explaining is SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN "CONFLICT OF INTEREST."

I am hoping that I have explained my intent, and cleared up any confusion as to why I took the tack that I did. It was never to go off topic, it was to precisely define topic, and render the assertion of Cal_Joe moot.

 

[Anonymous]

As the good Dr points out - if its so clear cut that you can make that sweeping statement then surely it would only take a sentence or two to say:

" I was referring to fact A and statement B made on X date which demonstrates a clear conflict of interest. This is further discussed in detail in this linked thread: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=7096"

Clearly this is more valid than pointing people to read a 500+ post thread in the hope of finding what you are talking about... Levi doping is not relevant to the responses to the Joe Papp interview whereas your accusation that he has displayed a conflict of interest, is.

Defend it or drop it - just don't deflect it.

That is all I have been asking. Period.

I may have added rhetorical comment with it, but my basis for ALL of the posts I made is EXACTLY what you just posted.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Maserati - thank you for input. As I am not aware that you are a moderator, I think it would be best to wait for a moderator's input as to where this discussion will be continued - I thought that was evident in my post, but I am often accused of having no reading skills whatsoever.

This topic would surely benefit from a lack of the flaming and baiting that saw this thread eviscerated. Patience is sometimes perceived as a virtue.

You're welcome.

No - I am not amoderator.
But even I can see the above post is off topic.
The points you made (earlier) and were on topic - my questions to you were on topic. See simple.


I patiently await an answer to my earlier question.

 

[Polish]

I would think one of most obvious conflict of interest is this

During the time that Joe was testifying as to the BENEFITS of PEDS as a expert witness for the prosecution in the Floyd case, he was also DEALING PEDS over the interwebs illegally.

Maybe conflict of interest is too blunt?
How about "savvy guerrilla marketing"?

 

[Cal_Joe]

As the good Dr points out - if its so clear cut that you can make that sweeping statement then surely it would only take a sentence or two to say:

" I was referring to fact A and statement B made on X date which demonstrates a clear conflict of interest. This is further discussed in detail in this linked thread: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=7096"

Clearly this is more valid than pointing people to read a 500+ post thread in the hope of finding what you are talking about... Levi doping is not relevant to the responses to the Joe Papp interview whereas your accusation that he has displayed a conflict of interest, is.

Defend it or drop it - just don't deflect it.

There were quite a few posts in that thread, a sentence or two to explain my interpretation would be reducing things to the lowest common denominator. See following post.

 

[Cal_Joe]

Well, I feel that anyone trying to interpret this without reading the entire Levi Wikipedia thread will miss a lot, but here we go. Keep in mind that many of the posts regarded Wikipedia's "rules" - the quotes around rules are intentional. Also, any reference to "Conflict of Interest" is based on the Wikipedia interpretation and nothing else.

I feel that the rant posts about conflict of interest may never have been posted if interested persons had read the thread and the Wikipedia edit page referenced below.

My first post on the thread was as follows, where I remarked that the additions to the Levi Wikipedia article accurately reflected the doping/disqualification issues regarding the 1996 Criterium.

As others have said, balanced. My only quibble is the "lapping the entire field" part, which is not supported by or even mentioned in the reference (NY Times article).

There was this response from pedaling squares

I haven't gone back to read but can't that be sourced to Joe P, who was a rider in that race and thus a witness to the event? That would be a better source than a newspaper article.

My response was

My feeling is that particular source, based solely on a 14 year old recollection posted in a forum by someone who lost the race and has some prior legal issues, would be a problem. It would be interesting to see if there are any accounts written at the time that backs that up.

Joe responded to that post with

LMFAO! I don't know which is funnier: the notion that I "lost" the race to Leipheimer; the insinuation that legal issues result in faulty memories; or the fact that you suggest a search for written accounts to validate LL's lapping the field after we spent 40 pages chronicling the search for a citation to back up the claim that LL was stripped of his title for doping.

Actually, you might win troll of the year award because of how sneakily you suggested the search for written accounts. Bravo!

If you read the entire thread you will find that Joe is familiar with Wikipedia's reliance on written accounts. I was also confused by Joe's interpretation of losing a race; maybe his interpretation of the race is that since Levi was disqualified, he came in ahead of Levi, but he does not expound on that issue.

Also, I have a difficult time with "the insinuation that legal issues result in faulty memories" comment; I really cannot fathom where that came from.

My response to Joe was

Joe, it appears that my sentence structure was too convoluted. To rephrase:

Wikipedia has a standard concerning COI (conflict of interest) regarding unsubstantiated claims by folks who may have an ax to grind. You have to be aware of those based on the fact that your COI is mentioned in the Wiki page that concerns edits to the LL Wiki page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Levi_Leipheimer

My second point is that an "oral history" from someone who did not win the race, and has been convicted of drug dealing may not pass muster with Wiki and COI.

Third point regarding the "lapping the field" - again based on the Wiki discussion page link posted above, you damn well know that an account written at the time is sufficient - apparently you have decided to play dumb.

And thanks for playing the "Troll" card - anyone who bothers to read the Wiki discussion page can probably figure things out.

Last point - you are one of the few persons posting on this forum whose real name and history is known - possibly you might expect some flack. My advice - Harden up a bit (or is that HTFU?), it comes with public posting.

There was no response from Joe or anyone else regarding the known Wikipedia COI issue.

I recommend that the Wiki edit page about the article be read.

That's it.

 

[pedaling squares]

Well I'll be damned, I'm behind all this nonsense? I am somewhat ashamed.

Cal_Joe, in seriousness I thank you for addressing this COI point so that the matter can (hopefully) be put to rest. I don't agree at all with your assessment that Joe or any other rider in that race would not be a valid source to that particular claim, but at least you put up what M318, Doc, and TFF were asking of you. Now, back to that interview??

 

[Cal_Joe]

Well I'll be damned, I'm behind all this nonsense? I am somewhat ashamed.

Cal_Joe, in seriousness I thank you for addressing this COI point so that the matter can (hopefully) be put to rest. I don't agree at all with your assessment that Joe or any other rider in that race would not be a valid source to that particular claim, but at least you put up what M318, Doc, and TFF were asking of you. Now, back to that interview??

Well, I talked to The Pope and he has granted absolution for your sins.

And remember, that thread focused on Wikipedia's assessment of valid sources, not mine, yours, Joe's, or whoever's.

And by the way, I thought the interview was crap - just another Irish boy being cute, which is a moniker that is applied to me on a daily basis.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well I'll be damned, I'm behind all this nonsense? I am somewhat ashamed.

Cal_Joe, in seriousness I thank you for addressing this COI point so that the matter can (hopefully) be put to rest. I don't agree at all with your assessment that Joe or any other rider in that race would not be a valid source to that particular claim, but at least you put up what M318, Doc, and TFF were asking of you. Now, back to that interview??

+1. Its been a while since I have read a proper answer to questions here - if questions are never answered then your just left with questions.


@ CalJoe appreciate the responce on COI - as you say, and agree the merits thereof would be for the 'Levi Wiki' thread.

You still haven't answered my second question. "The continued BS by Joe?"

__
And for the record - as much as I appreciate JP's thoughts and insights as an ex racer who has used PED's. I do think the fact he sold PEDs is disgraceful.

I can understand why people use PEDs and feel some compassion towards those that succumb - but I have little for the facilitators, that includes officials, DS's, 'Doctors', Soigneurs, and those who supply - Joe is part of that and I am glad he is being dealt with by a competent authority.