• 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 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cal_Joe said:
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.

The wiki admin were informed privately of the COI you claimed (as they requested in the thread), the decision of the admin was that the COI didnt exist. Hence why they have done nothing about it.

To the comment of joe being familiar with wiki procedures. I think you will find he wasnt, we thought it would be a simple matter of edited, providing a source and that being that. I dont think either of us know how much beaurocracy would be involved. But then i cant speak for him, but its my impression that he thought it would be much simpler.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Polish said:
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"?

No, that is not a conflict of interest because there is no interest in testifying that would conflict with simultaneously dealing PED's. If it were the case, which it isn't because there is a reason the time line is as it is, and it isn't because Joe was SELLING PED's, then it still would not constitute a "conflict of interest" because there is no conflict because the interests in the two particular situations are in no way conflicting.

You may call him a hypocrite if you like. Not knowing the precise reason the time line is as it is could lead you to that, and you would be wrong, but it is understandable.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cal_Joe said:
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.



There was this response from pedaling squares



My response was



Joe responded to that post with



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



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.

I read the page on Wiki, and they don't know what a COI is and you claiming that it is a "known COI" AGAIN still does not make it a COI. In fact, there is no clear explanation in the Wiki discussion by the Wiki representative of PRECISELY what the COI is. He claims it, but never explains it.

Let me explain it this way: I tell you that elephants are pink. (or more legally correct: Elephants have a natural pigmentation that causes a combination of light refraction that is perceived by your mind, through your vision components, as pink) Now, we all know that elephants are not pink, and even if you now go somewhere and state that it is "known that elephants are pink," it does not change the material fact that elephants are not pink.

Therefore, your continued recitation of a fact that is WHOLLY and COMPLETELY false is unwarranted. You can dislike Joe, but to continue to regurgitate this particular falsehood only shows that you are not "open" as you claim to be, and are merely using it to be pejorative.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Let me re-stress, on the wiki discussion one admin requested that the details of the COI be detailed in PM if needed. I pm'd the admin background on Joe and why certain people considered it a COI. The admin WERE made aware of the claimed COI privately, and decided that it was not valid. As around here, not everything discussed is discussed in public!

Again, your claim that Joe fully understands the workings of wikipedia as far as i know are false. It is my understanding that Joe (as i did) thought it would be a simple matter of providing the article online as a source and reffering to it. WE had no idea just how much research would need to be done to get the article edited. It ended up being a fight more against the wiki admin than Levi.

Give it up dude.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TeamSkyFans said:
Let me re-stress, on the wiki discussion one admin requested that the details of the COI be detailed in PM if needed. I pm'd the admin background on Joe and why certain people considered it a COI. The admin WERE made aware of the claimed COI privately, and decided that it was not valid. As around here, not everything discussed is discussed in public!

Thanks Dim. I am glad they understand there is no COI. Now if we can just get Cal_Joe to quit spouting off the claim as though it were true, we will finally be able to put this to bed.

As for the interview, I thought it was funny and honest. I would have expected nothing less as he has always been both of those things in private correspondence. I believe that if Cal_Joe would drop his prejudice, and actually enter into a conversation with JP in a truly open manner, he would see what many of us have: a person who made a mistake, has done nothing but accept responsibility for it (unflinchingly), and tried to move on with his life and help rectify the problem of which he was a part. He is not the evil "rat" people on Cal's side of the divide make him out to be.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
Visit site
I've got a question for Joe, as a result of reading the Blazing Saddles interview, and watching the Phil Anderson interview. I don't see it answered, nor even mentioned, so if it has been, and I've missed it, please leave a link or two behind to help me understand.

In the PA vid interview, you said, if I understood correctly, that the charge you were suspended for as for use of "andro-something", i.e. a testosterone agent. I'm pretty sure that you then said you didn't actually use what they accused you of, but you were "ready" to call the doping quits.

Does you mean that you weren't doing some form of testosterone when the test supposedly caught testosterone in the sample?

This is very much like what Floyd said in one of his interviews - that the dope offense he was suspended for was for a PED that he wasn't using. The two statements (JP's and FL's) sound quite similar - both apparently indicate they were suspended for a testosterone product they weren't currently using. Is there any significance to that?
 
hiero2 said:
I've got a question for Joe, as a result of reading the Blazing Saddles interview, and watching the Phil Anderson interview. I don't see it answered, nor even mentioned, so if it has been, and I've missed it, please leave a link or two behind to help me understand.

In the PA vid interview, you said, if I understood correctly, that the charge you were suspended for as for use of "andro-something", i.e. a testosterone agent. I'm pretty sure that you then said you didn't actually use what they accused you of, but you were "ready" to call the doping quits.

Does you mean that you weren't doing some form of testosterone when the test supposedly caught testosterone in the sample?

This is very much like what Floyd said in one of his interviews - that the dope offense he was suspended for was for a PED that he wasn't using. The two statements (JP's and FL's) sound quite similar - both apparently indicate they were suspended for a testosterone product they weren't currently using. Is there any significance to that?

I did not knowingly ingest testosterone or any testosterone-related compounds within the time-frame that, to the best of my knowledge, would have produced a positive result. My urine was specifically declared positive for metabolites of testosterone or its precursors (6α-OH-androstenedione 6β-OH-androsterone).

It's not outside the realm of possibility that this substance was in my body through unintentional ingestion, perhaps via a contaminated supplement, or my having been secretly dosed with it by my team. I hadn't taken any blood transfusions that came from a time earlier in the year when I was using testosterone, so can rule that out, and as stated previously, I initially decided to fight the charge against me because I hadn't knowingly taken testosterone.

I wasn't knowingly doing some form of testosterone when the test supposedly caught testosterone in my urine sample...but later I figured, "why fight it?"

Thoughtforfood said:
...As for the interview, I thought it was funny and honest...see what many of us have: a person who made a mistake, has done nothing but accept responsibility for it (unflinchingly), and tried to move on with his life and help rectify the problem of which he was a part. He is not the evil "rat" people on Cal's side of the divide make him out to be.

Thanks. I was also trying to keep things interesting, which perhaps stems naturally from speaking on-topic in a funny and honest way. ;) I enjoy interviews like that, which develop organically and provide the opportunity to comment on aspects of cycling other than those which are exclusively based on the negative things I did. One thing I've noticed is it seems that many of the posters who feel compelled to express hostile or derogatory or dismissive feelings towards me have never had any substantive interaction with me that I'm aware of. Not to say that such interaction is a prerequisite for expressing one's opinion, because it's not, but it's interesting that those writing posts that, for lack of a better term, support me have also taken the time to correspond with me. While those on the other side remain anonymous to me - for the most part.

Cheers.
 
joe_papp said:
I did not knowing ingest testosterone or any testosterone-related compounds within the time-frame that, to the best of my knowledge, would have produced a positive result. My urine was specifically declared positive for metabolites of testosterone or its precursors (6α-OH-androstenedione 6β-OH-androsterone).

This statement gives just a little more credibility then to Floyd's claim that he didn't take T during the period he tested positive for it in the Tour. It opens up again all those arguments about problems with the T test. It may seem old, old history to most now, and certainly doesn't change anything for Floyd or Joe, but will certainly be relevant when the next rider tests positive for T.

I wonder if a positive T-test is the income tax evasion charge for anti-doping authorities who can't prove blood doping or EPO.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Merckx index said:
I wonder if a positive T-test is the income tax invasion charge for anti-doping authorities who can't prove blood doping or EPO.

nail and head?
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
joe_papp said:
One thing I've noticed is it seems that many of the posters who feel compelled to express hostile or derogatory or dismissive feelings towards me have never had any substantive interaction with me that I'm aware of.

Cheers.

Joe, with your obvious dislike of many people and your tendency to gossip on the interwebs, it should be no suprise that some people would not want to talk to you personally, even off the record.
 
joe_papp said:
One thing I've noticed is it seems that many of the posters who feel compelled to express hostile or derogatory or dismissive feelings towards me have never had any substantive interaction with me that I'm aware of. Not to say that such interaction is a prerequisite for expressing one's opinion, because it's not, but it's interesting that those writing posts that, for lack of a better term, support me have also taken the time to correspond with me. While those on the other side remain anonymous to me - for the most part.

Cheers.

Polish said:
Joe, with your obvious dislike of many people and your tendency to gossip on the interwebs, it should be no suprise that some people would not want to talk to you personally, even off the record.

Joe, you've met Lance's [Number one fanboy-Edited by mod], haven't you?
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
joe_papp said:
While those on the other side remain anonymous to me - for the most part.

Cheers.

Don't take the desire for anonymity as lack of support. You've taken a serious beating and alot of unforseen exposure I'm guessing.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
Visit site
Polish said:
Joe, with your obvious dislike of many people and your tendency to gossip on the interwebs, it should be no suprise that some people would not want to talk to you personally, even off the record.

Hmmm... I was wondering if it was Polish (as in Poland), or Polish as in the golden ball. I guess it's self-evident... (pardon the ESL spelling if I'm wrong).
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
Joe anytime you would like to have a beer and go for a bike ride or I mean the opposite come by Central California. I will provide the bike and beer bring your own pedals and shoes. Welcome, Flicker. PS I will serve some epic Paella and a ripping Rose.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Polish said:
Joe, with your obvious dislike of many people and your tendency to gossip on the interwebs, it should be no suprise that some people would not want to talk to you personally, even off the record.

And he doesn't want to talk to you. Its like you weren't made for each other.
 
Oldman said:
Don't take the desire for anonymity as lack of support. You've taken a serious beating and alot of unforseen exposure I'm guessing.

Just saying that, while there's always an exception, for the most part the random folks who've emailed or msg'd me words of encouragement do so under their own name and usually include a return address. Whereas the hate mail is almost 99.9% anonymous.

Regardless, this is the greatest sport in the world, and one of the things I miss the most is the camaraderie and esprit de corps that developed over years of racing together. There's simply no way to forge those same kind of bonds in polite society, because the sense of true physical suffering, danger, pain and adversity - occasionally punctuated by an explosive triumph - is absent.

Without thinking too deeply about it, that same camaraderie makes doping easier to do, but it also becomes part of a positive feedback cycle that one is loathe to abandon. I'm sure it was very different on US Postal or any team where riding was big money business, but I'm sure almost every amateur who's been part of an organized team can understand what I'm referring to.
 
TeamSkyFans said:
nail and head?

how about....grain and salt? we're talking about folks who know a thing or two about deceit.

confessing to doping but claiming to be the victim of a false positive positions you nicely as a "victim". i've thought this about the Landis claims for quite awhile. i do believe about 95% of his claims but there are some things about his test results i can't easily explain. in other words, you'd rather look like the extremely unlucky exception that got caught for what "everyone else" was and continues to get away rather than a fiend. those who get caught are much more likely to be the most egregious or reckless users which makes for an unsympathetic figure.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
lean said:
how about....grain and salt? we're talking about folks who know a thing or two about deceit.

confessing to doping but claiming to be the victim of a false positive positions you nicely as a "victim". i've thought this about the Landis claims for quite awhile. i do believe about 95% of his claims but there are some things about his test results i can't easily explain. in other words, you'd rather look like the extremely unlucky exception that got caught for what "everyone else" was and continues to get away rather than a fiend. those who get caught are much more likely to be the most egregious or reckless users which makes for an unsympathetic figure.

Oh i dont think Joe is a victim, but i think there are some peculiarities in many positive tests over the years.
For instance, i think vino was doping, but not convinced about the whole blood transfusion with fathers blood thing. This was pre-passport, how comes other transfusers havnt been busted.
 
joepabike

Going to federal prison's no joke and I don't think it's a subject to make fun of at @lancearmstrong's expense. Even if he'll never go.
4 minutes ago via web

Joe, this comment won't win you any fans on this board. Good luck bra!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
JRTinMA said:
joepabike

Going to federal prison's no joke and I don't think it's a subject to make fun of at @lancearmstrong's expense. Even if he'll never go.
4 minutes ago via web

Joe, this comment won't win you any fans on this board. Good luck bra!

I think considering there is always the chance that Joe could end up there, his comment is probably fair. I think we should find out what he was replying to before we judge that tweet.
 
TeamSkyFans said:
I think considering there is always the chance that Joe could end up there, his comment is probably fair. I think we should find out what he was replying to before we judge that tweet.

I think its totally fair and puts stuff in perspective. There appeared to be no reason for it but I wouldn't see it in his twitter feed necessarily, maybe it was a response. I don't need to know what he was responding to, context doesn't really matter, its a fact.
 
TeamSkyFans said:
I think considering there is always the chance that Joe could end up there, his comment is probably fair. I think we should find out what he was replying to before we judge that tweet.

Some psycho sent me anonymously a link to a news article about prison rape and made disturbing comments about what he hoped would transpire b/w Lance and myself and a selection of the country's most hardened criminals.