I don’t know if I said this in print after Joe Papp’s testimony at the Floyd Landis hearings in May, but at one point back then I made the comment that perhaps Joe Papp should go to work for one of the drug companies, given his personal experience in that arena.
Turns out, he was interviewing for a job as a drug rep at the time. And with the publicity he got from his testimony, the opportunity pretty much vanished like a wisp of smoke on a windy day. As the Palm Beach Post reported a couple of days ago:
“I was interviewing with pharmaceutical companies to be a field salesman – ironically enough, right?” he said. “You couldn’t write a script for Hollywood.”
But as soon as Papp admitted using drugs at Landis’ hearing, those companies stopped talking with him.
“Rightly so, because what drug company would hire a guy who admitted to being a drug cheat? Thankfully, none.”
Interestingly, in same the article we find out that [Begin edit, per Joe Papp’s comment, below] it wasn’t being busted for testosterone use that brought about an end to Papp’s cycling career  according to the Post’s article, the final race of his career wasn’t the one with the positive test, as is often the case. His final race ended due to the complications of abusing EPO. [End edit]
Papp, who never raced in the Tour de France, had been racing for an Italian team in the Tour of Turkey when he won a stage and was called to doping control. He couldn’t understand why teammates were “flipping out,” since he had beaten tests before. This time, testers found synthetic testosterone.
That wasn’t how his career ended. While the case dragged out, Papp was racing up a hill in Italy when he fell. Because he had taken so much EPO, he suffered a massive hemorrhage. On Monday, Papp showed a photo of himself in the hospital, unshaven, his eyes barely open.
“I was following this path of deceit and lies and just horrible behavior,” Papp said. “I couldn’t think of a more appropriate way to end my career than what you see right here.”
Notice what else is interesting in this quote: Papp continued to race as his anti-doping case dragged out. And he continued to dope. That’s the kind of behavior you might expect from an addict, don’t you think?
Lest you think that Papp is looking for any sympathy, the article also offers this:
“I don’t want any sympathy or anything,” said Papp, who lives in Pittsburgh. “I broke the rules of my sport and failed ethically and morally. Nobody held a gun to my head; I did it. Part of my coming to terms with that is basically telling my story and holding myself accountable in front of other people. Hopefully these coaches will hold their own athletes accountable, too.”
Now here’s the thing that puzzles me about Papp’s involvement in the Landis case: From what I see of his suspension (he got the full two-year suspension that a first time user would get), and the reality of his situation (his career as a pro cyclist was finished, so whether he got a two-year ban or a lifetime ban wouldn’t much matter), what did he really get out of testifying for the prosecution? I can see what USADA got: Someone willing to chronicle his own experience with drugs as a way of suggesting how Floyd Landis might have done it. But Papp had no direct knowledge relating to Landis, all he could talk about were his own experiences.
And while Papp was on the stand, he admitted to drug trafficking when he told of bringing back drugs for some teammates (for which none had prescriptions) at the end of a trip he took to South America. So, under oath, he admitted to a felony without any guarantee of immunity from prosecution. Sure, USADA didn’t hit him up for any additional penalties, but then again, he was pretty well finished as a pro cyclist at that point, anyway.
And, we now find out, by appearing as a witness in the case, Papp lost an opportunity for a job. One that could have paid him a nice living.
So here’s the question that comes to mind in light of all this: What kind of lawyer would advise his client to testify at a hearing, admit to felonies under oath, lose a good job opportunity, all with no guarantee of anything substantial in return?
Not a good one, in my estimation. If he was going to turn state’s evidence and risk his future, shouldn’t Papp have gotten something in return? Like a reduced penalty on his doping violation? And a guarantee of immunity from prosecution for anything he might say?
I don’t have the link to it right now, but the description of Team Landis’ cross examination of Papp at the arbitration panel hearing in May was telling. Maurice Suh, I believe, asked Papp if he understood that he’d opened himself up to drug trafficking charges. Papp, as the account I recall tells it, was stunned. He had no clue that he could become the target of a criminal case due to his testimony as a witness for USADA.
Maybe Joe Papp thought by helping USADA he was doing the right thing. Or maybe he was seeking his fifteen minutes of fame. Or maybe a bit of both. But one thing seems clearer as more comes out about his experiences, and his case, and what’s happened since. Joe Papp had one very poor excuse for an attorney.
No attorney that I’ve ever known would advise his client to help out on a case that he had no direct knowledge of without at least cutting a deal. If the only deal he could cut amounted to the same penalty Papp would have gotten for just copping to the charge in the first place, it wasn’t much of a deal. (Any additional penalties are inconsequential, unless he hoped to return to amateur racing or he hoped to get a job on an American pro cycling team.)
Joe Papp may want to help the fight against doping by telling his story, and if that’s the case, good for him. Someone with personal experience telling it like it is might even dissuade a few impressionable athletes from following in his path.
But the next time he needs legal assistance, he should find someone better than his last attorney. For all the help that guy was, Papp should have saved the money and represented himself. He would have gotten the same result, and he’d have saved himself a whole lot of money.
I don’t know Mr Papp — but without impugning his intelligence — I think the guy was “major used”.
–
First as a meal ticket, rather then a respected client, by his lawyer”¦or to be fair, maybe Mr Papp did not listen to his lawyer?
–
I don’t know if there was any “preparation” of his testimony with the lawyers from the prosecution — if not, Mr Papp, to put it mildly, only exposes his lack of thinking, his own ability to see himself in relation to situations”¦not an uncommon problem with “addictive” type personalities.
–
If there was preparation — then the prosecuting attorneys really were willing to “hang out to dry” — the witness — they took advantage of his ignorance”¦
–
There is another point here — Papp is now as involved in “reforming” himself — he seems to believe that means “telling his story” as often as he can — the venue doesn’t matter — it is only important that he “tells it””¦this is serving only Mr Papp, but one must understand that it is important to him. I can respect that, and it would only be fair to do so.
–
As to “how” Mr Papp was used as a witness in the Landis case — now this is really important. He was used to “imply and insinuate” that Mr Landis was
“a doper” — like Mr Papp — which fits in with the prosecutions attempts to paint Mr Landis in a guilty light even before he is proven guilty or not”¦it is nothing more then “character assassination” — pure and simple. Is it unfair? Is it legal? Is it right?
–
YES it is very unfair. It is legal? I don’t believe so — but then we must remember that the “arbitration hearing” is legal only in the sense that the outcome will be “enforced legally” – proven innocent, Mr Landis gets his rightful title, the Tour has to pay him his wages, which he has earned, can go back and “make a living” earning his income to live on — If Mr Landis losses then he loses everything mentioned before.
–
Is it right? NO. But this is the crux of everyone’s dismay. The whole set up of how athletes are dealt with in such situations by the present rules and regulations and enforcements completely ignores the athletes’ rights as a human being! — At least as far as what I understand rights to be under our constitution in our society in America. It is wrong and unjust. EVEN BEFORE THE MATTER OF WHAT MR LANDIS IS BEING ACCUSED OF may even be addressed!
–
Which brings up a good point — laws are supposed to protect the weak from the strong, the individual from the group — many times, this is not so, even in such a democracy as ours — what is so is that in a democracy as ours — we have the means to correct this unbalance, this unfairness, this misuse of the heart of the law”¦and yes, we may even have to go through much trauma to get it done”¦
–
Mr Papp, either get a good lawyer (that is if you have the money to do so) or listen to your lawyer, or get on with your life and try to correct whatever screw ups you had done before and not do it again”¦it’s a day to day effort, some days you will succeed — others you won’t — but don’t give up — Mr Papp, you are doing the right thing.
–
You are a very clever man Rant – you are nothing if not subtle. Thanks for the new topic. Can’t wait to hear what your readers responses are going to be! (°L°)
The Palm Beach article got him a job offer so it’s all good. Kudos to Joe for being unafraid to tell his story. We need more cyclists like that.
Morgan,
Good points.
Devon,
That’s an interesting development. Good for him. Do you have any more info about the job offer? If there’s more you can tell, please do. That would be a very interesting follow-up to the story.
– Rant
According to the Cycling News report of the Landis arbitration from May 19, Papp signed a document the day before his testimony, resolving his USADA case. Also according to the same report, USADA informed Papp of an ongoing investigation by the U.S. Attorney in San Diego, and that Papp contacted the U.S. Attorney in an effort to cooperate.
…
According to Judge Hue’s observations reported on TBV on May 18, Papp is cooperating with the US Attorney in San Diego, but did not know whether he was a target of the US Attorney’s investigation.
…
Another blog report of Papp’s testimony (some guy named “Doucheblog Cycling”) says that Papp also had a deal with USADA to the effect that in exchange for his testimony, he would not be sanctioned beyond the 2-year suspension. Again, per Rant, hard to know why Papp would think he has any ability to race post-suspension.
…
You can find the name of Papp’s lawyer if you look at the reports of Papp’s testimony in velonews and cycling news. If you’re up for some wild speculation, google the guy’s name and check out the first site that comes up … and the fourth link in the window on the upper left side of the site …
…
More later if I can find time!
http://www.gitaneusa.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=309
Larry,
Thanks for that interesting tip. For those who don’t want to go searching, Papp’s attorney during the hearings was Stephan Andranian. Interesting connection, or at least vague connection.
– Rant
Rant –
…
LOL! Yes, the connection IS vague. My guess is that Papp somehow found his attorney through Gitane and/or LeMond. No way to know. Andranian reported on the Gitane blog that he met LeMond (I guess for the first time) at the hearing, but that’s the kind of meeting that could have been arranged in the process of connecting Papp to Andranian. Impossible to know for certain.
…
You’ve questioned the legal advice that Joe Papp was given by his attorney. As per usual, you’ve written a terrific piece. But we don’t have all the facts. We don’t know what Papp was facing in terms of possible liability. We also don’t know what Papp’s lawyer actually advised Papp to do. It’s possible that Papp’s lawyer is a very talented guy who gave Papp terrific advice.
…
I’m a lawyer, and I would not always want the quality of my legal work to be judged based on the actions of my clients, especially as reported in the press and on the internet.
…
All this being said, I feel badly for Papp, for all the reasons you said.
Larry,
You make a good point. We don’t know what advice Andranian gave to Papp, or whether Papp took his advice or not. If he did give Papp good advice and Papp went off and didn’t follow it, then more fool he. The guy was set up and used by USADA, at least from the way the story played out publicly. And from all we can see, it doesn’t look like he got much for helping them out. At least, not much that really amounted to anything.
– Rant
From what I understand of the event – Papp’s testimony , was to present the case that Testosterone is frequently used by cyclist as a doping agent and that it supposedly is an aide in recovery – since part of the Landis contention was that T has no burst effect, such that Landis’ performance was explained by the use of it…Papp was presented as prosecuterial witness to say that since he used it – this counters this stance on the Landis defense…
–
But isn’t this just the same as using “personal experience” as testimony? ie: “Hi, my name is Joe and I’ve been using T for the last six years and my sex life has never been better – my hair line is receding a bit but using T – has really improved my horizontal bop – I’m scheduled for hair plugs anyway – try it, you’ll like it!” – There is no scientific validity for this stance, being that it is merely what the user “believes”…
The prosecutor then come back and claim that it is exactly what Landis had done, why he took the T – but Defense could then very well question how the Prosecutor could know what was in the mind of the Defendant, No?
–
Pretty much the same with LeMond – in the end – unless the conversation was being recorded, legally, whatever LeMond “claims” Floyd told him in that conversation they had – it is LeMond’s word against Landis’ – other then the “Name recognition” LeMond is useless in a legal court – but then the arbitration court isn’t a legal court of law…since the defense could not even cross-examine the witness…
Well, since there was reference to Papp’s cooperation with the US Attorney in San Diego, it very well may be that he has some deal with them, especially since there has been, as far as we know, no legal action re his admission to drug smuggling.
Re any possible deal with USADA, I wonder if there is any possibility of a deal, whether or Papp, or the thing that Landis dropped that he was offered a deal if he’s drop a dime on Armstrong. One of the features of strict liability, as I understand it, is that the penalties are both fixed and severe; no room for the panel to lessen a penalty. There have been a case or two whether the panel mentions that, while they believe the violation in question to be minor and perhaps inadvertent, they have no choice but to deal out the same penalty as they would to a hard core doper. So there may have not been much room to deal here. But then maybe his participation could have been part of the deal with the US Attorney, or maybe just a PR move to show he’s reforming and trying to be a good citizen.
s
If this had been a criminal proceeding in the US, I doubt that Papp’s testamony would have been allowed. He had no knowledge material to Landis’ guilt or innocence. Basically, all he said was he thought that taking testosterone helped recovery and he thought it was easy to avoid getting caught. This was to counter that part of the Landis opening statement where is was stated that Landis would have no reason to use T as it would not be of help to a cyclist in his situation. But I don’t recall that that particular issue was used during the formal defense case itself.
As far as Papp losing the one job because of his testimony, I’d bet that at sometime in the process, he would have been asked about his drug history.. Assuming he had kept his past hidden, he would then have the choice of lying about it or fessing up anyway, with the same result.
So, in short, Papp got the same minimum suspension he could have gotten under any circumstance, possibly avoided a 4 year or life time ban (all of which is probably moot, as I doubt he had any career future anyway), doesn’t seem to have suffered any legal consequences, and to some people at least, comes off as a “good citizen” who has reformed from his nefarious past and now is doing his part to clean things up. The only cost is perhaps some personal embarrassment from the public knowledge of his past, and perhaps some limits to future career paths (which may have ultimately been closed anyway).
Morgan –
…
One claim made by the Landis defense is that Landis would not have used testosterone during the 2006 Tour, since it would not have provided any short-term benefit. The Papp testimony is potentially (if marginally) relevant to show that cyclists (or some cyclists, or a handful of cyclists) have taken testosterone during the course of a tour in the belief that the drug can aid in short-term recovery.
…
From this perspective, it doesn’t matter whether testosterone provides a verifyable benefit. The only thing that matters here is whether Landis might have THOUGHT that taking testosterone would be helpful. It doesn’t matter what effect the drug actually has, only that a rider who was willing to cheat might have taken the drug.
…
Given the relevations from the 2007 Tour, it now appears that at least some cyclists DO regard testosterone use during a tour to be potentially helpful. I think that’s all that USADA was trying to prove.
…
This is NOT to say that Landis cheated … or that what Papp thinks about testosterone is what Landis thought about testosterone during the 2006 Tour. It just takes away Landis’ ability to say that a cyclist (even one willing to cheat) would have to be crazy to take a drug like testosterone during the course of a tour.
Thanks Larry for the clarification. I am not a lawyer but it would seem to me that tis argument is weak – unless the prosecutor is aiming to create “reasonable doubt” in the minds of the arbiters – who one can only hope – would see through this presentation as weak – because it is still a question of one person, or group assuming to know what is in the mind of another, no?
Morgan –
…
When the news about Landis’ drug test first hit, a lot of us thought, this can’t be right, why would Landis take testosterone in the middle of a race? At that time, I’d thought about testosterone as a relatively long-term strategy someone would use to build muscle. Even if a cyclist wanted to build muscle, taking testosterone during the middle of a race would not do it. So on that basis alone, some of us questioned the LNDD test results.
…
But I guess some cyclists believe that there are short-term benefits to using testosterone during the middle of a tour. It’s not impossible to believe that a cyclist might do this.
…
For me, the relevancy of the Papp testimony is not so much about whether one person can know what’s in the mind of another. Many, many kinds of legal cases turn depend on a determination of the “intent” of the accused. So I think it is relevant for USADA to argue that Landis took testosterone in the belief that it would help his performance after a bad day on the road. (It doesn’t prove he did it, but it’s relevant.) Possibly a more pointed criticism of USADA is to ask whether the mind-set of a third-tier cyclist like Papp has anything to say about the thinking of an elite racer like Landis.
You are quiet right of course Larry – my feelings on the matter, may be true, but they are merely, my feelings and thoughts – Your legal explanation of the use of the terms of “belief” and “intent” and “relevance” are succinct and clear – you have explained it directlyand very clearly and I thank you – I guess you are as anxious for this damned hearing to come to some finale as the rest of us are. Your final statement would make a very interesting study in law, as well as in philosophy.
–
Thank you for having patience and investing your time.
I still say having LeMond and Papp testify should not have been allowed. WADA’s case should only have been: Positive ‘b’ sample confirms positive ‘a’ sample. They don’t have to prove that the test is scientifically valid, nor that the compound that was identified provides any performance enhancement, nor that the amount found was a sufficient amount to do any good. Their case was: This is not allowed, we found this, we confirmed it. The only defense the Landis team should have had to prepare is to prove bad enough lab procedure or practice or chain of custody to invalidate the results. In an openly held hearing we learned enough about this to see that even if he doped (which I don’t believe he did) the lab screwed up enough so that we will never know and FL should be found not guilty. Yes, it is unfulfilling (he gets off “on a technicality”), but it’s the only defense allowed to him under WADA rules.
What Landis thought about testosterone in 2006 is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he did dope. This was why this idea was mentioned in the opening statements, but not in the actual defense. Plenty of people think that taking EPO will help your performance, including Mssrs. Pound, McQuaid, Prudhomme, etc. Doesn’t mean they all take it.
IllinoisFrank:
One of the problems for Landis or indeed any athlete accused of doping is that there really isn’t any way to prove they are innocent, regardless of what rules WADA uses. The nature of the offense makes that so: can you prove you didn’t take a PES yesterday or several days ago or last year? This is why accusations like those against Armstrong have continuing traction. Accuse someone of having committed the most recent bank robbery in you town, and they could, if innocent, prove they were elsewhere, or prove who the real culprit was. But Landis or Armstrong cannot prove that they didn’t take something. LA can show he passed all tests, but there are those who suggest it was just he was a step ahead of the testers. Landis can show the lab screwed up, and perhaps get off on a “technicality” but how can he show he is really innocent?
A most excellent presentation of the case Mr Schart – Depicting the moral dlma of “real innocents” as to winning by proving Technical ineptitude.
–
As you so eloquently point out – these are two different issues. Something, we the fans seem to mix together into one – confusing ourselves in the process.
–
So our choices are: correct the present system or live with it. If Floyd is “cleared” under the Technicality – then understand it for what it is and live with it. This situation did not “just happen” – it was created…Thank you for your precise and insightful thinking.
–
Hoping you will be involved when the rules are rewritten to be more fair.
Interesting discussion (speculation) regarding motives, advice, terms, etc.
As you know, I cannot and will not discuss my client’s case: The only thing that I wanted to address was the speculation regarding any ties with LeMond, which, there were none.
I have only met Greg LeMond on one occassion and it was not arranged. The webpage dedicated him on my “Gitane” site was put there because I thought that US fans would be interested in it (quite frankly, I was a Fignon fan). My impression after our short meeting (during which we only talked about vintage bicycles and racing, by the way – like Gitane, and his favorite, a Cinelli) was an extremely nice and genuine guy.
Anyhow, thanks for the notes. I am sure that there will be more to follow this one.
Stephan Andranian
Stephan,
You never know who’s going to stop by and visit. I’m sure we all understand that you can’t break attorney-client priviledge. Nor would we want you to.
The Gitane website is interesting. Way back when I first got interested in bike racing (the late 60s), lots of the local racers had Gitanes and I thought they were the coolest thing. Too bad they’re so hard to find over here these days. It looks like the quality has improved a great deal since the 60s and early 70s.
– Rant
I’m actually quite pleased w/ Stephan’s representation, and bemused that Rant would dedicate an entire post to dissecting my counsel’s work. While I appreciate the interest, you erroneously state:
“…it wasn’t being busted for testosterone use that brought about an end to Papp’s cycling career…”
It was EXACTLY this violation (positive for metabolites of testosterone or its precursors (6α-OH-androstenedione 6β-OH-androsterone)) for which I was sanctioned, and why my career ended.
That said, when should we expect a decision in the Landis affair? I thought that it would have been rendered this month at the latest, but the hearing is not yet even closed?
Best,
Joe
Joe,
It was a slow news day, what can I say? 😉 Glad I could bemuse you. I’ve corrected that part of the post — at least I hope the correction is accurate.
The wait for the Landis decision is frustratingly slow, isn’t it? At this point, I’m beginning to wonder if we won’t see a decision until September. Strange that the hearing (as far as anyone knows) isn’t closed. But that allows the arbitrators to take their time considering the evidence and writing their opinions. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least to see them close the hearing and announce a decision on the same day.
By the way, Devon mentioned above that you’ve found a job. Is that correct? If so, what kind of job is it? Who will you be working for?
Good luck.
– Rant