It’s been several months now since the USADA vs. Floyd Landis arbitration hearings wrapped up at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California. Over the nine days that the hearings ran, an assortment of witnesses testified on behalf of USADA and on behalf of the Landis defense. Most of those witnesses testified about the lab work, how it was conducted, or what the data meant. Each side called its own experts, USADA using a number of people connected with WADA-affiliated labs, or scientists whose labs have been funded by one or more of the anti-doping agencies.
Among those who testified on behalf of USADA were two curious characters: Greg LeMond and Joe Papp. LeMond’s presence can be attributed to a conversation between Floyd Landis and and LeMond last September. LeMond claims that during the conversation, Landis admitted to doping. Landis, who has steadfastly maintained his innocence ever since the story broke in July 2006, denies that he ever admitted any such thing to Greg LeMond.
Joe Papp’s presence at the hearings, however, was less directly connected to the case. Papp was not racing in events Landis had been competing in, and the two barely know each other, if they know each other at all. Without direct knowledge of anything that Floyd Landis had done, what purpose did his testimony serve, and what did Papp get in return for his testimony? I speculated about that in a previous article. The article drew responses from Joe Papp and his attorney, Stephan Andranian, among others.
Given the opportunity, I decided to put a few questions to Joe Papp and let him tell us, in his own words, how he became involved in the Landis case, and what (if anything) he got in return.
In the following interview, conducted via several emails, Joe Papp answers my questions. Some of what he has to say may surprise you. As you’ll see, his testimony was intended to refute claims by Landis supporters and the Landis defense that testosterone wouldn’t be of any benefit to professional cyclists, by showing that there is a perception that low doses of testosterone could help speed recovery.
You’ll also see what Papp thinks of how his own case was handled, and how various players within the anti-doping world handled the Landis case. One last note before the interview begins: Papp’s answers are reproduced here verbatim, with only minor edits for style, or the replacement of abbreviations with fully spelled-out terminology.
Rant: Were you still competing after you tested positive at the Tour of Turkey? The article I quoted (in this post) makes it sound like you had the hemorrhage while racing. If so, what race was it?
Joe Papp: Hi Rant. Thanks for having me in your house.
I appreciate your taking the time to respond to me and ask for clarification about events of 2006. After I received notice that my A sample was non negative (in June I got that notice from a May race). I asked for the B sample to be tested, and because USADA followed the confidentiality guidelines indicated in the WADA code, as did the Turkish lab and the UCI, neither the A nor B results were leaked. I want you to know, and I hope you will publish this…I think that irrespective of guilt or innocence, Floyd’s rights were violated by the precipitous release of his first test result. Even though he is a more talented rider than me, we both held identical 2006 UCI licenses issued by USA Cycling. So why should I actually be treated better than he was with regards respecting our privacy? I’m sure Floyd hates me, but I do recognize that aspect of his getting screwed. Note that I don’t believe USADA screwed him and I believe they were also fair with me, but the French gave him a raw deal. Please send him my respectful regards.
Anyway, back to my case… While waiting for the B sample, I had been in contact with Howard Jacobs initially (hence why he couldn’t even say “Hi” to me in Malibu), and he suggested I take a provisional suspension even as we planned to go to arbitration. One never knows how the process will play out, though USADA has a pretty strong record (cough) and it seemed silly to continue racing while fighting the charges, even though that is an athlete’s right also.
So, I retained Stephan as counsel and we advised my team of the result. When the B sample came back positive after a lengthy delay, I accepted the provisional suspension (effective 31 July, I believe) and the last race I rode would have been the GF Michele Bartoli in July in Tuscany, where I had the bad fall.
In my case, the anti-doping adjudication process worked as designed. My privacy rights were respected and I had the opportunity to fight the charges. The reality, however, is that the athlete faces a terrible financial burden to defend himself, whether innocent or guilty. I intended to take my case to arbitration because there were enough vulnerabilities to at least entertain a victory for me. But it was the financial burden that I couldn’t bear. There was no way for me to afford to defend myself. That’s immaterial, I guess, since I actually had been caught cheating. It’s just an observation, though, that the athlete must match the financial resources of an organization. Floyd has done that effectively, as have other better-paid athletes. I couldn’t.
Rant: How, exactly, did you get involved in the Landis case? Did USADA come to you and ask for your help?
Joe Papp: USADA didn’t ask for my “help,” per se. That is an important thing to note, because it is crucial to understanding why I testified. There was no offer of a reduced sentence, or conspiracy to stack me up against Floyd, or anything. Rather, in deciding not to pursue my own case through arbitration because of lack of funds (and an ethical awakening), I was looking for a way to take all of the negative experiences I had (and which I caused others) through doping and use them as a cautionary tale for other athletes. That couldn’t be done if I hid or was reacting to the announcement of a sanction, rather than being proactive and finally owning up in public to what I’d done, and been caught doing. USADA had their own strategy for their presentation of the Landis case, and let me take pains to say that I have no positive or negative analysis or feelings on that. I can say that USADA treated me fairly and respectfully and through mutual discussions the idea was generated that in telling my story by testifying at the Landis hearings, it would come out in a public forum and I would be the one to first speak publicly about how I’d cheated, and USADA would have at least one UCI elite cyclist on record saying that *at least within the peloton* testosterone in low doses is perceived as improving recovery in multi-day stage races.
Rant: Do you recall who broached the idea of you testifying at the Landis hearings? I’d assume it was USADA. Is that correct?
Joe Papp: My attorney brought the idea to me.
Rant: When you first started doping, did you have any idea of just how dangerous it could be? What you said in the VeloNews interview was, to be honest, quite scary in terms of what someone might be willing to do to themselves in order to be faster than the next guy, and what someone would do to escape getting caught doping. When you first started, would you ever have imagined it ending the way it did (meaning the hemorrhage and all that came with it)?
Joe Papp: Yes and no. It is most dangerous when done without the guidance of a physician, though still dangerous even then.
As for how it ended, when I started I wouldn’t have imagined that conclusion. However, the deeper into the system I fell, I came to see as a possible conclusion the ending I experienced.
Rant: With the benefit of hindsight, do you think you would make the same choices, if you knew then what you’ve experienced in the last year?
Joe Papp: With benefit of hindsight I would have not gone to Italy in 2006 and instead would have retired after the Vuelta a Cuba.
Rant: Was there ever a point where you realized you were in deep, but felt you couldn’t get out (sort of like the alcoholic or drug addict who realizes he has a problem, but doesn’t feel like he has the strength to take the steps he needs to save himself)?
Joe Papp: Sure. After a couple of months in Italy, after I’d seen and experienced more doping, and more sophisticated means of masking it, than I ever thought possible.
Rant: You could easily have not been involved in the Landis case, and I suspect it wouldn’t have changed the outcome of your own case terribly much. Is that a fair assessment? Why did you agree to be a part of the Landis case (especially because you didn’t know Floyd Landis or whether or not he actually did dope)?
Joe Papp: See #1. There are two ways an athlete who is caught cheating and is no longer in denial can respond to his sanction – pro-actively or re-actively. I was reacting for months, but by testifying at the Landis hearings I had the very rare opportunity to tell the world about the mistakes I made and to state under oath that there is massive doping going on in elite international cycling. For years we’ve heard officials, administrators, team directors, race organizers et al say that doping is isolated, that it’s one of two bad apples, etc. This was the chance to say that, while that could be true in some venues, wide-spread systematic doping still takes place, the problem hasn’t been solved, it needs a more focused effort and – kids – doping really will mess up your life, even if you’re not riding the Tour.
It bears repeating – as I stated in the hearing – I don’t know Floyd (though we crossed paths many, many years ago when he was still mountain biking and I raced with a crowd based in Morgantown, WV), bear him no ill will, understand exactly how he is suffering as a result of not being able to practice his profession and I wish him and his family the best. I do, however, know that I did something – which many others were doing (use synthetic testosterone for recovery) – that Floyd’s legal defense team PUBLICLY claimed to be of no use to a cyclist and therefore not possible or likely for Floyd to have done, from a purely practical point of view. That’s the value USADA’s case received from my presence – someone contradicting/refuting under oath that what Floyd’s public defenders claimed about the lack of perceived benefits of testosterone.
[Note: As one of those public defenders of Floyd, the point I’ve made about low dose testosterone was that there are no scientific studies that prove such use aids or speeds recovery. Perception of what such treatments can do, however, is a different matter. As with many “treatments,” supplements and so forth, the placebo effect can occur. Meaning: If you perceive that something is a benefit, you may benefit from its use.
USADA’s point in having Joe Papp testify wasn’t to refute any of the scientific arguments — they left that to others — but to show that there is a perception among riders in the peloton that low dose testosterone can speed recovery.]
Rant: Did USADA actually show you some consideration for your cooperation with a reduced penalty or some other consideration? If so, are you allowed to talk about what USADA gave in return for your cooperation? And if you are, what was it?
Joe Papp: My legal defense team advised USADA from the moment we waived my arbitration rights that we would not accept a reduction in my sanction in exchange for my testimony. This was to prevent the appearance of me testifying in exchange for a lighter sentence. In fact, I actually got a worse punishment than if I’d “kept my mouth shut.” My entire results history going back to 2001 is technically invalidated because I admitted – though not in specific instances – to doping as far back as that year, when I returned to international competition after grad school. The one thing I’m very glad to have done, which was advised to me first by Howard Jacobs when it looked like he would represent me, was to accept a provisional suspension as soon as it was practical to do so. That means that my two-year ban effectively began in late-July 2006, giving me credit served for the time I voluntarily removed myself from competition while contesting the initial findings.
I did not technically retire from elite cycling and am a member of the USADA Out of Competition Testing Pool (OOC) for cycling, meaning that I have to file quarterly athlete locator forms and update USADA on my whereabouts on a daily basis if necessary, should they wish to control me out of competition. Why am I doing this even though I’m not competing? Because I see the value in supporting the aspects of the anti-doping system that are both effective and necessary. While it is distasteful to some (read Vinkourov’s comments about this being a human rights violation, my response to which was posted on my Wikipedia entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_M._Papp]) to have to provide this information, it also is a valuable tactic in the fight against doping. Just look to Vino’s teammate who was declared non-negative for blood doping (in Turkey of all places, where I was popped) in an OOC control. While that test might not have resulted from the info provided on a USADA OOC A.L. form, the principle is the same. And in exchange for giving up a bit of his privacy, a very public figure like a world class cyclist can support the goal of clean sport by making himself available for unscheduled, random drug controls.
Of course, Rant, these controls and the entire anti-doping regime ONLY WORK WHEN THE PROPER PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES ARE FOLLOWED! I make NO COMMENT on the science of Landis’s case. I am not an expert, don’t purport to be one, don’t even make a layman’s guess on whether or not the metabolites in his urine indicate doping with synthetic testosterone. However, I do know that according to the WADA code, there is a privacy guarantee that should apply to the athlete that was upheld in my case (see how I basically controlled the public dissemination of my positive result, save for my pre-hearing appearance on the USADA witness list), whereas Floyd and several other cyclists have had their positive findings announced in the media after lab leaks.
THAT is reprehensible and INEXCUSABLE and a gross violation of athletes’ rights. Don’t take my comments out of context, because I believe that in the fight against doping, we must act severely. But when that severity is manifest in violations of the WADA code by those charged with enforcing it, there is a credibility problem that serves no one. I hope Floyd reads this, because I know exactly how it felt for him to have the savoring of his Tour victory completely halted by the non-negative test result leak. It also eliminated his ability to make money from post-Tour criteriums, increase the value of his image; use his winning race result to better the life of his family, etc (even if it only would have been for a matter of weeks or month, before the positive B sample would have been announced).
Now maybe Phonak and Floyd would have announced this preemptively, but maybe not. The point is that they lost that option when the leaks started happening. And that is simply wrong and a major, major, major flaw in the system. I don’t associate that flaw with USADA, however, and I believe that USADA plays fair, despite the disequilibrium in the system which makes it difficult for an athlete to fight USADA on a resource-basis. Notice how USADA in general and Travis Tygart in particular didn’t comment on the specifics of Floyd’s case, even when Dr. Baker was presenting a very public attack on the world anti-doping regime, and even when it was suggested that a deal was offered to Floyd if he would testify against Lance. That information didn’t come from USADA, but from Landis’s camp. I’m sure that the fact that we live in the USA, a litigious society if there ever was one, keeps the ADA in check here…because they would not want to face a suit from someone like Floyd charging they acted egregiously and deprived him of his right to earn a living – that would cost them millions. Right now Floyd is not making money because there was a leak on the French side that was the catalyst for the precipitous release of the results from his A-sample. That’s too bad, and each time that happens to an athlete, the anti-doping regime suffers a serious hit to its credibility. I’m surprised that there is not a better-organized publicly-orchestrated campaign against that violation of athlete’s rights. I would think Floyd could have been the perfect spokesman, and recast himself as a truly ennobled individual – accepting the fact that his case must go through a defined legal process for it to be resolved, but fighting tooth and nail to expose the INDIVIDUALS who deprive him and many other athletes of their rights by leaking confidential information.
I sometimes thought that if USADA or WADA did the same to me, I would contact Floyd through Howard and join with him to fight the ADA’s, but my experience with USADA has been so positive, especially since I am an admitted sports cheat, that I have nothing personally to complain about. They treated me fairly, never threw me under any bus, and most recently helped arrange for me to speak at a coaches’ conference in Florida, where I could again present the message that doping is a real phenomena that has real, tragic results, and that it behooves coaches who see doping, or suspect it, to intervene as soon as possible (via whatever method that is most appropriate) to help athletes not fall to the dark side. I wish I had never done what I did so that I wouldn’t be having this discussion with you, but it is what happened, and I will make the best of it.
Rant: One last question: If you thought someone you knew and respected was doping, how would you approach the situation? What would you tell that person?
Joe Papp: How would I approach the situation? The only thing I can do is offer my sympathy and understanding, and support based on experience and my own personal struggle. I wouldn’t attempt to preach, especially to someone who. I simply suspected of doping, but I would offer myself as a resource and a pillar of support for someone wanting to get out of the doping system.
[Edit: I asked Joe Papp the following follow-up question shortly after the interview was originally published.]
Rant: When you decided to be proactive and speak out about doping in cycling, why didn’t you do something like write a book detailing everything you saw while riding as a professional, rather than testifying in the Landis case? As you’ve said, you feel bad for how Landis was treated. So why participate in that, directly or indirectly?
Joe Papp: While I empathize with Floyd, my testifying wasn’t about him. It was about what I did, and I don’t think that my suppressing the truth just so that USADA would be denied me as a witness, to Floyd’s benefit, is a logical strategy in my participating in the fight for clean sport. I don’t know what else to say, and I’m less inclined to be sympathetic to Floyd now that I learned Arnie Baker published my email(s) after he guaranteed me confidentiality for all correspondence and communication between us.
[End edit]
I think USADA attorney Matt Barnett asked Joe about his “drug trafficking” activities (supplying others with controlled substances and/or bringing controlled substances into the US from other countries without a doctor’s prescription) under oath. Such “trafficking” activity is a Federal crime. While the “crime” may or may not have been pursued by the US Attorney, why would USADA expose someone helping them to ANY criminal risk when that risk could have easily been avoided? Also, Papp has been subject to public scorn for his testimony…… another cost USADA extracted. Why then, does Papp feel USADA didn’t throw him under the bus? USADA got what is wanted/needed and Papp was vilified and exposed to Federal criminal charges. That sounds pretty one sided to me.
Bill Hue
Reading the transcript – I felt at times I was reading “inserted” statements – Look – Mr Papp has built for himself what ever means he is able to handle – in dealing with his own situation.
–
Trying to get a “logical” answer to why he testified for the prosecution is pushing it a bit, I think. Papp presents his relationship with the USADA as if they were to Papp – maternal and nurturing and fair…one has to ask the simple question before coming to each mention of WADA and USADA – what is the question this answer or statement answering?
–
I’ve seen better propaganda scratching in the Stars and Stripes!
–
I will give Mr Papp the right to go his own way – the man has to do what he has to do. But the more I hear this man expound his life insight – the less I want to hear it.
–
Bill Hue points out directly the point – Papp would have us believe that he is not reping for USADA – States publicly how warm and fuzzy he feels they handled him, how “fair” etc…
–
As I see it – Papp came on to present the “simentic defense” – lets throw in a lot of oft repeated words and phrases that are filling the net – and sell them our version of it…one question – anybody think that Papp may actually know what he admitted to on the witness stand?
Morgan writes,
“…I will give Mr Papp the right to go his own way – the man has to do what he has to do. But the more I hear this man expound his life insight – the less I want to hear it…”
Ha! Blame rant for this! He asked the questions and suggested the interview…
Joe,
.
Thank you for taking the time to participate in Rant’s interview. I found your answers interesting to read. While I can appreciate your feeling that USADA treated you fairly from the standpoint of confidentiality, I do agree with Judge Hue that it seems that in regards to Landis’ hearings, USADA really did throw you under the bus.
.
Coming clean and taking responsibility for your actions is laudable, but I can’t help but feel that USADA took advantage of you by opening you up to the potential for criminal prosecution.
.
What I really appreciated from your comments was your comparing and contrasting how procedural and privacy issues were handled with your case vs. Floyd’s case. Something is very wrong with results getting leaked to the press against existing rules. Every athlete deserves to be treated fairly and those involved with testing have an obligation to abide by the rules and not leak results. I really hope a real effort is made to find and expose those responsible for all of the leaks we keep seeing.
.
@Rant:
.
Rant, your task is now to get interviews with other key players in the Landis hearings as you seem to be the best “beat reporter” we have covering this issue.
Very nicely done, Rant: thanks Joe for visiting these pages.
*
I too think, Joe, you have tire tracks up and down your back, but if you feel good about what you have done, then good for you. Nice to see someone reach outside of his own narrow interests every now and again.
You said something I found very interesting:
*
“”I hope Floyd reads this, because I know exactly how it felt for him to have the savoring of his Tour victory completely halted by the non-negative test result leak. It also eliminated his ability to make money from post-Tour criteriums, increase the value of his image; use his winning race result to better the life of his family, etc (even if it only would have been for a matter of weeks or month, before the positive B sample would have been announced).””
*
Money does make the world go round, doesn’t it?
Thanks Joe. Some minor points in your answers.
*
The leaks: “we” don’t know who make it. I stated and explained in another precedent comments that it’s very probable that they are from UCI because UCI has cleared in the past, especially under Verbruggen, many cases!
*
With or without the leaks Floyd could not participate to criterium since his positive test! So he lost money just if he is innocent!
Hey Joe – I am not blaming anyone – My comment was just that – a comment. I was feeling “crabby” – it is the prerogative of old people – I came on line at 2:30 in the morning, my time and I was at work…
–
I don’t want you to think that I don’t appreciate you “speaking” to us through your interview – I do and am glad you did it. Thank you.
–
What I am grumpy about is the “situation” – that exists in cycling. Not you or Rant. I will stay grumpy and sometimes mean – until it gets looked into and changed!
–
As I said about you – you have your own needs and your own road to travel – it is not easy and I wish you all the best Joe. You got to do what you got to do. Thanks.
–
As you say Jean – Floyd lost money only if he is innocent…but money is not all we are talking about here. The money is not what Floyd is losing. It is that he has had a “hatchet” job done on him as an individual by people who seem to consistently abuse their power and act in completely self-serving manner.
–
It is not that I think there is no doping going on in the peleton – but to fight doping one cannot just throw out the rights of people merely to “get the doping bastards”. This “win” at all costs attitude is what gets me pissed.
–
Winning the Tour for a bike racer is the biggest thing you can do, at least in my thinking. Sad reality is – when you get to the top – the only place left is down. So when “Floyd” was turned into the “face” of doping – the “poster child” for this, that is unfair, ESPECIALLY since it was done before anything was looked at or proved.
–
In this case as JBSMP says – Money makes the world go round – in this case – if you got enough money – you have a half a chance to “fight” to keep your name clean. But most riders cannot. Take the situation out of context – who can fight an institution with very deep pockets and no fear of punishment for their actions? Gives new meaning to the concept of David and Goliath.
–
(°L°)
Hello everyone, thanks for the reasonably-positive comments :-).
Re. the leaks in the Floyd case in France/(or UCI) – of course I realize I don’t know who the leakers are, or to what organization they belong, but their actions were despicable.
Re. USADA, throwing me under the bus and criminal prosecution – I never would have agreed to testify under oath if there was the chance that in doing so I would face criminal prosecution. I don’t understand why it’s being perpetuated that I supposedly admitted to drug trafficking. In the transcript it should clearly indicate that I rejected Suh’s accusations of this.
Post-tour criteriums – I don’t know the exact A/B sample timeline, but per the rules, if Floyd’s A-result would have been kept confidential, he would have been able to keep racing until such time as he accepted a provisional suspension of was given a suspension by USADA because the information would not have been made public. Unless I’m mistaken…he could have been collecting appearance fees at least, and if he truly is innocent then he should have been able to exploit that earnings window.
Ok, gotta go to work. Have a good day everyone. The next interview I would like to see here is with Will G!
Joe, Floyd would have been suspended after the A test under the Pro Tour code of ethics and fired after the B sample came back positive. Both of those things happened. The leaks didn’t hurt his ability to earn a living.
As I see it, Mr. Papps’ actions are akin to returning stolen candy to the candy store by breaking in. In other words, the intent may be noble, but to do so at the expense of another human being – not so much. Mr. Papp’s testimony was, he says, not intended to harm Floyd Landis. Indeed, Mr. Papp even expresses sympathy toward Mr. Landis for the manner in which he has been treated. But by aiding and abetting those who are trying to hurt Mr. Landis, Mr. Papp is – inadvertently or otherwise – also harming him. I see nothing noble in that.
Thanks Joe, Nice hearing directly from you. I get the sense that the reason you testified was to come clean and to help others by maybe preventing them from doping if they were so inclined. This is laudable. However, don’t you think that if you would have done this on your own platform it would have had a more positive impact. To me, it appears that you have coat-tailed on a high publicity venue to get your message out but in so doing have muddled that message and directly implicated Floyd Landis in the use of drugs. I am still confused as to why you were there testifying.
Secondly, is it at all possible that the widespread doping that you say exists may be only a small minority of riders although the team or group you were associated with did dope. Kind of like the guy sitting in the pub drinking and concluding that everyone drinks. Or am i being naiive. If so, how about some details -how, what, where, when. Don’t need to know the who’s.
Finally, it is unfortunate that Arnie Baker broached a confidentially agreement with you but i don’t think you should allow it to interfere with your sympathy/empathy towards FL.
Rant, it would be great to see interviews with a lot of the othersnames that have been thrown around this forum – Lemond, Will G, Pound (that would be a big catch) etc.
Will Rant become cycling’s Barbara Walters or Oprah where the big names must make a stop to tell their side of the story? Rant if you do, please don’t do like Barbra and make them cry. 🙂
Ken, Joe and Luc,
If there are more interviews here at Rant (and given long enough, there might be), I will certainly try to get the best interview possible. I don’t think that means getting the interviewee to cry on cue, however, Ken. 😉
– Rant
Sorry Rant – you’ve crossed the line buddy! What do you mean by actually bringing “live” interviews to the Rant Line? – Haven’t you heard of precedent?
I knew it buddy – you can have a news man writing a blog but you can’t take the blood hound out of him – Really terrific and Kudos!
Now of course – you realize – you are setting an example – you know – everybody is going to have to get on board…unbelievable –
Now I’m having panic attacks due to “deadlines” – I don’t know man…
This may just be too much reality for me…(°L°)….
–
But seriously – well done.
Morgan,
Thanks. Sorry about your comment getting trapped in moderation.
– Rant
Rant and Joe Papp:
Thank-you for sharing the interview and providing insight about why Mr. Papp testified at the Landis arbitration. Certainly, some assumptions I had about Mr. Papp were way off base.
However, I agree with all the previous commenters. I believe Mr. Papp had the best intentions in mind for testifying about testosterone usage, but he clearly chose the wrong avenue to communicate his message. If he truly empathized with Landis and believes the overall system is treating Landis unfairly, by testifying for the prosecution, he became part of the system. Although all he wanted to do was tell his story, I did not receive the testimonial message he intended, the way I have with this interview.
Perhaps, if the proceedings had allowed, Mr. Papp could have added balance to his testimony at the arbitration by telling his story on behalf of the defense, how his experience with confidentiality was never breached.
Mr. Papp, best of luck in your efforts to improve the system.
Peter.
This will probably not sound very PC – But I think Mr Papp has “rationalized” his part in the Landis case.
–
There is nothing wrong with Mr Papp doing what he “believes” is his crusade to change the system and change his life – but let us not forget that he was also “busted”. I have no idea what the particulars of his case were – but I have heard that there may be some transportation and dealing involved too. Again – If I am wrong – Then let me apologize for my error – but if I am not – then I would like to point out – the Joe’s case and the Landis case are two different types of cases.
–
Mr Papp may or may not be singing for his redemption – but I am not certain that I believe all that he presents and what he seems unable to respond to.
–
Although I think it is “important and salient” that Rant got the interview – The more we can get at the source of the “stories” the better – at the same time – one must not always assume that the “whole truth” comes when someone answers a question.
–
I am all for civil dialogue – but let us not get lost in being too politically correct either – or we all sound just like the politicians that people have trouble taking seriously. I have no desire to make Mr Papp’s life hard – but at the same time – he is an adult who basically came to the Landis trial with only one purpose – THAT PURPOSE was directed by the prosecution. Let us not forget this.
–
The single purpose for his attendance was to “counter” any evidence that Testosterone works to help the athlete recuperate. Mr Papp believes it does and he says that Most” riders believe in this too…So – from Mr Papp we “learned” that he and “most riders “believe” that T aids in recovery – NOT THAT IT ACTUALLY DOES OR DOES NOT – simply that he and “most” riders according to Mr Papp – “believe” it does.
–
It was important for the prosecution to show that there was “belief” behind the call on Floyd’s part to take the T – that is all – they had to SELL us on the idea that Floyd was “so desperate” to win that he “took a chance” and boosted. So we are still not talking about proving anything – just that if Floyd was in such a state – and he “believed” the magical curative powers of T – he took a chance….(°L°)….
–
I can live with the tactic – it works sometimes and other times it backfires. Innuendo is a powerful weapon – THERE DOESN’T HAVE TO BE ONE GRAIN OF TRUTH in it – just bring it up as a “possibility” – that is all the prosecution wanted – and they got their canary to sing for them – Mr Papp. – Why? How? does it matter? Will it change any of the results – no. (°L°)…
Rant,
I certainly don’t take Mr. Papp’s answers to your questions at face value. Here’s a guy who initially tried to recruit Floyd’s lawyer and doctor to help with his own case. And, when he didn’t get the kind of help he was looking for, went on to testify against Floyd. Mr. Papp’s explanation regarding his motives for appearing at the hearing are sure suspect to me.
John,
In terms of the chronology, it sounds to me like Papp contacted Howard Jacobs before the Landis scandal started blowing up. But the timing on seeking Arnie Baker’s help, from what I’ve gathered, occurred after the Landis case had been in the news for a while. That said, I think that the critique that he didn’t have to be a part of the Landis case in order to speak out about his own experiences has merit. And I think a fair critique would include that in not participating, he would not have been depriving USADA of testimony they needed to prove their case. Whatever belief or perception others have of how low dose testosterone will work doesn’t prove what Floyd Landis thought of such things. And in proving a motive, USADA really needed to show something beyond what another person thought or did. As is always the case, there’s more to the story than meets the eye. But perhaps this interview sheds a bit more light on who Joe Papp is and where he’s coming from — even if one has to read between the lines a little bit.
– Rant
So, Joe, suppose you were Valverde:
*
“”Spanish police found a bag of blood that some insist could belong to Valverde. Valverde, however, said he would not undergo DNA sampling unless specifically ordered to do so by a court.””” from Velonews.
Now if you were innocent would you not want to donate blood (or skin, etc) so they could do a match and eliminate any suspicion? Or do cyclists simply distrust the tests? Or do they figure if they give an inch, the dope controllers will want a mile? Or (my personal favorite) is Valverde claiming innocence until he is blue in the face but in reality he KNOWS that that is his blood in that bag?
*
I am curious, what is the mind set of a pro cyclist about doping controls?
jbsmp:
Perhaps Valverde has seen what went on in the Landis case, and distrusts the labs to come up with the correct results. Perhaps he is just thinking that he has nothing to gain but everything to loose by undergoing DNA analysis. Perhaps he is guilty. We don’t know.
Does WADA or UCI have the power to compel him to undergo testing? I don’t know. Do the Spanish authorities have this power? Again, I don’t know. If this were a case within the US criminal justice system, I believe it would be necessary to get a court order which would require probably cause beyond just that “some insist” the blood in question is his. The insisting parties would need to have first hand knowledge.
There are people who, despite being perfectly innocent, will require that police get a search warrant before submitting to a search just out of principle. We should be careful not to read too much into this.
William:
My experience with DNA typing is that it is 100% accurate in linking a person to a sample. O.J. got off (other than if the glove does not fit, you must acquit ) because they could claim the police took his blood to the crime scene and spread it around. Other than deliberate tampering, it is a fool proof test. Which means you could have your blood DNA typed in UCLA and simply compare the final data with the same type of analysis from Spain, Rome, etc. If Valverde does NOT know this, then his legal staff surely does. So I read into his refusal for typing a tacit admission of guilt.
*
But, like I said, I was curious about how a pro-cyclist would feel about this…..
Here in Europe – people react a bit resistant to the DNA testing. I cannot speak for Pro-cyclists – but I do know how the area I live in reacts to this – they feel that the government can use DNA but it is not something that an individual will just fork over, without a “writ” from Authority.
–
Given the apparent methodology that the UCI seems to follow – I am not surprised that Valverde dug his heels in. The biggest problem as I see it – is that we are talking about very different justice systems. As Americans we unconsciously think that our system is the best and therefore it is only logical that ALL law is built under the same philosophy.
–
Simply put – it isn’t. So when the UCI sent a letter to the Spanish Federation – the federation has reacted with some puzzlement – if it was a hundred years ago – somebody would be challenging someone to a duel – By sending such “strongly worded instructions” to the Spanish Federation – is insulting. THEIR Court System found too little evidence that may be looked on as proof – it was the Spanish legal system that did this – not the Federation. So for the UCI to expect the SF to act on their accusation against Valverde- they would have to go against their own legal system.
–
Another interesting note – the UCI – supposedly sent a fax to Valverde – concerning a “missed” test – IT WAS IN ENGLISH – think about it – what kind of genius would send a legal notice to a racer who is not an English speaker? One can ask – was this done on purpose? Or was it a stupid error? If done on purpose then it is nothing but a “game” to mess with Valverde – if it was a stupid mistake – Well – draw your own conclusions but I would like to remind you – that the UCI is an International entity – and should be used to communicating with people in their own language…
–
As to Valverde “missing” a surprise “inspection” – the UCI was faxed with the change of plans for Valverde – in it they were notified where and what Valverde would be doing. Not only that – but his own team also notified the UCI that this change of plans were in progress…
–
I am being sarcastic here – so like the “riders pledge” are we now going to be told that every rider has to wear an ankle bracelet sender hooked to Nav-Sat so we can be “found'” in any moment in time……..It would be the “simplest” solution to the UCI’s apparent problems…heck – why not? After all – I and everybody else should “feel” that signing the “Pledge Letter” is basically very French indeed – “guilty until proven innocent” – what’s wrong with that….? (°L°) Indeed….
UCI send his letters writing in their official languages which are, at least french and english.
JBSMP:
How reliable DNA testing is may be open to some question. I personally doubt that anything is 100% reliable, especially considering the possibility of sloppy lab work. Typically, as I see, results of DNA testing are often stated as “there is a 1 in a million chance that the sample in question is not the defendant’s” (note: actually numbers may vary). This does seem to be pretty conclusive, but depending on what you consider to be the total population under consideration to be; the current population of Spain is about 46 million, so if there was a 1 in a million chance the blood was not Valverde’s, there could be 45 other people in Spain who could be a potential match.
Not to cast aspersions on his intellect, but he may not be aware of all these facts. He may be aware of the lab problems revealed by the Landis case. As it stands right now, as best I can tell, he has been cleared by the Spanish authorities and does not need to do anything to prove his innocence. If fact, I see on TbV that the Spanish Federation is making noises at UCI that they’d better let him ride in the World’s. So he has little to gain (except perhaps some public relations) and much to loose by undergoing DNA testing. He also may be making a statement about continuing to prosecute cases which have already been cleared. Or he may be in fact guilty. Who knows?