Papp pleads guilty
Robert Chung
ronaldo_jeremiah
wrote:
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iTKFlQ9qq0g9eN7NUGW...
Good, fuck him.
-rj
Matt Chambers
"ronaldo_jeremiah" <ronaldo_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2d205148-cbcb-415d...@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Steve Freides
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iTKFlQ9qq0g9eN7NUGWr0cmpgj_AD9DU18RG0
I assume, since the article mentions that he acknowledged his drug use
at the time of his testimony in the Floyd Landis affair (that's my
impression, anyway, of what it says), that this won't matter to the
Landis situation one way or the other - sounds like they just finally
reached a plea deal.
Do I understand that correctly?
-S-
Ryan Cousineau
"Steve Freides" <st...@kbnj.com> wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
> > http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iTKFlQ9qq0g9eN7NUGWr0cmpgj
> > _AD9DU18RG0
>
> I assume, since the article mentions that he acknowledged his drug use
> at the time of his testimony in the Floyd Landis affair (that's my
> impression, anyway, of what it says), that this won't matter to the
> Landis situation one way or the other - sounds like they just finally
> reached a plea deal.
>
> Do I understand that correctly?
>
> -S-
Papp (and LeMond) were pure sideshows to the CAS/USADA decision.
Here's the only relevant bit of the September 2007 arbitration finding
regarding Papp:
"Although the Panel does not agree with the Respondent�s [Landis et al]
reasons for discounting Papp�s testimony, the Panel does not find that
his testimony was helpful in determining the issues before it that it
must decide. Therefore, the Panel will have no regard to the Papp
testimony in determining the case before it."
Page 79 of the decision. The Papp section starts on p.78, and is mildly
amusing.
http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/sites/CaseLaw/Shared%20Documents/1394.pd
f
On p. 78 the panel also says that Landis' conversation with LeMond did
not amount to an admission of doping.
The dissent dismissed both LeMond's testimony as irrelevant, and Papp's
("Pap") as tainted by his obvious quid pro quo with USADA:
http://www.usada.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/LandisFinalDissent.
pdf
Neither point was really relevant to the dissent, since the majority
decision also dismissed their testimony.
The 2008 appeal to the CAS mentioned neither Papp nor LeMond in its
final result:
http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/sites/CaseLaw/Shared%20Documents/1394.pd
f
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
Steve Freides
Thanks.
-S-
Kurgan Gringioni
"Ryan Cousineau" <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rcousine-F474D4.12211818022010@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
>
> The dissent dismissed both LeMond's testimony as irrelevant, and Papp's
> ("Pap") as tainted
<snip>
Dumbass -
Too bad LemonD can't figure that out.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
mischastar
interesting article.
--
mischastar
Ryan Cousineau
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Ryan Cousineau" <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rcousine-F474D4.12211818022010@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
> >
> > The dissent dismissed both LeMond's testimony as irrelevant, and Papp's
> > ("Pap") as tainted
>
> <snip>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Too bad LemonD can't figure that out.
Whatever. He just testified. Of Papp, Landis, and LeMond, I'll take
LeMond.
Fred Fredburger
> In article <hllke9$744$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Ryan Cousineau" <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:rcousine-F474D4.12211818022010@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
>>> The dissent dismissed both LeMond's testimony as irrelevant, and Papp's
>>> ("Pap") as tainted
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>> Dumbass -
>>
>> Too bad LemonD can't figure that out.
>
> Whatever. He just testified. Of Papp, Landis, and LeMond, I'll take
> LeMond.
>
How about: a kick in the nuts, minor road rash, or being stuck in an
elevator with Mr. Vidmar?
Ryan Cousineau
Fred Fredburger <Som...@Somewhere.You.Dont.Wanna.Be> wrote:
Being stuck with Brian wouldn't bother me, but being in Elevator Jail
for more than an hour would be tedious. At that point, minor road rash
would look ok.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
wrote:
>In article <4b7e...@news.x-privat.org>,
> Fred Fredburger <Som...@Somewhere.You.Dont.Wanna.Be> wrote:
>
>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> > In article <hllke9$744$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> > "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ryan Cousineau" <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:rcousine-F474D4.12211818022010@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
>> >>> The dissent dismissed both LeMond's testimony as irrelevant, and Papp's
>> >>> ("Pap") as tainted
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Dumbass -
>> >>
>> >> Too bad LemonD can't figure that out.
>> >
>> > Whatever. He just testified. Of Papp, Landis, and LeMond, I'll take
>> > LeMond.
>> >
>>
>> How about: a kick in the nuts, minor road rash, or being stuck in an
>> elevator with Mr. Vidmar?
>
>Being stuck with Brian wouldn't bother me, but being in Elevator Jail
>for more than an hour would be tedious. At that point, minor road rash
>would look ok.
Yeah, of the six, describe the road rash in more detail please.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Michael Press
<rcousine-951CF1.09561619022010@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <hllke9$744$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Ryan Cousineau" <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:rcousine-F474D4.12211818022010@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
> > >
> > > The dissent dismissed both LeMond's testimony as irrelevant, and Papp's
> > > ("Pap") as tainted
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> > Dumbass -
> >
> > Too bad LemonD can't figure that out.
>
> Whatever. He just testified. Of Papp, Landis, and LeMond, I'll take
> LeMond.
Why? Why take any? Lemond lost touch, and is not helping.
--
Michael Press
Tom Kunich
news:rubrum-38AD3D....@news.albasani.net...
>
> Why? Why take any? Lemond lost touch, and is not helping.
Nevertheless Greg IS worried about real bicycle racing. Good on him even
though he occasionally sticks his foot in it.
Kurgan Gringioni
"Tom Kunich" <tku...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bqOdnTLkeNTLLRzW...@earthlink.com...
> "Michael Press" <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:rubrum-38AD3D....@news.albasani.net...
>>
>> Why? Why take any? Lemond lost touch, and is not helping.
>
> Nevertheless Greg IS worried about real bicycle racing.
Dumbass -
No he isn't.
It's all about him.
Ryan Cousineau
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well, this discussion started when I threw out a line about preferring
LeMond to Joe Papp or Floyd Landis.
Maybe it is all about LeMond, but it's also possible (with similar
amounts of evidence) that he's genuinely concerned about the present
state of doping in the sport. His behavior is consistent with either
theory, and at best you have an argument that his methods are
unproductive (and that he should damn well rehearse his speeches a lot
better).
Returning to Papp versus Landis versus LeMond. Yes, I'll take the weird
crusading champion over the verging-on-insane drug dealer** and Landis,
he of the poor choices in managers, doping products, and Fairness*.
*Here's the thing: even if you accept the common rbr trope that doping
is part of the sport, getting caught is also part of the sport.
Appealing is fine, too. But soliciting donations for your futile defense
of your sporting violation is unseemly and pathetic. I guess this is me
announcing that I'm virtually certain Floyd was totally guilty, but I'm
ok with that.
Floyd Fairness Fund TV, just as a reminder:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRIbmhqSiME
If you're wondering what I think a guilty Landis should have done, I
think he should have taken his punishment, no appeals, and that's that.
Maybe it's merely an aesthetic judgment, but the David Millar approach
seems a lot more palatable.
**Papp is so weird in so many ways, I barely know where to start. I'm
still trying to figure out the story of the failed defection of Yuliet
Rodríguez Jiménez (his wife). To be blunt: if you're fleeing from Cuba,
on what planet does going to Venezuela seem like a good idea? That said,
The counterpoise is Joe (or at least his life) is so weird he might
actually be fun to hang around with. Having read a bit of his blog, he
is interesting and articulate. But still weird.
KurganGringioni
:
: Well, this discussion started when I threw out a line about preferring
: LeMond to Joe Papp or Floyd Landis.
:
: Maybe it is all about LeMond, but it's also possible (with similar
: amounts of evidence) that he's genuinely concerned about the present
: state of doping in the sport. His behavior is consistent with either
: theory,
<snip>
Dumbass -
That is incorrect.
LemonD never said shit about Tyler Hamilton. Just LANCE and Flandis. It's
because Hamilton never won the TdF and therefore was not a threat to the
throne of Greatest Ever American Cyclist.
LemonD is all about LemonD.
Howard Kveck
Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <hlsd19$26g$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Tom Kunich" <tku...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:bqOdnTLkeNTLLRzW...@earthlink.com...
> > > "Michael Press" <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > > news:rubrum-38AD3D....@news.albasani.net...
> > >>
> > >> Why? Why take any? Lemond lost touch, and is not helping.
> > >
> > > Nevertheless Greg IS worried about real bicycle racing.
> > No he isn't.
> >
> > It's all about him.
>
> Well, this discussion started when I threw out a line about preferring
> LeMond to Joe Papp or Floyd Landis.
>
> Maybe it is all about LeMond, but it's also possible (with similar
> amounts of evidence) that he's genuinely concerned about the present
> state of doping in the sport. His behavior is consistent with either
> theory, and at best you have an argument that his methods are
> unproductive (and that he should damn well rehearse his speeches a lot
> better).
I think LemonD *is* genuinely concerned about the state of doping in the peloton.
But that does not preclude him from also being concerned about his legacy. I happen
to think his (genuine) concern about doping plays second (or possibly fifth or sixth)
fiddle to his concerns about other riders like LANCE or Flandis supplanting him as
the "Greatest American Cyclist EVER" in the minds of the public. His attempts to
insert himself into everything seems like serious evidence of that mindset to me.
--
tanx,
Howard
Caught playing safe
It's a bored game
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Michael Press
<rcousine-9C55C4.16125921022010@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RodrÖguez Jiménez (his wife). To be blunt: if you're fleeing from Cuba,
> on what planet does going to Venezuela seem like a good idea? That said,
> The counterpoise is Joe (or at least his life) is so weird he might
> actually be fun to hang around with. Having read a bit of his blog, he
> is interesting and articulate. But still weird.
So you take Lemond's side because he is not a proven dope taker.
--
Michael Press
Ryan Cousineau
"KurganGringioni" <soulinth...@gmail.com> wrote:
Shorter Kurgan: LeMond only comments on the most prominent doping
allegations.
He's right in what he's said about Armstrong*, and he was right in what
he said to Landis. What could he have said to Hamilton?
*I think LIVESTRONG is the most important thing Armstrong has done in
his life**. I think 3 TdFs and a Worlds are the most important thing
LeMond has done in his life. Read that as you might.
**This isn't a rousing endorsement of LIVESTRONG. I'm not pro-cancer,
but I believe it may be The Wrong Problem, in that I'm concerned cancer
is not substantially underfunded when it comes to research and advocacy
processes. My robot-monster instincts do crumble in the face of Fat
Cyclist's first-person account of the support they gave him.
Ryan Cousineau
Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
I'd say the evidence LeMond raced clean is high. It's possible he's
history's greatest monster*, but he'd have to be an aggressively
pathological liar: not just the "hope I get lucky" last-chance clinging
of a caught Landis or Hamilton, but going out and seeking chances to be
a hypocrite.
Let me put it this way. Given even odds, and with God adjudicating (so
we don't have to rely on a fallible finding of facts), I'd bet about
$300 that Lemond rode clean, about the same that Armstrong did not, and
about $1500 that Landis did not.
Since God is not adjudicating this bet, I decline to comment on their
guilt or innocence. But you can read my comments in this thread as a
general distaste for people who prone to lying and cheating. This may be
because I'm fairly gullible, so if I detect prevarication I assume it's
obvious or serious.**
*Displacing Jock Boyer, of course.
**I'm also on the record that a career in pro cycling is a terrible
thing to wish on anyone.
Fred Fredburger
> I'd say the evidence LeMond raced clean is high.
I am puzzled by this. It would make more sense to me if you wrote of the
absence of evidence that he doped. It's my impression that evidence that
Lemond (or anyone else) didn't dope is pretty hard to come by.
What does evidence that someone raced clean look like?
Kurgan Gringioni
>>
>> Dumbass -
>>
>> That is incorrect.
>>
>> LemonD never said shit about Tyler Hamilton. Just LANCE and Flandis. It's
>> because Hamilton never won the TdF and therefore was not a threat to the
>> throne of Greatest Ever American Cyclist.
>>
>> LemonD is all about LemonD.
>
> Shorter Kurgan: LeMond only comments on the most prominent doping
> allegations.
>
> He's right in what he's said about Armstrong*, and he was right in what
> he said to Landis. What could he have said to Hamilton?
Dumbass -
The Hamilton saga dragged on much longer than any other doping incident in
US Cycling. Remember the chimeras and Tugboat and Haven? Olympic TT gold
medal there. LemonD didn't say one thing about it because it wasn't the TdF
and didn't affect his legacy.
I agree with you about LIVESTRONG. It's why in the eyes of the general
public LANCE is a god and no non-cyclist knows who LemonD is.
William Asher
> If you're wondering what I think a guilty Landis should have done, I
> think he should have taken his punishment, no appeals, and that's
> that. Maybe it's merely an aesthetic judgment, but the David Millar
> approach seems a lot more palatable.
Landis had a lot more at stake than Millar since conviction meant giving
up the TdF win. If he was in fact guilty, Landis could have been
motivated by pure cynicism that he had nothing to lose by appealing and a
lot to gain if he got lucky and won, or he could have been in denial that
he had done anything wrong. Either way, if he had bonked in the time
trial and ended up sixth on the GC, and then got popped for testosterone,
I doubt he would have fought so hard and the Millar approach would have
seemed more palatable to him too.
When you get right down to it, even the good fights are still about dead
presidents.
--
Bill Asher
Donald Munro
> What does evidence that someone raced clean look like?
A dog ?
Steve Freides
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
In this case, they aren't even really good intentions - he is
self-righteous, which is at least one step removed from actual concern.
-S-
Ryan Cousineau
Fred Fredburger <Som...@Somewhere.You.Dont.Wanna.Be> wrote:
That's part of why I phrased my theories as a bet: to try to put some
relative numbers on un-knowable probabilities.
I am, yes, judging LeMond by things like the nature of his racing
career, the time he raced in, what he would have been exposed to, what
he plausibly could have gotten away with, and how he has behaved in his
post-racing career. If I was too sure of myself I'd say something about
"the doper profile" etc., but I'm not.
Oh, and I read LeMond's comments on Contador. That's a case of
speculating against gym-teacher evidence. It strikes me that what LeMond
says about doping is occasionally so dim it argues that he has no
experience with PEDs.
But on balance, I'd go along with your phrasing: there is an absence of
evidence that LeMond doped. His post-racing life would be a very, very
strange story if he raced on dope. His motives for his post-racing
crusading, "legacy" theories included, are quite thin, so I think he
doesn't have enough motivation to engage in Floyd-Fairness-grade
hypocrisy.
Ryan Cousineau
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Ryan Cousineau" <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rcousine-6EAC67.20385821022010>>
> >>
> >> Dumbass -
> >>
> >> That is incorrect.
> >>
> >> LemonD never said shit about Tyler Hamilton. Just LANCE and Flandis. It's
> >> because Hamilton never won the TdF and therefore was not a threat to the
> >> throne of Greatest Ever American Cyclist.
> >>
> >> LemonD is all about LemonD.
> >
> > Shorter Kurgan: LeMond only comments on the most prominent doping
> > allegations.
> >
> > He's right in what he's said about Armstrong*, and he was right in what
> > he said to Landis. What could he have said to Hamilton?
> Dumbass -
>
> The Hamilton saga dragged on much longer than any other doping incident in
> US Cycling. Remember the chimeras and Tugboat and Haven? Olympic TT gold
> medal there. LemonD didn't say one thing about it because it wasn't the TdF
> and didn't affect his legacy.
It's a theory. But I also recall that Hamilton's defence theories were
pretty absurd. He just never had much of a case, so the "controversy"
was a combination of the sad Believe Tyler campaign and Hamilton's own
tragic personal-life meltdown.
I mean, Hamilton really seems like a guy who was badly messed-up before
he started bike racing, and went on to become a badly messed-up bike
racer.
Dude could have been a tax preparer! He might have been happy!
Fred Fredburger
I can relate to your comment that "If I was too sure of myself I'd say
something about 'the doper profile' etc., but I'm not." I probably carry
that a little farther than you. You're correct that "His post-racing
life would be a very, very strange story if he raced on dope", but
people are really, really strange sometimes. So I draw no particular
conclusions based on his behavior.
That said, the lack of evidence that he doped separates him from Flandis
and Hamilton by a huge amount.
Michael Press
<rcousine-B60AD6.21024821022010@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > RodrÃ∞â•„guez JimÃ∞©nez (his wife). To be blunt: if you're fleeing from Cuba,
> > > on what planet does going to Venezuela seem like a good idea? That said,
> > > The counterpoise is Joe (or at least his life) is so weird he might
> > > actually be fun to hang around with. Having read a bit of his blog, he
> > > is interesting and articulate. But still weird.
> >
> > So you take Lemond's side because he is not a proven dope taker.
>
> I'd say the evidence LeMond raced clean is high. It's possible he's
> history's greatest monster*, but he'd have to be an aggressively
> pathological liar: not just the "hope I get lucky" last-chance clinging
> of a caught Landis or Hamilton, but going out and seeking chances to be
> a hypocrite.
>
> Let me put it this way. Given even odds, and with God adjudicating (so
> we don't have to rely on a fallible finding of facts), I'd bet about
> $300 that Lemond rode clean, about the same that Armstrong did not, and
> about $1500 that Landis did not.
>
> Since God is not adjudicating this bet, I decline to comment on their
> guilt or innocence. But you can read my comments in this thread as a
> general distaste for people who prone to lying and cheating. This may be
> because I'm fairly gullible, so if I detect prevarication I assume it's
> obvious or serious.**
My point is that Lemond does not help.
He makes things worse by always attacking.
This is not a bicycle race.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
"Tom Kunich" <tku...@earthlink.net> wrote:
He does not help. He attacks people.
It is all about Greg Lemond, and his achievements.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<rcousine-B60AD6.21024821022010@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > RodrÃ∞â•„guez JimÃ∞©nez (his wife). To be blunt: if you're fleeing from Cuba,
> > > on what planet does going to Venezuela seem like a good idea? That said,
> > > The counterpoise is Joe (or at least his life) is so weird he might
> > > actually be fun to hang around with. Having read a bit of his blog, he
> > > is interesting and articulate. But still weird.
> >
> > So you take Lemond's side because he is not a proven dope taker.
>
> I'd say the evidence LeMond raced clean is high. It's possible he's
> history's greatest monster*, but he'd have to be an aggressively
> pathological liar: not just the "hope I get lucky" last-chance clinging
> of a caught Landis or Hamilton, but going out and seeking chances to be
> a hypocrite.
>
> Let me put it this way. Given even odds, and with God adjudicating (so
> we don't have to rely on a fallible finding of facts), I'd bet about
> $300 that Lemond rode clean, about the same that Armstrong did not, and
> about $1500 that Landis did not.
>
> Since God is not adjudicating this bet, I decline to comment on their
> guilt or innocence. But you can read my comments in this thread as a
> general distaste for people who prone to lying and cheating. This may be
> because I'm fairly gullible, so if I detect prevarication I assume it's
> obvious or serious.**
>
> *Displacing Jock Boyer, of course.
>
> **I'm also on the record that a career in pro cycling is a terrible
> thing to wish on anyone.
I say Lemond took drugs when he raced.
--
Michael Press
KurganGringioni
: In article <hltaht$tk4$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Dumbass -
LemonD has gone after 2 guys: LANCE and Flandis. Americans who have won the
TdF.
Not Riis. Not Ullrich. Not Pantani. Not Indurain. Not Hamilton.
Those guys all won the TdF or tested dirty or both.
Then there's all the guys who tested dirty and didn't win the TdF. What's
the number, 100+ riders?
IMO, it's very clear what LemonD's #1 priority is and it isn't doping.