Joe Papp: Reformer
Daniel Benson at Cyclingnews has written an amazing profile of doper-cum-dealer-cum-informer Joe Papp. Benson’s skill as an interviewer and ability to remain neutral is in full force in the profile. Before you read any further, please read it here. I’m not normally one to write response piece (though it has happened), but this is one occasion from which I cannot restrain myself.
Let’s recall that Papp is a rider who began doping to pump up what was a third-rate career as a pro and that he nearly died from a gluteal hematoma following a crash. Doctors drained an incredible 1200ml of blood from the wound.
Was this enough to get Papp to stop doping? Heck no.
He was popped for testosterone at the Tour of Turkey in 2006 and suspended through July of 2008. Was that enough to get Papp out of doping? Nope.
He turned state’s witness so-to-speak and testified at the Floyd Landis CAS appeal. In his testimony he admitted that he had used testosterone gel, steroids and EPO. The only drug he ever tested positive for, recall, was the testosterone. What Papp didn’t admit at the CAS hearing was that he was trafficking in doping products—primarily EPO—to other riders. So obviously, testifying wasn’t enough to get Papp out of doping.
Then, in 2008, the story broke that Papp had been dealing in doping products. It was a shocking turn of events following his 2007 interview in VeloNews. He was asked, “How do you respond to naysayers who complain you’re just a small fish making a big stink, that you were a low level pro who is onlyspeaking out after he was caught?”
Papp’s response: “I don’t have to respond to them, do I? (laughs) Seriously, I don’t have anything else left to lose, so I’m in a position to be able to speak out without fear of retribution, unlike someone like Basso, who can still earn millions after his suspension. It all comes downto money – when a rider still has the chance to earn more money through cycling than another profession, it is in his interest to deny specific charges against him or general claims of doping in sport.”
Once caught, Papp not only faced increased sanctions from USADA, but federal charges in his home state of Pennsylvania. To say he began singing like a stool pigeon is to say Michael Jackson could dance. What did all that singing get him? Well, it kept him out of prison. He’s been under house arrest and thanks to his plea agreement with prosecutors, he’s only receive house arrest. That’s quite different from the sentence of 10 years he faced.
Papp told Benson that he’d like to find a role within cycling on his release, that he’d like to work as an anti-doping advocate in the sport.
I don’t see the point. He told Benson, ”I can tell you that I absolutely at no point wanted to go to prison and that at no point was I going to do anything less than the absolute maximum to help myself.”
Beyond what he has told authorities about his customers, I’m not sure I see a way he can be of use. But that’s not really the point. Papp has proven that he’s got no moral compass, that he’ll do whatever he needs to just to save his ass, but he doesn’t really think in terms of the good of the sport. The chance to say out of prison is a powerful incentive. People have invented whole fictions just to reduce the amount of time they spend in prison. Telling the truth is a good deal easier.
He told Benson, “There’s nothing noble in accepting a prison sentence.”
See, that’s where Joe’s wrong. Had he told everything he knew just for the good of the sport, just because it was the right thing to do and then accepted prison time, what ever the appropriate sentence of someone who didn’t cooperate was (so I’m not suggesting the maximum), then I’d believe he did it for the good of the sport. In cooperating to saving his ass from time behind bars, he put his own interest ahead of any other consideration. I’m not suggesting he wasn’t honest, just that his honesty was purchased just like the EPO and growth hormone he sold.
I think he’s still rather clueless, a point driven home by this quote: “I don’t think I’ve lost the right to enjoy the actual act of pedalling a bike as a fitness endeavour, and something that is therapeutic.”
No, Joe, no one is suggesting you deserve to lose the right to ride a bike. We just don’t want to see you pin a number on again or anywhere near anyone who does.
Joe, here’s my offer to you: I’ll give you the opportunity to tell the readers of RKP why I’m wrong, why you really can offer the anti-doping fight long-term assistance. Personally, I think you’re a blight on cycling and even if you were offered a job by USADA to do this, you’d jump ship to the first bike shop willing to pay you more, but I’ve been critical and am willing to hear you out. Drop me a note: info [at] redkiteprayer [dot] com.
Floyd Landis Confesses
What a difference four years makes. Had Floyd Landis woken up on July 28, 2006, and called a press conference to announce to the world all the things he detailed in his e-mail to USA Cycling’s Steve Johnson, we might have hailed him as a sort of fallen hero.
An Icarus of the pedals.
As fate would have it, Landis’ non-negative result for was synthetic testosterone, essentially the one drug he claims, now, not to have taken in 2006. So he believed what almost anyone else would have believed—that he could beat the rap.
He didn’t count on a few details. First, he didn’t count on the Machiavellian nature of USADA, which pursued the case with a ‘win at all cost’ mentality. As I wrote in my BKW post “At All Cost,” had this case been tried in the American judicial system, Landis would have won the case because the lab performing the work did such a lousy job. However, USADA’s zero-tolerance policy toward doping also happens to be a zero-loss policy as well, and clearly Landis didn’t understand that actual innocence didn’t matter.
He also didn’t count on the details of a phone conversation he had with Greg LeMond would become public. LeMond’s recounting of the conversation will seem entirely more believable for anyone who previously doubted his testimony. Four years hence, one wonders if Landis comes up with a different answer to the rhetorical question he put to LeMond when urged to confess. He asked, “What would it matter?”
While we don’t know the exact details of what Landis confessed to Johnson and the UCI, we have the substance in broad strokes.
1) He did drugs, lots of them, beginning in 2002.
2) Lance Armstrong did more drugs and told him who to work with.
3) George Hincapie did all the same drugs.
4) Former roommate David Zabriskie did drugs.
5) Levi Leipheimer did drugs.
6) He has no proof.
7) Those closest to him didn’t know what he was up to.
8) He confessed to his mom.
We should note that Landis has only implicated American riders. One wonders why he has implicated only Americans. Could his full and complete confession be leaving something out?
After four years of his strenuous denial and seven-figure defense that was, in part, paid for by fans who believed his innocent plea, for him to come out now and say, ‘Okay, now I’m telling the truth,’ credulity strains. UCI President Pat McQuaid said Landis’ statements were “scandalous and mischievous.”
Even if we believe everything his says lock-stock-and-barrel, in this case, his truth-telling comes a little late. As a means to restore respect and reputation, his confession is a failure. Still, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t listen. On this point, McQuaid has it wrong.
“These guys coming out now with things like this from the past is only damaging the sport,” McQuaid told The Associated Press. “If they’ve any love for the sport they wouldn’t do it.”
Come again? We don’t want dopers to confess? Please tell us you’re kidding.
I’ve heard from several sources that Landis has been drinking heavily, heavily enough to affect his fitness and relationships. It’s a tragic turn of events given what he has already experienced. It’s easy to connect the drinking with the events he says he is now confessing, the truth he needs to get off his chest. In 12-Step programs, you are directed to confess your wrongs, but there follows quickly one caveat: except when to do so would hurt others.
Which brings us to the meat of his confession. Most of what he has confessed involves others. To clear his conscience, he need only to confess his own deeds. Whatever motivation he has to tell what he says Armstrong, Hincapie, Leipheimer and Zabriskie have done, it isn’t his conscience; it sounds more like retribution—‘If my ship is going down, I’m taking yours with me.’
Backing this up is the fact that Landis pointed out the eight-year statute of limitations, which is due to run out on some of the alleged acts, as a motivating factor to come forward.
“Now we’ve come to the point where the statute of limitations on the things I know is going to run out or start to run out next month,” Landis said. “If I don’t say something now, then it’s pointless to ever say it.”
He wants cases opened into the acts of Armstrong, Hincapie, Leipheimer and Zabriskie while there’s still time, which means his confession is less about his acts than the acts of others. He wants to see others punished.
But he says he has no proof. Naturally, Armstrong, Hincapie, Leipheimer and Zabriskie will have to defend themselves and because Landis detailed them in e-mails, meaning they were written, not spoken, they rise from slander to libel. Because these are public figures, the odds are against any of them meeting with success in a court room following a civil suit.
Landis may have a tougher time defending himself than they do.
Federal investigator Jeff Novitzky, the man who headed the investigation into Victory Conte and the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO) is one of the investigators involved in checking out Landis’ claims.
One of the first questions Novitzky and other investigators will have for Lanids will be who his sources were. Where did he buy his stuff? His suppliers may have sales records. If they have sales records that can substantiate his claim that he was a customer, then it is also possible they would have sales records detailing their relationship with other clients, and it’s a safe bet that if it is true Landis was taking his cues from others, then he was probably shopping at the same market, so-to-speak.
Armstrong has pulled out of the Tour of California following what sounds like a minor crash. Cynics will probably surmise that it was a strategic decision to avoid media scrutiny.
And what of Landis’ actual confession? That is, what of what he claims he did? These would be new infractions worthy of their own case. While I have advocated a truth and reconciliation commission to encourage athletes to come forward and tell what they know, this case is ugly and really perverts the way you hope justice will work.
Should Landis get a slap on the wrist in exchange for his cooperation? Or should he get the proverbial book thrown at him yet again? It may be that he has already come to the conclusion that his return to the pro ranks won’t be what he had hoped and that he is ready to depart.
If that’s the case, then his confession is 200-proof revenge.
This case may well make it to a grand jury, which will be much more likely to result in actual justice than any action USADA takes. Getting at the real truth should be the goal, rather than just handing out punishment.
But what of Landis’ original case? He was within his right to defend himself and we should never forget that. However, his defense built a sham identity that wasn’t enough to escape conviction. Hopefully, that will be a sobering thought to the new generation of dopers, a la Bernard Kohl and Riccardo Ricco. However, Landis’ defense turned into the most costly prosecution ever for USADA. In mounting such an expansive defense he cheated not just those who contributed to the Floyd Fairness Fund, but all those of us who follow cycling and depend on the anti-doping authorities to uncover and prosecute doping. One wonders who escaped prosecution because USADA was mired in a more than year-long case with Landis.
I have often thought that there will come a day where we look back on the EPO era with different eyes. We should never condone doping, but there may come a point when we understand that during the time when EPO use was rampant, there were no heroes and very, very few villains, that these men were flawed, like all of us, and a product of their time.
Image: John Pierce, Photosport International
