Papp pleads guilty

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...pgj_AD9DU18RG0

On Feb 17, 12:18*pm, "Robert Chung"
wrote:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...Q9qq0g9eN7NUGW...

Good, **** him.

-rj

I don't believe it for one second! It's obviously just a Papp smear!





"ronaldo_jeremiah" wrote in message
...
On Feb 17, 12:18 pm, "Robert Chung"
wrote:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...Q9qq0g9eN7NUGW...

Good, **** him.

-rj

Robert Chung wrote:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...pgj_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-

In article ,
"Steve Freides" wrote:

Robert Chung wrote:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...eN7NUGWr0cmpgj
_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 Respondent¹s [Landis et al]
reasons for discounting Papp¹s 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/sit...uments/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/ar...isFinalDissent.
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/sit...uments/1394.pd
f

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article ,
"Steve Freides" wrote:

Robert Chung wrote:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...eN7NUGWr0cmpgj
_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 Respondent¹s [Landis et
al] reasons for discounting Papp¹s 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/sit...uments/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/ar...isFinalDissent.
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/sit...uments/1394.pd
f

Thanks.

-S-

"Ryan Cousineau" wrote in message
]...

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.

interesting article.

In article ,
"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote:

"Ryan Cousineau" wrote in message
]...

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.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article ,
"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote:

"Ryan Cousineau" wrote in message
]...
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?