Friday, May 18, 2007

Hearing - Friday Papp Cross II

Mr. Papp, having consulted with his attorney, will resume Cross by Mr. Suh.

A comment to TBV reports DPF has a post suggesting Mr. Papp's sanction was reduced from two years to 6 months in exchange for this testimony. A reporter here says his attorney has denied that.



BRUNET: Go ahead.

[more]


Mr. SUH CROSS:

q: who at the italian whistle
a: changed named to cinelli something, San Marino.

q: you were given drugs, but don't know exactly what they were.
a: yes.

q: who gave those?
a: sandro biachi, brother of the director; not clear of his relationshipt. We'd have meetings, and he'd show up with a backpack and a cold storage bag, and distribute doping agents and used medical waste and go away.

q: when you took these PEDs, did you ask what they were?
a: at various times I asked.

q: what were you told?
a: epo, hgh, cortisone, insulin, thyroid hormone, anabolic steroid, amphetamine.

q: testosterone also?
a:

q: you are familiar with these?
a: yes.

q: when you went to south america, did you buy drugs and bring them into the united state.
a: I was given prescriptions for pharmaceutical products?

q: these were peds?
a: yes.

q: you're a trafficer too?
a: no.

q: do you have authorizaton?
a: my understanding is you are allowed an individual use for 6 months.

BARNETT: objection.

SUH I'll move on...

q: as far back as 2001 you also took a wide range of PEDS, right?
a: yes.

q: do you have a record of what you took when?
a: no.

q: so you took all these (lists) sometimes knowing what they were, sometimes not.
a: that's fair.

q: is it possible with the italian team and language barrier, you may have taken some where you had no idea?
a: yes.

q: you are not an andrologist are you?
a: no.

q: no studies on testosterone, epo?
a: I'm not a scientist.

q: when you were taking T, was there ever a time... you indicated you had resolved your case with USADA.
a: I signed an agreement accepting a two year sanction.

q: is this public knowledge.
a: i don't know.

q: US ANTI DOPING REGULATIONS, ruld qq, Public Disclosure of Pending Causes. "no later than 2 business days..."
a: yes.

q: you resolved your case without a hearing?
a: I signed my agreement yesterday.

q: you resolved your case yesterday, just yesterday before coming to this hearing.
a: yes. I signed my formal document yesterday.

q: have you been told by USADA you would be investigated for other substances we've discussed today?
a: I don't understand.

q: Have you have conversations with USADA about these other uses?
a: I signed a document yesterday resolving the case.

q: EX GDC you resolved this right?
a:

NO QUESTIONS



REDIRECT.

BARNETT:

q: prior to joining the italian team, you were in full knowledge of what you were taking?
a: yes.

q: 2004-2006,
a: epo, testosterone, cortisone.

q: added T?
a: yes, 2005.

q: did you notice a difference?
a: yes i felt a difference, an additional benefit. it facilitated recovery on a daily basis. on days 2 and 3 I could do close to the same amount of work as the first. With EPO the most salient and tangible effect was I could go up a hill faster, time travel fast, my power increased on the one day.




SUH:

q: your testimony is that all you were taking all these other things, it was your microdose of testosterone that affected your recovery?
a: it was the only substance that I took for recovery in a multi-day stage race.

q: that's your testimony?
a: absolutely

Part 14 antidoping rules of the UCI, "Traffickling"

q: did anyone talk to you about your trafficking case?
a: no.

q: you know the penalty for trafficking is much higher than for doping?
a: no

NO QUESTIONS




I lost a lot of this.



This is not among Mr. Suh's more honorable moments. But he has no Barnett at his table, so someone had to do it.

It demonstrates USADA's willingness to burn someone to get the high profile win they desire. This guy could name names (his US epo doctor), and they deferred resolution of this case from a June 2006 case notification until signing a formal document yesterday, so USADA could be in technical compliance with their notification rules.

Aren't we all enlightened and ennobled by this. Dance Monkey, dance.

Expect a move to strike as non-probative.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

well?

Anonymous said...

That was lackluster....I am not sure he impeached his testimony.

swimyouidiot said...

Notice the empty page? I think TbV is only reporting things of substance in his testimony.

Anonymous said...

Suh trying to say Papp is a drug trafficker - pretty weak.

Anonymous said...

I think Papp will go home worrying now that he will be banned for a very long time because of the traficking. He absolutely admitted to trafficking.

Burt Friggin' Hoovis said...

I've raced against papp for many years, and I wanted to see his testimony, mostly because I was pissed about getting beat by a doper. I must admit that I almost felt sorry for him during his time on the stand - he has nothing to say that's relevant to the case, and watching Landis' lawyers light him up bordered on pathetic. Nice move WADA to publicly humiliate the guy for no friggin' reason...

Anonymous said...

"This is not among Mr. Suh's more honorable moments. but he has no Barnett at his table, so someone had to do it."

Give me a break. When Barnett does it he's the hatchet guy, but Suh is holding his nose while being forced to perform an unenviable task?

Both Suh and Barnett are lawyers. Their job is to bolster their own case and question the credibility of the other side's witnesses; pretty standard stuff. Let's not pretend one is evil incarnate and the other is noble.

this guy said...

QUESTIONS:

1. how much of papp's testimony was already known publicly and privately w/in the usada? in other words, that guy who was giving him drugs and that team and the teammates, etc. - did people know about that or did a bunch of people just get outed?

2. for the litigators: why didn't suh just stand up and say, do you konw FL? have you ever raced with him? have you ever seen him take drugs? do you have evidence he took drugs? other than the issues in this hearing, have you ever heard evidence of him taking drugs? but you took drugs and cheated? so you're a liar and a cheat? thank you.

or something to that effect.

James said...

If Papp signed something yesterday was it an exchange for a 2 year ban and USADA not prosecuting the trafficking case...

This is awesome. These people aren't dancing monkeys, they're sacrificial virgins (who may not be virgins after all)

Anonymous said...

Papp can't have much credibility. It's more trashy, inconclusive testimony that can't be substantiated.

Anonymous said...

As I said over at DPF, the hot RUMOR (key concept there) was that Papp got a 6-month suspension in return for his testimony.

And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that (the plea-bargain). It's done all the time in criminal cases, and no one seems to have a problem with that.

Anonymous said...

Cycling's omerta lives on. Papp does not finger a fellow cyclist as being the supplier. No cyclists were harmed in the making of this (soon-to-be) movie.

not so fast said...

Is that it? so, now we're to believe Papp...or his perception? Don't get me wrong, it looks like the Landis strategy is backfiring...and I think Landis has turned into "it's all about me" while ass fucking the sport with his goofy shifting defense, but is that the best you can do USADA? Papp was barely a pro, was always hooked up with some no name team, and now, he has every reason to trump up the benefit of T. please



q: added T?
a: yes, 2005.

q: did you notice a difference?
a: yes i felt a difference, an additional benefit. it facilitated recovery on a daily basis. on days 2 and 3 I could do close to the same amount of work as the first. With EPO the most salient and tangible effect was I could go up a hill faster, time travel fast, my power increased on the one day.

Sachi Wilson said...

The purpose of putting on Papp was to counter any chance of an argument that using testoterone was stupid because it would not have an effect on power and would be detectable. Even if it did not have a direct effect on what the USADA needed to prove in Landis's case, it had the effect of closing off a potential argument (or at least of making that argument harder.)

It also laid out for WADA a really ugly slice of pro cycling for ninnies like Pound to crow about later. *sigh*

(I am a lawyer btw.)

not so fast said...

Of course Papp's testimony was to "...counter any chance of an argument that using testoterone was stupid because it would not have an effect on power and would be detectable."

...But I don't see how his testimony accomplished that. Papp's testimony is the opinion of a cheater who just struck a deal w/USADA. His perception is not based in science. In fact, another cyclist on the same junk could testify he realized NO benefit. If the science follows Papp's testimony then USADA is on to something. Until then, I would hope a far higher level of evidence is required to be meaningful as to the performance benefits of taking T as it relates to this case.

Sachi Wilson said...

Not so Fast, you've certainly spotted the weaknesses in Papp's testimony. Flyod's attorneys will argue those weaknesses to the arbitrators. However, the testimony does tend to prove those points, and the danger is that the arbitrators could accept the testimony. It will be interesting to see if Floyd himself tries to counter that testimony today (how could he do so effectively unless he'd tried testosterone, one wonders?) or if his attorneys put on any other evidence that testosterone does not work.