JPM London said:
I don't see it the same way...
If he were a coward he wouldn't write a blog where he basically admits to doping ("I was part of that"). He would simply either write nothing about doping or the past or not write a blog full stop.
He's not denying anything. He's not doing a forced confession Rasmussen or Lance style simply because it's the strategically best option. And in doing that he's not making a halfession either...
Got to take issue with this. You're suggesting that he's not denying anything, he's not confessing, but he's not making a half confession either. So what is he doing?
I guess the best you can call it is an implied, non-specific, quarter confession, couched in the vaguest possible terms. How that is somehow more noble than any of the other options I'm not sure.
And you seem to dismiss Rasmussen's confession as 'strategically the best option', but what the hell is Jan's strategically best option at this stage? Let's think it through:
Deny everything? H'mm, he's a convicted drugs cheat, who's lost half his results, so not a hugely credible option, and would just make him look a fool.
OK, what about confessing everything? Well this brings a whole lot of potential aggravation and blowback, maybe makes him look a lot less cuddly than at present, and to what benefit?
Let's try saying the bare minimum possible given what everyone knows, in the vaguest possible terms, scrupulously not incriminating yourself or any of your past sponsors in any more damage, while simultaneously appearing to be a frank, pragmatic, nice guy?
From a 'strategic' point of view I know which option I'd choose, and it's strangely close to Jan's preferred option as well.
JPM London said:
We all know he did it. We all know he did EPO and blood at some point. I think most of us have a clear understanding he did less so - and his team did less so - than LA and USPS did and that he was a far bigger talent than the American ever was... None of us really needs his confession - yeah, I'd still like it and I'd read it - but, no, at this point I don't think we really need it. He should - of course - tell everything to the proper authorities if there's anything to help clean up the sport.
And this really is the point - how do we have that clear understanding that he did less than LA and USPS, or that he really was a far bigger talent? Do we know that for certain based on any credible evidence (hint a full and frank confession would be credible evidence), or are we just making assumptions about the story that we want to be true cos Jan seems like a much nicer guy than Armstrong?
I don't want to bag on Jan, as I always wanted him to win, and I do think he seems like a nice guy. But for all I know he was just as dirty as anyone else at the time. And given his results (the second best GT rider of the era), our working assumption should be that he was in up to his neck - both pre and post LA's reign of terror.
Given all that, defending him for continuing to uphold omerta - when it's clearly the strategically best option for him, and him alone - is a little odd, in my opinion.
Man up Jan, the truth will set you free.