Patrick Jonker on LA.......?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 9, 2009
1,916
0
0
SpartacusRox said:
I had to laugh when I saw the Patrick Jonker snippet on CN this morning because I knew without even checking what the response would be.

I was correct of course, the response was right down the line of what the posters accuse Lance of.
1. Firstly character assasination of Jonker
2. Dismissal of his comments
3. Immediate assumption that Lance MUST have paid him or coerced him to support his side of the story
4. Inferring that his evidence will be overwhelmed by the weight of evidence from the prosecution.

Most of the usual suspects in there of course and I am sure more of the Lance flame boys will put their two cents worth in during the day.

The reality of course is that Jonker is not just an "old hack" ( I liked that one), he is well respected in the Australasian cycling community.

I am predicting that there will be a number of others like him who will be happy to stand up and support Lance, witnesses with high credibility rather than ex dopers with an axe to grind.
Jonker doesn't have any "evidence." He claims that he never saw Lance dope personally, which is far from any sort of "evidence" that Lance is clean.

But by all means please keep grasping at straws in your posts - you are one of the most amusingly desperate fanboys I've ever heard from and it's really interesting to see how your brain works with these posts of yours. Please keep them coming as the comic relief from you is always welcome.
 
SpartacusRox said:
I had to laugh when I saw the Patrick Jonker snippet on CN this morning because I knew without even checking what the response would be.

I was correct of course, the response was right down the line of what the posters accuse Lance of.
1. Firstly character assasination of Jonker
2. Dismissal of his comments
3. Immediate assumption that Lance MUST have paid him or coerced him to support his side of the story
4. Inferring that his evidence will be overwhelmed by the weight of evidence from the prosecution.

Most of the usual suspects in there of course and I am sure more of the Lance flame boys will put their two cents worth in during the day.

The reality of course is that Jonker is not just an "old hack" ( I liked that one), he is well respected in the Australasian cycling community.

I am predicting that there will be a number of others like him who will be happy to stand up and support Lance, witnesses with high credibility rather than ex dopers with an axe to grind.
SR, I think your comments have merit. What you seem to be missing (maybe you can clarify) is how his comments really have any meaning.

He says he didn't see Lance dope. Fair enough. I can take that on it's own merit.

He also says that means Lance is clean. Uh...that makes no sense. He was with the team for one year (correct?) and didn't ride the Tour. Why exactly does this extremely limited exposure allow him to make such a judgement? Simple answer. It doesn't.

My parents never saw my brother and I get in a fist-fight. Both of them will probably tell you that. Guess what? We had a couple.

If the guy is to be taken at his word (never saw Lance dope) it proves exactly nothing. And stands in start contrast to mountains of evidence and (apparently) widely corroborated testimony that Lance did dope, from at least 8-10 sources I can think of off the top of my head, including apparently former Postal riders in addition to Floyd.

So you take the fact that Jonker knows all this, right? So it would be one thing for him to come out and say, "I never saw Lance dope" and leave it at that. However, he comes out and says "I never saw Lance dope, and he never did dope". Knowing full well several people have testified that Lance did dope. He has no evidence that Lance never doped, but still makes the claim.

That doesn't make you wonder just a wee bit? Anyway, it doesn't matter. His statements are a logical fallacy motivation speculation aside. They make no sense.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
SpartacusRox said:
I am predicting that there will be a number of others like him who will be happy to stand up and support Lance, witnesses with high credibility rather than ex dopers with an axe to grind.
Since the Landis emails were leaked nearly 4 months ago, exactly when do you predict all these riders coming forth, and to what do you attribute their tardiness?

Seems to me, by this time we'd have seen more than just a guy who used to hate him but loves him now that he's a team mate (Horner), and a guy who last rode with Armstrong almost 20 years ago (Jonkers).

With all their forthrightness, "high credibility", and one would assume an attendant desire to prevent a gross misjustice, you'd think they'd be a bit more expeditious and vociferous in their support.
 
May 27, 2010
45
0
0
MacRoadie said:
..
Seems to me, by this time we'd have seen more than just a guy who used to hate him but loves him now that he's a team mate (Horner), and a guy who last rode with Armstrong almost 20 years ago (Jonkers).
.
More to the point, what would they be? Character witnesses? I don't know? Not having seen him dope doesn't really say much.

Unfortunately, when they're bringing down a crime rings (or any criminal), the witnesses aren't usually saints. They are often coherts of the crime.

A mobster goes and is an active member of a church. Really not too far off in some of the big crime rings. Does that mean a credible witness is the priest who never saw anything?
 
LOL.

So, the Lance contingent just brought out some guy nobody knows to support Lance?

Where's Hincapie? Where's Hamilton? Where's Vaughters? Livingston?

Where are all the vociferous denials from Levi? Zabriskie?

At this point, the Lance fans are about as intellectually honest as the global climate change deniers.
 

editedbymod

BANNED
Jul 11, 2010
112
0
0
Hotbrakes said:
[/B]


So far he is the only one. How much money will all this support cost?

The fact remains Jonker can hardly be called a team mate as he never actually rode together with Armstrong in a race. In fact Jonker spent the year on the sidelines with injury. So yes he's not lying he says he didn't see any drug use. Because he barely rode a race in 2000.

Jonker and Armstrong went riding this year before the TDU so a plan was hatched. Yes I have a link.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
Moose McKnuckles said:
Wait, the only guy they could find was a guy who didn't ride a race with Lance, much less the Tour?

LMAO.
And to ice the credibility cake, he throws out this nugget as well:

"Some years, he spent more time with me than his wife," Jonker said.
Which years would those be?
 
Apr 7, 2010
612
0
0
lance goes riding with jonker when he is in adelaide for the TDU, its the only time pat gets in the news any more

of course he isnt going to say anything
 
Apr 29, 2009
131
0
0
editedbymod said:
The fact remains Jonker can hardly be called a team mate as he never actually rode together with Armstrong in a race. In fact Jonker spent the year on the sidelines with injury. So yes he's not lying he says he didn't see any drug use. Because he barely rode a race in 2000.

Jonker and Armstrong went riding this year before the TDU so a plan was hatched. Yes I have a link.
What I meant to say is that Lance doesn't have much support and how much will it cost to get others on board.

Right now Jonkers has just goosed himself by saying that if Lance had offered the oppotunity to get on the good stuff, he would have said yes. To me that gives him zero credibility and not worth the cash Livestrong is paying him.

But I must admit I have gone soft on Lance in the last year, so I don't really care what happens to him. Maybe he should just fade away. Now that he has gone for good I am quite excited about the future of cycling with a heap of new talent coming through.
 
Dec 11, 2009
2
0
0
Jonker's credibility

Lest we forget: Pat Jonker rode for Once under none other than Manolo Saiz in 1995 (when Johan Bruyneel "miraculously" made the podium in the Tour). Bruyneel gave him a contract in 2000 on USPS. That's says it all right there.....
 
The fact that this is the best the Lance defense has done this far does not bode very well for Lance.

After all, since Lance has "done so much for cycling", you'd expect a flood of riders coming to his defense.

Thus far, it's been a bunch of crickets and Patrick Jonkers.
 
Jonker's statements are laughable.
If twenty people saw my friend commit an armed robbery, and testified to the fact, would it matter if I piped up & said 'I have never seen him commit an armed robbery, and I'm willing to testify to that fact'?
Crazy.
 
Jul 16, 2009
306
0
0
SpartacusRox said:
I had to laugh when I saw the Patrick Jonker snippet on CN this morning because I knew without even checking what the response would be.

I was correct of course, the response was right down the line of what the posters accuse Lance of.
1. Firstly character assasination of Jonker
2. Dismissal of his comments
3. Immediate assumption that Lance MUST have paid him or coerced him to support his side of the story
4. Inferring that his evidence will be overwhelmed by the weight of evidence from the prosecution.

Most of the usual suspects in there of course and I am sure more of the Lance flame boys will put their two cents worth in during the day.

The reality of course is that Jonker is not just an "old hack" ( I liked that one), he is well respected in the Australasian cycling community.

I am predicting that there will be a number of others like him who will be happy to stand up and support Lance, witnesses with high credibility rather than ex dopers with an axe to grind.
Agree ....

BTW ... I didnt see the small print that said if we were even slightly pro lance that we couldnt post on this site, but if we did we would get howled down and titled a fan boy or even a troll.

WTF.
 
red_flanders said:
SR, I think your comments have merit. What you seem to be missing (maybe you can clarify) is how his comments really have any meaning.

And stands in start contrast to mountains of evidence and (apparently) widely corroborated testimony that Lance did dope, from at least 8-10 sources I can think of off the top of my head, including apparently former Postal riders in addition to Floyd.
Who are theses 8 -10 persons who have testified that they have personally seen Lance or anybody else for that matter dope.?

When did they testify, do you have links to there testimony?

Has Floyd actually testified, or is he just writing another chapter for his "I never doped book"

Hugh
 
hughmoore said:
Who are theses 8 -10 persons who have testified that they have personally seen Lance or anybody else for that matter dope.?

When did they testify, do you have links to there testimony?

Has Floyd actually testified, or is he just writing another chapter for his "I never doped book"

Hugh
First, to be clear, "widely corroborated testimony" means the testimony is widely corroborated, not necessarily testimony in it's own right, though that is true in some of the cases I'm thinking of.

Landis
Betsey Andreu
Frankie Andreu
Steven Swart
Emma O'Reilly
Stephanie Macilvain
Johnathan Vaughters
Michael Ashendon
And apparently a few former teammates...so far.

I'm sure there are plenty of others. You can look up any of the statements of these people quite easily.
 
There's no reason to insult Jonker's career as a cyclist.

As for his statements, I'd say they're not only irrelevant ("I didn't see him dope so he didn't"), they're also most likely a lie (he's implying Lance wouldn't dope, because they're buddies; if that's the case, I'd expect Patrick to know as much as Lance would know about Patrick's own deeds).

Also, a lie detector? Pfff yay pop science.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY