- May 6, 2010
Polarise? Why is it that anytime someone posits a point different from that of the masses on here they are immediately deemed to be polarising? These are forums set up for people to express their views, not a mutual back patting club.Colm.Murphy said:Regarding the more than a few individuals here who claim to have directly heard (or heard of) Jonker using or describing his use of doping compounds, any reasonable person should be able to discern what Jonker is doing with these statements.
Mr. Rox, I understand that some of the sports heroes are on the fast track to anything from sanction to jail, but it is pure contrariety to polarize on things for the sake of doing so.
From my own Danish source, Jonker was a popper on ONCE and Bigmat, for EPO and potblege. Took him years to break off using once he stopped racing... But this is just the whisper from my generally reliable source.
For everyone, the era simply was rife with dope use. Doping permeated and defined the time. The times of guys who thought if 1 was good, then 4 must be better is what caused the health issues. Once it got very refined and bio-science driven, the Ferrari's, Fx's, etc., were able to up the billing to maximize the results and lower the risks.
Today we see a few brave souls, for whatever the reason, run and ring the bell and toss the house lights up, and many just refuse to believe their eyes. For those, waiting out for a decision in a court of law, so they can trust their beliefs on a higher authority, will be the only time they will surmise that Mr. Yellow bracelet essentially stole a decade of racing from fans and clean sports.
If that is what it will take, so be it. in the mean time, polarise away.
Also why do you place all the blame on one person for the misdemeanors of numerous other riders. Why not say that Ullrich or Pantani stole a decade of racing away from fans and clean sports?
The issue i raise is not one of not wanting to believe my eyes, it is one of commenting on the sparse evidence that is available. Terms such as "overwhelming" in relation to evidence against Armstrong are just pure emotive nonsense. An example of this is the 70,000 pages of 'evidence' that Lemond purportedly has submitted. I am betting that most of it will be opinion, hearsay and directly contestable but for most on here, the very fact that it is 70,000 pages will be more than enough to assume it is therefore overwhelming.
Personally I am still comfortable saying that unless the prosecution (if indeed there are any charges laid) has evidence other than direct testimony from a few ex-teammates they are going to fail.
I merely used Jonkers as an example of a good defence rebuttal witness. You can make all the spurious allegations and insinuations you like about what he may have done in the past. The fact is that from a point of law he has a clean history. Ex-dopers do not and will be dismantled by any decent defence lawyer. There will be numerous Jonkers called in support of Armstrong if this every sees a courtroom.