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

[SpartacusRox]

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.

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.

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.

 

[SpartacusRox]

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.

They are as relevant as any witness claiming the alternative. This is an argument about organised doping in a team not just about Armstrong. Jonkers saying there was no organised doping has just as much weight as a prosecution witness claiming otherwise. Actually it has more weight because the burden of proof is on the prosecution not the defence.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

They are as relevant as any witness claiming the alternative. This is an argument about organised doping in a team not just about Armstrong. Jonkers saying there was no organised doping has just as much weight as a prosecution witness claiming otherwise. Actually it has more weight because the burden of proof is on the prosecution not the defence.

except for the distinction between organized doping for the Tour squad vs organized doping for everyone on the team including the injured old guy who sat out most of the season with injury

Your consistently naive belief that the testimonies of Lance's mates, who weren't privy to anything that is actually being investigated is somehow going to trump the first hand testimonies of riders who saw and participated in with what was going on because they never got busted for doping is priceless.

It's a little bit like assuming a mafia boss is innocent cos his momma says he's a nice boy, and all the mafioso who turned state's witness and are dobbing on their boss can't be believed cos well, they're criminals aren't they.

Other than a clear admiration for the biggest brand names in cycling that seems to be the crux of your argument.

 

[hrotha]

They are as relevant as any witness claiming the alternative. This is an argument about organised doping in a team not just about Armstrong. Jonkers saying there was no organised doping has just as much weight as a prosecution witness claiming otherwise. Actually it has more weight because the burden of proof is on the prosecution not the defence.

Landis himself said he didn't dope until he was in the Tour squad, so this is nothing new.

 

[Roland Rat]

I can categorically confirm that I have never seen Lance dope.

Where do I collect my $5?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

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.

Rather odd that the high standard you have for Armstrong - you didn't apply for Pantani, who "from a point of law has a clean history".

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

It's hard to judge whether or not the "outsiders" were on the program.

Floyd says he was first introduced to doping during the Dauphine (or TdS?) which was probably the time the Hog decided he was going to be part of the TdF squad and could bring him in as a member of the "A" team.

So there's no guarantee the non-A teamers were part of the systematic doping regime.

there were even riders in the tour squad who weren't doping. that's how careful they were. guys like pena, joachim, padrnos and a few others weren't using it either. only the climbers did and hincapie.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

there were even riders in the tour squad who weren't doping. that's how careful they were. guys like pena, joachim, padrnos and a few others weren't using it either. only the climbers did and hincapie.

padrnos and Joachim were both in trouble for doping at different times.

Joachim was let off by the hopeless Luxembourg Cycling Union (who also let Frank off for paying Dr. Fuentes 7,000 euro for interval training)

Padrnos's story is harder to find, but I heard the police were also after him. Anyone have any details?

 

[goggalor]

He may be telling the truth. Of course that doesn't mean there wasn't any doping at USPS, as Jonker wasn't even on the Tour team. Could be fun to the guy up to a lie detector and ask whether he saw any doping at ONCE tho.

 

[laziali]

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.....

+1

I remember laughing my head off when I saw that donkey Pat coming 12th in the Tour in ONCE colours.

 

[hfer07]

yes- the article is from FOX- what more can you expect from them?

 

[hfer07]

Am I missing something?

yes- the article is from FOX- what more can you expect from them?

 

[Benotti69]

...
..
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.......

you seem to be forgetting the 2 books by Walsh/Ballestre with overwhelming evidence pointing to evidence of LA doping. He has not sued them either.

On top of Walsh/Ballestre we now have Landis, never mind Lemond.

So looks pretty 'overwhelming' considering the Feds are investigating. What has come out in favour of LA? Jonkers, a guy who rode on Once and was injured for most of his year at USPS, hardly credible.

C'mon Sparty you have 1 line of defense, that which the Uniballer quoted, "never tested positive", which even he has stopped quoting, preferring the "witch hunt"...

 

[BikeCentric]

C'mon Sparty you have 1 line of defense, that which the Uniballer quoted, "never tested positive", which even he has stopped quoting, preferring the "witch hunt"...

Even worse, his only line of defense is that LA "never tested positive" in the eyes of the UCI, an organization that is widely known to be corrupt at this point. The public knows that LA has tested positive 7 times in actual lab tests, one for corticosteroids and 6 for EPO.

But what can you expect from a SpartacusRentBoy?

 

[Race Radio]

Apologist ramble.

Time for a game of Bingo

 

[BikeCentric]

Time for a game of Bingo

LOL, I like this game.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I can categorically confirm that I have never seen Lance dope.

Where do I collect my $5?

Actually, you get a $5 gift certificate redeemable for Livestrong merchandise.

 

[thehog]

Seeing Pat's an aussie and they do everything a little bit differently - what's the bet the TDU still pay Lance 2mill next year to come to Australia? I bet you they're stupid enough to do so.

 

[red_flanders]

They are as relevant as any witness claiming the alternative. This is an argument about organised doping in a team not just about Armstrong. Jonkers saying there was no organised doping has just as much weight as a prosecution witness claiming otherwise. Actually it has more weight because the burden of proof is on the prosecution not the defence.

You say this is about team-wide doping. I don't know that, I have no idea what the Novitsky angle is. It may be about team-wide doping, but in what context we don't know.

If it is about team-wide doping, if 3 people testify that it happened and that testimony is believable, it doesn't matter how many people didn't see it. It's not relevant.

There is no "equal weight" to the testimony. The only weight any testimony has is the weight of it's supporting evidence and how much the jury (grand or otherwise) believes it.

His comments are clearly of minimal or no relevance. He says he saw no doping. He is not refuting Floyd's testimony in any way. If he were saying "I was there on the days Floyd is referring to, it didn't happen that way", that would make his testimony relevant and give it some weight. He's clearly, obviously not saying that. In other words, there is no conflict between Floyd's and Jonkers' versions.

Do you really not see this?

I ask because it's so blatantly obvious. It does make folks wonder how you could not get it, or if you're intentionally avoiding it. And you wonder why responses to your comments seem "predictable". It is predictable that people who use logic will point out flaws in the comments of those who don't quite seem to get it.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Why doesn't Jonker just come out and say 'Hi, Lance, can I have a job?' or is this part of the new pre-job initiation/hazing?

After Lance has dressed you in women's clothes, taken photos of him slapping you with his **** and teabagging you and the Hog has molested you with a broom, the most humiliating part of the ritual - you have to go and defend the Uniballer in public, only then once you have shown you can take being degraded and humiliated will the Uniballer allow you the job of being as Shack DS/PR flunkey.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Even worse, his only line of defense is that LA "never tested positive" in the eyes of the UCI, an organization that is widely known to be corrupt at this point. The public knows that LA has tested positive 7 times in actual lab tests, one for corticosteroids and 6 for EPO.

But what can you expect from a SpartacusRentBoy?

SpartacusRentboy?/ I guess that must be an attempt at a bit of humour

Ah well if the public knows than it must be true, nothing more to say is there. Never mind the investigation with the testing that raised serious procedural issues. As long as the 'public knows'...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

SpartacusRentboy?/ I guess that must be an attempt at a bit of humour

Ah well if the public knows than it must be true, nothing more to say is there. Never mind the investigation with the testing that raised serious procedural issues. As long as the 'public knows'...

....ya, just like Pantani, right?

 

[SpartacusRox]

You say this is about team-wide doping. I don't know that, I have no idea what the Novitsky angle is. It may be about team-wide doping, but in what context we don't know.

If it is about team-wide doping, if 3 people testify that it happened and that testimony is believable, it doesn't matter how many people didn't see it. It's not relevant.

There is no "equal weight" to the testimony. The only weight any testimony has is the weight of it's supporting evidence and how much the jury (grand or otherwise) believes it.

His comments are clearly of minimal or no relevance. He says he saw no doping. He is not refuting Floyd's testimony in any way. If he were saying "I was there on the days Floyd is referring to, it didn't happen that way", that would make his testimony relevant and give it some weight. He's clearly, obviously not saying that. In other words, there is no conflict between Floyd's and Jonkers' versions.

Do you really not see this?

I ask because it's so blatantly obvious. It does make folks wonder how you could not get it, or if you're intentionally avoiding it. And you wonder why responses to your comments seem "predictable". It is predictable that people who use logic will point out flaws in the comments of those who don't quite seem to get it.

The one thing I agree with in this post is your "I have no idea what the Novitsky angle is" statement. That doesn't stop posters on here already concluding that an Armstrong conviction seems to be a done deal.

Similarly with Jonkers, you assume that his evidence is irrelevant based on a one paragraph news bite. You have no idea what he could add to any evidential testimony.

His testimony if it was ever presented would not be to refute Floyd it would be used to bolster the defence line that there was no evidence of systemic doping practices. It would be used along with other defence witnesses to present a picture of people who were close to the action who saw no evidence of doping practices. Presenting a reasonable doubt is all the defence have to do to beat a conviction, they don't have to prove that there was no systemic doping going on.

Do you not really see this?

 

[SpartacusRox]

....ya, just like Pantani, right?

Firstly the section of my post that you originally highlighted referred to Jonkers not Armstrong.

Secondly my reference to Panatani was quite justified. If people are claiming that Armstrongs (unproven) doping practices cast a shadow over the sport, then the same would apply to not only Pantani but numerous others as well. Even if Armstrong did dope, it is nonsense to lay the blame for systemic doping at the feet of one person, hence my comment.

 

[Anonymous]

This is really sad. Armstrong and The Hog obviously sat down and figured out who in the past years were not let in on the organized doping, called them, probably paid them, and got them to speak out...and all they have so far is Jonker...See, if you exclude people because they are not yet trusted, and they never really rode much with your team, then they get moved to AAA the next year, you have the perfect guy to contact and get to "come out" in the media. Pretty weak sauce.