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

[BikeCentric]

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'...

LOL are you referring to the Vrijman report? The one sponsored by the UCI?

You are just a laugh riot man. You make my day.

 

[Nick777]

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.

He was an Aussie when he was riding ok in the tour in 1996.
He's back to being Dutch, now.

 

[hughmoore]

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.

So none of these guys have actually testified anywhere that they saw Lance or anyone else for that matter dope. So its only hearsay, not yet proven.



Hugh

 

[Ferminal]

So none of these guys have actually testified anywhere that they saw Lance or anyone else for that matter dope. So its only hearsay, not yet proven.



Hugh

Isn't that what they did in the SCA Promotions case?

 

[BikeCentric]

Isn't that what they did in the SCA Promotions case?

No that SCA testimony doesn't count, because it wasn't what Hugh wanted to hear(say).

 

[thehog]

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.

I'm with you on this one. They would have went through the list. Americans No because they are all under gag orders from the grand jury. Euros no because they've either tested positive, won't talk or no one would believe them anyway. Then that leaves Jonker. Mr. I rode with Lance for a day in 2000. Surely they can do better than this? I mean if Lance was innocent Big George, Levi, Tyler would have all come out and said it never happened. But no.

 

[uspostal]

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?

Of all these guys that either admitted to using PED or that cought after they left, postal/ discovery / radio shack, ever get a positive while riding on a LA team ??

 

[Anonymous]

Of all these guys that either admitted to using PED or that cought after they left, postal/ discovery / radio shack, ever get a positive while riding on a LA team ??

How many of them went to other teams where the leader donated $120,000 to the UCI? Its called PAYOLA baby. Who knew the UCI was located in Chicago?

 

[craig1985]

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?

IIRC this had something to do with the police raids at the 2001 Giro d'Italia that caused stage 18 to be canceled. He was riding for Saeco at the time. Here is a link to some related stories (scroll halfway down the page). I think ASO didn't want Padrnos at the 2004 Tour as well.

I have always had time for Victor Hugo Pena, but my suspicion is that he sold his soul to ride the Tour de France for USPS (which he did).

 

[scribe]

Not a Lance fan but was Jonker left out of the loop?



http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,27539460-23218,00.html

you think Murdoch pink-slipped this journalist for running this nonsense?

 

[red_flanders]

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?

I assume no such thing. I am commenting on what he has said, and what his participation is known to be. I have no interest or use for commenting about what he isn't saying.

If his testimony is the best they can come up with to bolster the line that there was no systematic doping, I suggest it's over. Stick a fork in the whole lot of 'em, they're done.

 

[craig1985]

you think Murdoch pink-slipped this journalist for running this nonsense?

It doesn't take much to be a journalist in Australia.

 

[Ferminal]

you think Murdoch pink-slipped this journalist for running this nonsense?

It's only Australia, who cares.

The newspapers are still pushing the Lance is God line here, what accusations...

 

[hughmoore]

It's only Australia, who cares.

The newspapers are still pushing the Lance is God line here, what accusations...

Lance is not God, where did you read that fanboy!




Hugh

 

[Hotbrakes]

you think Murdoch pink-slipped this journalist for running this nonsense?

I think Lance is a Sarah Palin supporter, so I think this journalist is up for a promotion.

As an Australian I will say to you, the rest of the world..... sorry...... for giving you Rupert Murdoch. If we had any brains we would have executed him back in the 60's.

 

[poupou]

Of all these guys that either admitted to using PED or that cought after they left, postal/ discovery / radio shack, ever get a positive while riding on a LA team ??

Maybe you should speak from the rider who "crashed" for poisonous blood while riding for Disco after 50-60km of a mountain stage.
According UCI and team officials, it was for sunstroke (or something like that) but rescue guys were not curing a sunstroke when acting along the road.

 

[hrotha]

Maybe you should speak from the rider who "crashed" for poisonous blood while riding for Disco after 50-60km of a mountain stage.
According UCI and team officials, it was for sunstroke (or something like that) but rescue guys were not curing a sunstroke when acting along the road.

Is that the Tom Danielson story others have hinted at?

 

[Oldman]

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.

Add to that Horner's financial history and you have several candidates for Lance boosterism. Horner's program is his own so he could legitimately suggest he wasn't involved in a team program.
Don't think they'd want him to testify as his connections are known locally.

 

[roundabout]

Is that the Tom Danielson story others have hinted at?

My guess would be Beltran at the 2005 Tour

 

[craig1985]

My guess would be Beltran at the 2005 Tour

Yeah, same.

 

[SpartacusRox]

How many of them went to other teams where the leader donated $120,000 to the UCI? Its called PAYOLA baby. Who knew the UCI was located in Chicago?

Yawn, what a load of speculative, unprovable nonsense

 

[SpartacusRox]

I assume no such thing. I am commenting on what he has said, and what his participation is known to be. I have no interest or use for commenting about what he isn't saying.

If his testimony is the best they can come up with to bolster the line that there was no systematic doping, I suggest it's over. Stick a fork in the whole lot of 'em, they're done.

Who knows what testimony they will come up with from the defence angle, but you can bet they will have plenty of witnesses who will testify that there was no systematic doping at USPS. Hincape for one will be one of them and I'm betting that there will be more witnesses for the defence than for the prosecution in this regard.

 

[red_flanders]

Who knows what testimony they will come up with from the defence angle, but you can bet they will have plenty of witnesses who will testify that there was no systematic doping at USPS. Hincape for one will be one of them and I'm betting that there will be more witnesses for the defence than for the prosecution in this regard.

I wouldn't bet on it. If the first salvo is any indication, they're digging up riders who can claim they saw nothing without threat of perjury. His statements in no way refute Floyd's testimony--he simply wasn't there.

Very much a PR move, of no value in a legal setting. If two guys corroborate Landis, they can trot out a hundred guys saying they didn't see anything (which they won't), and it won't matter. Testimony has to have legs. It has to be credible. So far the details laid out by Landis have clearly convinced the investigator that not only is Landis telling the truth, but that Novitzky thinks they can prove it.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Who knows what testimony they will come up with from the defence angle, but you can bet they will have plenty of witnesses who will testify that there was no systematic doping at USPS. Hincape for one will be one of them and I'm betting that there will be more witnesses for the defence than for the prosecution in this regard.

Not from what I am hearing.

No one who is close to the professional sport seems to think so, either.

Wither, ye olde memories of big Georgie, churning along to 2nd through 5th in another P-R. Wither, yon visions of Hincapie's varicosied legs, plumbing that has seen the effects thousands of km's with an extra 500ml of packed rbc's.

Mr. GH will be quite honest and forthright in his remarks, I believe, from what has been passed to me.

What do your close contacts with the European scene tell you? What's that? You have none? Then, what could you be basing your speculation upon.

 

[Benotti69]

.....Then, what could you be basing your speculation upon.

Speculation is exactly it! based on? Fanboyism