Oh, how Bipartisan brains are these days: because one thing is true (a horrible crash that creates permanent damage) then it cannot possibly be another. More than one thing can be true at a time, but folks (not just you at all) become aghast and horrified that something other than the issue your’e defending could ALSO be true or a logical consideration. That’s not really very costly here in this venue, but it’s made it such a challenge to have thoughtful conversations (at least in the U.S.) about any topic than contains some complexity or conflict.Honestly this is one of the least considerate implications levelled against a TdF winner after injury. You must be an outsider, not an athlete on a top level and never experienced a "crash" that destroyed on leg. Seriously; no amount of "clinic" aids can restore structural damage to this level and he's continued like most pros would: to continue getting paid. He's not recovering from road rash.
what I was thinking about was that any Premier GC rider these days—but withFroome it was really noticeable—they have to achieve full skeletor physique to get to the optimum power-weight ratio to be competitive. Let’s say that was just accomplished through an extremely restrictive diet. Trying to be on that dietary regime while also trying to regain bone mass would not seem to go together and perhaps work against a best possible recovery. But the latter is conjecture of course. Which I certainly don’t have to be an elite-level athlete to make in this forum!