That explains it as the reaction was implying you were triggered by something but i didn't know what caused it. Well, the truth is it doesn't make much difference, does it?
Yes it does, because, as I mentioned, training is entirely different from racing, and road furniture that is a danger for road racing is an essential safety feature the rest of the year. When you're debating the dangers of road
racing, crashes outside of race conditions are entirely irrelevant.
I don't know about that, the era of naivety is IMHO over, more in depth coverage, pressure and sensitivity on the raise:
WorldTour, Women's WorldTour and ProTeam riders sidelined from racing while recovering from injuries
www.cyclingnews.com
There is a huge, huge, insane logical leap of interpretation from "more riders have got injured early season than usual" to "people are legitimately calling for this sport to be banned".
On top of that i guess that is only the tip of the iceberg:
Former Tour de France Femmes champion has habitually spoken about periods, nutrition and health, saying 'it's very important to keep speaking up'
www.cyclingnews.com
It's a well known fact that if a woman keeps body fat percentage too low for prolonged time certain biological processes simply stop and illness such as osteoporosis surges. In modern sport such things are becoming a part of the sport, on where in the past the sport wanted to keep it out. Cycling here i guess again not on the frontiers but again likely one of the last sport to acknowledge it.
That has absolutely nothing to do with crashes in road racing or implementing of airbags. It's literally nothing to do with the point at hand. It is a perfectly reasonable discussion point, but it's completely unrelated to your prior argument or in fact this thread as a whole.
You detract from any good points you have to make when your argument is presented in ludicrously bad faith.
You supported the point of there being too much danger in racing by including an article about someone who crashed in training. Then you claimed you didn't post an article about a crash in training. When then confronted with the evidence that, in fact, you did, you claim it still supports your point.
You claimed that cycling is on its way to being banned, a completely and utterly baseless statement, which you attempt to support by posting a link to an article that claims nothing more than "more riders than usual have got hurt so far this season", and then for some reason throw in a completely unrelated article about women's health that has absolutely nothing to do with the outcomes of crashes. Literally
nothing is said in that article about rider safety in the context of crashes and injuries.
So, again, I ask you, do you actually
read the articles you post in favour of your argument? Or do you just make your argument and throw hyperlinks in there in the blind hope that it supports your point?