Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

So again, for those suspicious that this has been faked, can you explain the motive and the endgame? What is the point? If you're going to suggest they're lying, you must at least have some guess as to what the point of this elaborate subterfuge would be, so let's hear it.

[Disclaimer: It's total nonsense] I suppose the motive would be that Froome is glowing and they want to avoid him being tested.

Of course they could just say he has bronchitis and achieve the same thing instead of having him slam himself against a wall.

Right...I don't see why one would bother making up something so dramatic involving so many people who could refute the story. Or something that would take so long to recover from.

Why would Froomey be taking such risks in the recon of a relatively ***-small training ride?

The idea of a recon ride isn't just to roll around the course sightseeing....although you wouldn't want to be taking big risks and pushing at 100%, you want to be close to race pace at times to get a proper feel for the course.

With hindsight and in the shadow of the TDF, the Dauphine may seem 'sh*t small now, but its an important race for the serious TDF GC contenders to put down a marker and you can bet Froome was in it to win it.

And as far as taking risks goes, call it complacency if you like, but he'll have taken his hands off the bars in exactly the same manner as he did on this day countless times before....he wouldn't have consciously considered it to be a risk he was taking. He was just extremely unlucky to be hit by a gust of wind at exactly the wrong moment. Sh*t happens as they say....

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Why would Froomey be taking such risks in the recon of a relatively ***-small training ride?

I don't really have any idea what risks he was or wasn't taking. I have only what the team is saying, which of course coming from DB is bound to have some degree of BS involved.

If you're referring to him reportedly going 60kph down a hill, this seems entirely unremarkable to me. I routinely hit speeds like this on any ride I do, and often exceed them significantly on long downhills. I'm just some old dude going out for fun. For a pro I would have to imagine these speeds are nothing. Near a wall? There are always going to be things you don't want to hit on the side of roads. I wouldn't give it a second thought.

I just don't see what's remarkable about what's been reported other than the guy apparently didn't hit the brakes, drop his bike, or in any way brace for the crash. Sounds like he just blew it and wasn't paying attention. It happens.

Not exactly the world's greatest bike handler, is he? Though he has improved over the years, he's still awkward as all get out and usually not looking at the road ahead. I'm not shocked. Surprised it didn't happen a long time ago.

 

[myrideissteelerthanyours]

Re: Re:

Why would Froomey be taking such risks in the recon of a relatively ***-small training ride?

I routinely hit speeds like this on any ride I do, and often exceed them significantly on long downhills.

What brand of disk do you use on your fun rides? How light is your bike? How light are you? How good do you think your chances of winning a historic tour de france are this summer? Do you put as much emphasis on the recon before you fun ride as the actual ride? How does your professional training staff feel about this plan?

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Why would Froomey be taking such risks in the recon of a relatively ***-small training ride?

I don't really have any idea what risks he was or wasn't taking. I have only what the team is saying, which of course coming from DB is bound to have some degree of BS involved.

If you're referring to him reportedly going 60kph down a hill, this seems entirely unremarkable to me. I routinely hit speeds like this on any ride I do, and often exceed them significantly on long downhills. I'm just some old dude going out for fun. For a pro I would have to imagine these speeds are nothing. Near a wall? There are always going to be things you don't want to hit on the side of roads. I wouldn't give it a second thought.

I just don't see what's remarkable about what's been reported other than the guy apparently didn't hit the brakes, drop his bike, or in any way brace for the crash. Sounds like he just blew it and wasn't paying attention. It happens.

Not exactly the world's greatest bike handler, is he? Though he has improved over the years, he's still awkward as all get out and usually not looking at the road ahead. I'm not shocked. Surprised it didn't happen a long time ago.

What brand of disk do you use on your fun rides? How light is your bike? How light are you? How good do you think your chances of winning a historic tour de france are this summer? Do you put as much emphasis on the recon before you fun ride as the actual ride? How does your professional training staff feel about this plan?

Good stuff. The point is that 60kph isn't surprisingly fast for anyone, least of all a pro. No matter what they're riding. The idea that 60kph means he was "taking risks" is not one I would agree with without a LOT more information about what he was doing. It sounds unremarkable in the extreme.

That said, I have no reason to actually believe that he was going at that speed other than because SDB said so. Which means I have no reason, as the guy lies for seemingly no reason all the time.

So that leaves us to wonder what exactly happened, but looks like we won't ever see footage of the crash. Which is fine.

 

[hrotha]

You're too diplomatic, red_flanders. The idea that 60kph means he was taking risks is utterly stupid.

 

[macbindle]

Why would Froomey be taking such risks in the recon of a relatively ***-small training ride?

I don't really have any idea what risks he was or wasn't taking. I have only what the team is saying, which of course coming from DB is bound to have some degree of BS involved.

If you're referring to him reportedly going 60kph down a hill, this seems entirely unremarkable to me. I routinely hit speeds like this on any ride I do, and often exceed them significantly on long downhills. I'm just some old dude going out for fun. For a pro I would have to imagine these speeds are nothing. Near a wall? There are always going to be things you don't want to hit on the side of roads. I wouldn't give it a second thought.

I just don't see what's remarkable about what's been reported other than the guy apparently didn't hit the brakes, drop his bike, or in any way brace for the crash. Sounds like he just blew it and wasn't paying attention. It happens.

Not exactly the world's greatest bike handler, is he? Though he has improved over the years, he's still awkward as all get out and usually not looking at the road ahead. I'm not shocked. Surprised it didn't happen a long time ago.

What brand of disk do you use on your fun rides? How light is your bike? How light are you? How good do you think your chances of winning a historic tour de france are this summer? Do you put as much emphasis on the recon before you fun ride as the actual ride? How does your professional training staff feel about this plan?

Good stuff. The point is that 60kph isn't surprisingly fast for anyone, least of all a pro. No matter what they're riding. The idea that 60kph means he was "taking risks" is not one I would agree with without a LOT more information about what he was doing. It sounds unremarkable in the extreme.

That said, I have no reason to actually believe that he was going at that speed other than because SDB said so. Which means I have no reason, as the guy lies for seemingly no reason all the time.

So that leaves us to wonder what exactly happened, but looks like we won't ever see footage of the crash. Which is fine.

Lies for no reason all the time? Really??

The only times I'm sure he has lied is when confronted about allegations of doping/TUE misuse. He definitely has a reason in those circumstances.

 

[Merckx index]

OK, I didn't know he was riding with disk wheels, that does make a big difference. I also didn't think that "recon" meant "ride it as though you were racing it".

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

I've been blown right across the road with 303s with a firm grip on bars. He had deep TT wheels and one hand on the bars. We already know his team mate felt Froone was taking risks that day, and warned him, which suggests a certain mindset perhaps from fatigue.

Frankly, this current topic is barking, utterly barking. As RF suggests it is a conspiracy theory in reverse as it hasn't actually worked out what it is trying to explain.

I suppose though it does let us know who's posts arent worth reading and responding to. Either that or we treat every crash from every rider as a deliberate and suspicious attempt to do something, although what that something is we are not sure about.

Anybody reckon Beloki deliberately sabotaged his tubular glue to cause him to crash and avoid a dope test/ban/alien abduction? Anybody think Beloki wasnt doping?

I rest my case.

not sure what you mean...SDB said it was Diegnan that crashed...sorry...the crash was in spain....and....er...Froome was at home anyway.....sorry...how do I know.....check the records...oh...we don't keep them....check the laptop then.....oh, it was stolen...well why don't we just get it straight from the horses mouth....oh...he won't speak.........

oh, well...all good questions and questions that should be asked and that should be answered.......now then, can I interest you in some goss about those shady argentianan riders.......

poor old SDB created a whole conspirancy out of thin air when there was nothingint to conspire about.......

don't know about you McB...I trust him

SDB lied about some stuff. He also didnt lie about some other stuff (like, for example, admitting that he is the boss of Sky/Ineos, or that Froome rides for his team, or that his name is Dave)

What you and others are doing is generalizing from a selective example (selection bias). What you are doing is as stupid as saying SDB always tells the truth because he told the truth about the examples I gave. In epistemological terms, it's pure crap.

this isn't a philosophy class...

it's about the credibility of the witness...SDB has no credinility (not just my opinion, but also that of a select committee)...indeed...it's also about the credibility of the subject..both in terms of his 2011 conversion and in terms of the rather 'hazy' medical history which follows him around, specifically asthma, badzilla and bronchitis.....

In bullsh*t terms it's...er...pure crap

That's an observation as I have no current reason to belive that there is a conspiracy in this case - other than of course its SDB and Froome and hecne in which case I could be persuaded

 

[macbindle]

@MI Froome might elaborate more at a later date. I find it strange that a man who suffered a horrific crash, spent several hours on the ground being given emergency care, then had an 8 hour operation, several days in intensive care, and then potentially weeks in hospital missing out on his one objective of the year (and indeed lifetime) is expected to account for himself to a handful of loon conspiracy theorists on the internet, most of whom dont seem to have much of a clue about bike riding.

@Gillan

SDB has no credibility when it comes to questions of his riders doping. He has credibility in many other areas, not least finding funding for, and running one of the most successful teams in cycling. The DCMS asked him about the former, and not the latter.

Actually the same can be said of Froome. He stretches my suspension of disbelief a little too far, especially when he talks about bilharzia accounting for little to no success in pro cycling, prior to podiiuming a GT. But, he has credibility in other areas. You could give me all the PEDS in the world and I still wouldn't win a GT, and the same could probably be said of most pro riders. Drugs or no drugs the guy has some serious qualities otherwise he wouldn't be where he is. Not many in this thread can see that because they are blinded by their own prejudice. That's not to say I like him. I dont.

 

[rick james]

Re: Re:

So again, for those suspicious that this has been faked, can you explain the motive and the endgame? What is the point? If you're going to suggest they're lying, you must at least have some guess as to what the point of this elaborate subterfuge would be, so let's hear it.

[Disclaimer: It's total nonsense] I suppose the motive would be that Froome is glowing and they want to avoid him being tested.

Of course they could just say he has bronchitis and achieve the same thing instead of having him slam himself against a wall.

Right...I don't see why one would bother making up something so dramatic involving so many people who could refute the story. Or something that would take so long to recover from.

Why would Froomey be taking such risks in the recon of a relatively ***-small training ride?

what one hand off his bike is taking a big risk?

 

[rick james]

he was coming off a downhill, of course he was going fast

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

Lies for no reason all the time? Really??

The only times I'm sure he has lied is when confronted about allegations of doping/TUE misuse. He definitely has a reason in those circumstances.

Every time that guy opens his mouth I hear bull-snort pouring out. He's ridiculous. No, I don't take anything he says at face value. YMMV.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

You're too diplomatic, red_flanders. The idea that 60kph means he was taking risks is utterly stupid.

You're probably right. Point taken.

 

[red_flanders]

Getting more and more difficult to maintain the conspiracy. Now Froome has the doctors and nurses of St. Etienne Hospital involved.

Also speed of the crash has been slightly downgraded to 55kph. .

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/chris-froome-leaves-saint-etienne-hospital-still-not-able-return-home-427972

 

[Robert5091]

Or maybe he never was in any hospital? :lol:

 

[Singer01]

I'm so embarrassed by some of the loons on this forum right now.

 

[wirral]

Froome is apparently leaving hospital but cannot go home. Where is he going?

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

Froome is apparently leaving hospital but cannot go home. Where is he going?

To another hospital closer to home? I think that was always the stated plan as soon as he was well enough....

 

[macbindle]

Yes, I think I'd read he was going to be in hospital for weeks.

I really think this is it for him in terms of big wins. He's clearly a determined person but I cant see Ineos building the team around him next summer or the one after, by which time he will be 36.

It's been a tough month for him. Hes learned that he might be retrospectively declared winner of the '11 Vuelta...which if he had won at the time may have put him as leader of team in '12 TdF, which he would probably have won.. .giving him 5 TdF wins and putting him in the history books. Some may view his fate as natural justice, but had he got his names into the history books it would have sat very comfortably next to that of Miguel Indurain.

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

Yes, I think I'd read he was going to be in hospital for weeks.

I really think this is it for him in terms of big wins. He's clearly a determined person but I cant see Ineos building the team around him next summer or the one after, by which time he will be 36.

It's been a tough month for him. Hes learned that he might be retrospectively declared winner of the '11 Vuelta...which if he had won at the time may have put him as leader of team in '12 TdF, which he would probably have won.. .giving him 5 TdF wins and putting him in the history books. Some may view his fate as natural justice, but had he got his names into the history books it would have sat very comfortably next to that of Miguel Indurain.

Hmm...not so sure about that, I think 2012 TDF had Wiggins name all over it for various reasons and it would have taken more than a freak result for a relative unknown Froome at the 2011 Vuelta to change that...

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Yes, I think I'd read he was going to be in hospital for weeks.

I really think this is it for him in terms of big wins. He's clearly a determined person but I cant see Ineos building the team around him next summer or the one after, by which time he will be 36.

It's been a tough month for him. Hes learned that he might be retrospectively declared winner of the '11 Vuelta...which if he had won at the time may have put him as leader of team in '12 TdF, which he would probably have won.. .giving him 5 TdF wins and putting him in the history books. Some may view his fate as natural justice, but had he got his names into the history books it would have sat very comfortably next to that of Miguel Indurain.

Hmm...not so sure about that, I think 2012 TDF had Wiggins name all over it for various reasons and it would have taken more than a freak result for a relative unknown Froome at the 2011 Vuelta to change that...

I think McQuiad called it the 'fairytale" (a Wigggins win)

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

@MI Froome might elaborate more at a later date. I find it strange that a man who suffered a horrific crash, spent several hours on the ground being given emergency care, then had an 8 hour operation, several days in intensive care, and then potentially weeks in hospital missing out on his one objective of the year (and indeed lifetime) is expected to account for himself to a handful of loon conspiracy theorists on the internet, most of whom dont seem to have much of a clue about bike riding.

@Gillan

SDB has no credibility when it comes to questions of his riders doping. He has credibility in many other areas, not least finding funding for, and running one of the most successful teams in cycling. The DCMS asked him about the former, and not the latter.

Actually the same can be said of Froome. He stretches my suspension of disbelief a little too far, especially when he talks about bilharzia accounting for little to no success in pro cycling, prior to podiiuming a GT. But, he has credibility in other areas. You could give me all the PEDS in the world and I still wouldn't win a GT, and the same could probably be said of most pro riders. Drugs or no drugs the guy has some serious qualities otherwise he wouldn't be where he is. Not many in this thread can see that because they are blinded by their own prejudice. That's not to say I like him. I dont.

well, of course, one follows the other...........

 

[macbindle]

Yes, there is most likely a key truth in there...

....but some doping teams can be more focused and organised than others. I find SDB both interesting and repugnant at the same time, but it's hard to discount what many ex-Sky riders have said about the efficiency and organisation of the outfit compared to many other teams.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re:

I'm so embarrassed by some of the loons on this forum right now.

MANY here were called "loons", "FOS", "haters" etc. When anyone dare question Cancer Jesus/Wonderboy on whether or not he "doped", infact, they lopped it up like a thirsty dog, bought into his " I've been tested 967 times, more than any other athlete in the world" nonsense too, how'd that turn out?

Do i think Froome/Horner/Sagan/Nibali/Thomas are all doping now, or have in the past? Yes, yes i do.

Does it matter to you and thousands of others who honestly believe they're " all cleans"? Not really I'm sure.

The dopers and corruption of the sport has really turned me off from it, nearly completely. I'll watch it on TV occasionally, but my serious interest in it, was lost after LeMond(& later Cadel) retired.

 

[macbindle]

I dont think you've understood.

Singer isnt questioning doing accusations. Hes questioning the notion that all the Froome crash stuff has been faked...from the paramedics working with him on the road...to the ambulance...to the hospital....everything.

I'm with him. It's ridiculous.