Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1340 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

rick james said:
gillan1969 said:
rick james said:
Swingtop said:
Photo not showing anything really, and all the witnesses are cyclists. Why don't they silence the conspiracy guys once and for all by just showing something? It's not like we cycling fans are squeamish, we're used to this stuff. After all the horror stories, I also found the state of Froome remarkable, and the interviews quite strange. But if this was fake, I don't really understand the motive though. Forgoing a 5th TdF win is not something you'd easily do. Still, waiting for some photos of Froome's injuries.
You won’t be getting any photos....it has nothing to do with you
we will be getting photos......the convalesence will be well documented by the likes of Moore and Walsh....it has everything to do with us.........we are his public

We might get some pictures of his X-rays(which won’t be enough for some) what the tinfoil hat mob want is pictures of his bones sticking out and him getting worked on at the side of the road
....which still wont be enough for some
 
I don't think the photo of him is very conclusive. But according to what Ineos have put out regarding his accident the photo doesn't seem like he has 8 hours surgery, has been in intensive care, broken sternum etc. It wouldn't be the first time Ineos stories do not tie up. I know a lot of the 'tin foil hat' brigade do not deny that Froome had the accident, but I think some are sceptical to the extent of the accident. When it happened everyone was hoping the lad would have a normal life after the accident due to some of the reports.

The photo doesn't paint the whole picture and it's just inline with the whole lack of transparency stuff from Sky/Ineos.

However, just so you 'non-tin foil' hat brigade don't jump on me. Froome is also entitled to his privacy in hospital too. He shouldn't have to post a photo of him in his hospital bed and I think once again, the Sky/Ineos PR dept have made a blunder in doing this.
 
Come on guys, even entertaining this idea is absurd. There were multiple (and independent) witnesses who were horrified by the crash.

Not to mention the twitter guy who championed this theory is literally, unironically, a flat-earther. :lol:
 
Re:

frenchfry said:
What if the dawg wasn't blowing his nose, but was reaching for his microphone to talk to his DS when he crashed.

Now there is a conspiracy theory I could buy into.
What if Chris was really reaching for his inhaler.

What if Woet really pushed him off of the bike and it wasn't the wind - look out Egan!!!

Did the wind only catch the wheel like this because it was so perfectly round?

Etc etc etc
 
Re:

MartinGT said:
I don't think the photo of him is very conclusive. But according to what Ineos have put out regarding his accident the photo doesn't seem like he has 8 hours surgery, has been in intensive care, broken sternum etc. It wouldn't be the first time Ineos stories do not tie up. I know a lot of the 'tin foil hat' brigade do not deny that Froome had the accident, but I think some are sceptical to the extent of the accident. When it happened everyone was hoping the lad would have a normal life after the accident due to some of the reports.

The photo doesn't paint the whole picture and it's just inline with the whole lack of transparency stuff from Sky/Ineos.

However, just so you 'non-tin foil' hat brigade don't jump on me. Froome is also entitled to his privacy in hospital too. He shouldn't have to post a photo of him in his hospital bed and I think once again, the Sky/Ineos PR dept have made a blunder in doing this.

So I’m other words, no matter what ineos/ Froome do, it’s always wrong.....excellent
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
MartinGT said:
I don't think the photo of him is very conclusive. But according to what Ineos have put out regarding his accident the photo doesn't seem like he has 8 hours surgery, has been in intensive care, broken sternum etc. It wouldn't be the first time Ineos stories do not tie up. I know a lot of the 'tin foil hat' brigade do not deny that Froome had the accident, but I think some are sceptical to the extent of the accident. When it happened everyone was hoping the lad would have a normal life after the accident due to some of the reports.

The photo doesn't paint the whole picture and it's just inline with the whole lack of transparency stuff from Sky/Ineos.

However, just so you 'non-tin foil' hat brigade don't jump on me. Froome is also entitled to his privacy in hospital too. He shouldn't have to post a photo of him in his hospital bed and I think once again, the Sky/Ineos PR dept have made a blunder in doing this.

So I’m other words, no matter what ineos/ Froome do, it’s always wrong.....excellent
Was interesting what Neil Rogers said. He asked Ineos to release the X-Rays and the reply he got back was they would be claimed to be fake anyway and achieve nothing, which is basically true. No different than had the laptop existed or been produced, nobody would believe a medical record on it reading the words Flumicil, the story would just move onto the medical records being fake.
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
rick james said:
MartinGT said:
I don't think the photo of him is very conclusive. But according to what Ineos have put out regarding his accident the photo doesn't seem like he has 8 hours surgery, has been in intensive care, broken sternum etc. It wouldn't be the first time Ineos stories do not tie up. I know a lot of the 'tin foil hat' brigade do not deny that Froome had the accident, but I think some are sceptical to the extent of the accident. When it happened everyone was hoping the lad would have a normal life after the accident due to some of the reports.

The photo doesn't paint the whole picture and it's just inline with the whole lack of transparency stuff from Sky/Ineos.

However, just so you 'non-tin foil' hat brigade don't jump on me. Froome is also entitled to his privacy in hospital too. He shouldn't have to post a photo of him in his hospital bed and I think once again, the Sky/Ineos PR dept have made a blunder in doing this.

So I’m other words, no matter what ineos/ Froome do, it’s always wrong.....excellent
Was interesting what Neil Rogers said. He asked Ineos to release the X-Rays and the reply he got back was they would be claimed to be fake anyway and achieve nothing, which is basically true. No different than had the laptop existed or been produced, nobody would believe a medical record on it reading the words Flumicil, the story would just move onto the medical records being fake.
God loves a trier.......er.....the story is the lost laptop, the lack of records and the doc not speaking...that's what points to the PEDs use....keep up
 
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.

To those pointing out that nothing Froome and/or Skineos puts out will change things, yes. People don't believe them because they've been lying about basically everything for so long they've created an environment where no one believes anything they say. It's completely on them. But yeah, photos aren't really going to change the fact that they cannot be believed. Let's try not to act incredulous that people take nothing they say at face value.

They could obviously have the (independent, not team) doctors come out and do a presser which goes into detail about his injuries and his prognosis. So saying they could do nothing to change the perception is another lie. They just don't want to.

But again, let's hear what folks think they're actually doing if this is all a ruse.
 
Conspiracy theorists, as usual, are so preoccupied by the most wildly improbable scenario, the one they want to believe, that they don't ask what other explanations are possible.

Ineos seems, to some anyway, to be withholding information. Instead of immediately jumping to the conclusion that the crash never happened, why not ask what other reasons they might have for being tight-lipped.

What about the cause of the crash? From the moment I heard the official explanation I didn't get it: that Froome took one hand off his bike to blow his nose, and a gust of wind blew him into the wall. I'm not a pro racer, but I've done a fair amount of riding, sometimes in very windy conditions, and I've never had a problem like that. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but if it were really windy, I would not be in a position where a sudden change in my line of movement would put me in danger. I would think Froome would have to be very close to the wall, inches away, which would be unsafe even without wind or momentary loss of control. Why would he be riding at nearly 60 kph right next to a wall? Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

So is it possible the accident was caused by something else? A flat tire, or other mechanical? Another rider making contact with him and pushing him into the wall? If that were the case, why would Ineos cover it up? Maybe they really weren't sure of the cause, and didn't want to implicate another person wrongly? Could there be a liability issue at stake?

Or could Froome have some medical problem that has been unreported, such that he temporarily lost control of his bike, and Ineos doesn't want the public to know about it? Maybe he had an attack of asthma, assuming he really does suffer from that?

I'm not saying this is likely, and I'm not saying that Ineos's behavior demands an explanation, but if you do incline in that direction, this possibility sure is a lot more appealing than a fake crash. It's plausible, even if unproven.
 
Re:

Merckx index said:
Conspiracy theorists, as usual, are so preoccupied by the most wildly improbable scenario, the one they want to believe, that they don't ask what other explanations are possible.

Ineos seems, to some anyway, to be withholding information. Instead of immediately jumping to the conclusion that the crash never happened, why not ask what other reasons they might have for being tight-lipped.

What about the cause of the crash? From the moment I heard the official explanation I didn't get it: that Froome took one hand off his bike to blow his nose, and a gust of wind blew him into the wall. I'm not a pro racer, but I've done a fair amount of riding, sometimes in very windy conditions, and I've never had a problem like that. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but if it were really windy, I would not be in a position where a sudden change in my line of movement would put me in danger. I would think Froome would have to be very close to the wall, inches away, which would be unsafe even without wind or momentary loss of control. Why would he be riding at nearly 60 kph right next to a wall? Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

So is it possible the accident was caused by something else? A flat tire, or other mechanical? Another rider making contact with him and pushing him into the wall? If that were the case, why would Ineos cover it up? Maybe they really weren't sure of the cause, and didn't want to implicate another person wrongly? Could there be a liability issue at stake?

Or could Froome have some medical problem that has been unreported, such that he temporarily lost control of his bike, and Ineos doesn't want the public to know about it? Maybe he had an attack of asthma, assuming he really does suffer from that?

I'm not saying this is likely, and I'm not saying that Ineos's behavior demands an explanation, but if you do incline in that direction, this possibility sure is a lot more appealing than a fake crash. It's plausible, even if unproven.

Well a gust of wind on a windy day during the off season (2 off seasons ago) blew Ruben Fernandez of the road and into a ditch which cause him some injuries and a hospital visit. So that part is possible, esp with a TT bike. Ruben was on his road bike.
 
Folks, I think we have jumped the shark.
As someone mentioned, there are much easier ways to fake an injury in a silent ban scenario.
Good lord.
It wasn't too long ago when Geraint Thomas was sent flying through the air like superman at Gent Whevelgem.
He was on a road bike. He had both hands on the bars. Im sure most have seen the awesome photo of him flying through the air into a ditch.
If I had any say in faking an injury, the blowing my nose excuse would be at the bottom of the list.
Not sexy.
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
gillan1969 said:
rick james said:
Swingtop said:
Photo not showing anything really, and all the witnesses are cyclists. Why don't they silence the conspiracy guys once and for all by just showing something? It's not like we cycling fans are squeamish, we're used to this stuff. After all the horror stories, I also found the state of Froome remarkable, and the interviews quite strange. But if this was fake, I don't really understand the motive though. Forgoing a 5th TdF win is not something you'd easily do. Still, waiting for some photos of Froome's injuries.
You won’t be getting any photos....it has nothing to do with you
we will be getting photos......the convalesence will be well documented by the likes of Moore and Walsh....it has everything to do with us.........we are his public

We might get some pictures of his X-rays(which won’t be enough for some) what the tinfoil hat mob want is pictures of his bones sticking out and him getting worked on at the side of the road
Not me, I'd just like for him to admit he's shady and doping, but I know that won't happen. I have a better chance of getting abducted by aliens than that happening. :D :lol:
 
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.
 
Re:

Merckx index said:
Conspiracy theorists, as usual, are so preoccupied by the most wildly improbable scenario, the one they want to believe, that they don't ask what other explanations are possible.

Ineos seems, to some anyway, to be withholding information. Instead of immediately jumping to the conclusion that the crash never happened, why not ask what other reasons they might have for being tight-lipped.

What about the cause of the crash? From the moment I heard the official explanation I didn't get it: that Froome took one hand off his bike to blow his nose, and a gust of wind blew him into the wall. I'm not a pro racer, but I've done a fair amount of riding, sometimes in very windy conditions, and I've never had a problem like that. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but if it were really windy, I would not be in a position where a sudden change in my line of movement would put me in danger. I would think Froome would have to be very close to the wall, inches away, which would be unsafe even without wind or momentary loss of control. Why would he be riding at nearly 60 kph right next to a wall? Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

So is it possible the accident was caused by something else? A flat tire, or other mechanical? Another rider making contact with him and pushing him into the wall? If that were the case, why would Ineos cover it up? Maybe they really weren't sure of the cause, and didn't want to implicate another person wrongly? Could there be a liability issue at stake?

Or could Froome have some medical problem that has been unreported, such that he temporarily lost control of his bike, and Ineos doesn't want the public to know about it? Maybe he had an attack of asthma, assuming he really does suffer from that?

I'm not saying this is likely, and I'm not saying that Ineos's behavior demands an explanation, but if you do incline in that direction, this possibility sure is a lot more appealing than a fake crash. It's plausible, even if unproven.
I don't know, could be completely wrong...but i'm guessing you've never ridden a TT bike with deep section front wheel and rear disc in gusty conditions?
 
Re:

macbindle said:
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 :D :D
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY