• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1346 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
While the conspiracy theories don't stand up to any scrutiny, Tom Dumoulin and his team don't have a long history of making up blatant and obvious lies on a seemingly endless number of topics. He's also not a 4-time Tour winner. Therefore, less skepticism and no conspiracy theories.

I don't think that's exactly difficult to process, is it?

But people have heard that explanation enough times that I assume this time won't make a difference to the whining.
 
Its one thing to be sceptical about anything they say WRT to doping or associated issues....IF they are doping, then of course they are going to lie to cover that up, i mean no one in the history of the sport (or at least since it became illegal) has ever just come out and told the truth about their doping practices unless faced with the most overwhelming evidence (eg. Lance) or some kind of financial motive eg . books to sell. Even then i'm sure we only ever hear a glossed over version to paint said dopers in the best light possible.

If active dopers are questioned directly about doping, then they are going to lie about doping. That's a fact.

But lying about something like this is a whole different ball game.....fact is in life people are rarely ever pure; decent people lie occasionally, and bad people tell the truth occasionally. You just have to try and apply your own filters when judging information, and in this case my own filter is saying even if these people have lied to us in the past, why on earth would they have lied about this...
Because, wasn't it SDB that said "if you cheat on Monday you will cheat on Tuesday". Why should Sky/Ineos get any benefit of telling the truth when we know they gahve lied extensively in the past.
 
Because, wasn't it SDB that said "if you cheat on Monday you will cheat on Tuesday". Why should Sky/Ineos get any benefit of telling the truth when we know they gahve lied extensively in the past.
I keep hearing this. Lied extensively. "Blatant and obvious lies" (Red Flanders above).

So what are these lies? Just pick your favourite few.

I'll start you off with Simon Cope going to see Emma Pooley. A lie or bad memory of a five year old event? I'd lean towards the latter, but I'll grant you that one.

So what are some more? Verifiable lies, not matters of opinion.

(Red Flanders, feel free to join in)
 
@ SHADOW99
Agree with whom?
Cyclingnews originally reported like this, "Team Ineos confirmed Wednesday evening that Froome suffered a fractured femur in the crash. In addition to the broken leg, Froome also fractured his elbow and ribs in the wreck, effectively ending his hopes of adding a record-tying fifth Tour de France title in July. "
I suppose you mean the crash happened but some of those injuries were overstated (or did not happen) and you agree with the naysayers. I wonder which.

You can go back through this thread and see plenty of people who don't believe the accident was as bad as reported. The first reports I saw were he broke his femur, hip, elbow, collarbone, and ribs. As time goes on, I don't think it was that severe excluding his femur. Anything Team Ineos states can be taken with a grain of salt.
 
I keep hearing this. Lied extensively. "Blatant and obvious lies" (Red Flanders above).

So what are these lies? Just pick your favourite few.

I'll start you off with Simon Cope going to see Emma Pooley. A lie or bad memory of a five year old event? I'd lean towards the latter, but I'll grant you that one.

So what are some more? Verifiable lies, not matters of opinion.

(Red Flanders, feel free to join in)

There's an entire Sky/Ineos thread, a Froome thread, maybe a Bilharzia thread (I can't recall) that outlines all the reasons why people don't trust them.

There is a clear difference between "obvious and blatant" and "verifiable". People forming an opinion about Brailsford, Sky, or Froome make up their minds based on their opinion about what they've been told which doesn't in any way comport with reality. "Verifiable" is something which sets a bar very few people may be interested in. We're not trying to prosecute anyone, we're discussing whether we think we've been lied to. We all form opinions about people's credibility based on repeated interactions.

If you don't understand why people don't trust them or think they've obviously been lying about innumerable topics, nothing I can say now is going to change that. Folks are just in different mindsets after 8 or 9 years of watching this team.

To be honest, it's really hard for me to believe that someone truly doesn't get why folks don't trust anything this outfit puts out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SHAD0W93
There's an entire Sky/Ineos thread, a Froome thread, maybe a Bilharzia thread (I can't recall) that outlines all the reasons why people don't trust them.

There is a clear difference between "obvious and blatant" and "verifiable". People forming an opinion about Brailsford, Sky, or Froome make up their minds based on their opinion about what they've been told which doesn't in any way comport with reality. "Verifiable" is something which sets a bar very few people may be interested in. We're not trying to prosecute anyone, we're discussing whether we think we've been lied to. We all form opinions about people's credibility based on repeated interactions.

If you don't understand why people don't trust them or think they've obviously been lying about innumerable topics, nothing I can say now is going to change that. Folks are just in different mindsets after 8 or 9 years of watching this team.

To be honest, it's really hard for me to believe that someone truly doesn't get why folks don't trust anything this outfit puts out there.
I'm just asking what these lies are? Help me to understand. If they're 'blatant and obvious' surely you should be able to point out a couple of them. I'll drop the semantics if you wish.

What are your top three Sky/Ineos lies?
 
I'm just asking what these lies are? Help me to understand. If they're 'blatant and obvious' surely you should be able to point out a couple of them. I'll drop the semantics if you wish.

What are your top three Sky/Ineos lies?

  1. Virtually everything about schisto. E.g., that the worms eat significant amounts of red cells (they don’t); that it may take several treatments with PZQ to rid the body of infection (extremely rare, even Froome’s own doctor said that); that after a treatment, it’s impossible to train for a week or more (not true, according to many people who have been treated). There are so many more lies about this one issue alone, that I’m not even going to try to go on, but it’s all been discussed in this forum.
  2. That the details of the salbutamol decision would be published within a few days of the announcement that Froome’s case had been dropped.
  3. That Froome has suffered from asthma since childhood. If so, why did he never have a TUE for it when it was necessary? If he did, why isn’t it in the records, and why won’t he furnish it?
  4. Technically not a lie, but why does he refuse to publish physiological/power numbers from before 2011, other than that one mysterious FAX? It certainly becomes a lie when Sky/Ineos/Froome claim transparency.
 
Because, wasn't it SDB that said "if you cheat on Monday you will cheat on Tuesday". Why should Sky/Ineos get any benefit of telling the truth when we know they gahve lied extensively in the past.

So here, we're taking as truth a quote from SDB, who apparently cannot be given any benefit of telling the errr... truth, to illiustrate that he's probably not telling the truth.......just let me take a minute to try and work through the contradictory logic of that one o_O
 
  1. Virtually everything about schisto. E.g., that the worms eat significant amounts of red cells (they don’t); that it may take several treatments with PZQ to rid the body of infection (extremely rare, even Froome’s own doctor said that); that after a treatment, it’s impossible to train for a week or more (not true, according to many people who have been treated). There are so many more lies about this one issue alone, that I’m not even going to try to go on, but it’s all been discussed in this forum.
  2. That the details of the salbutamol decision would be published within a few days of the announcement that Froome’s case had been dropped.
  3. That Froome has suffered from asthma since childhood. If so, why did he never have a TUE for it when it was necessary? If he did, why isn’t it in the records, and why won’t he furnish it?
  4. Technically not a lie, but why does he refuse to publish physiological/power numbers from before 2011, other than that one mysterious FAX? It certainly becomes a lie when Sky/Ineos/Froome claim transparency.
Froome doesn’t need a TUE for his asthma
 
So 2 and 4 on that list shouldn't even be on that list

They big bad bastards at sky told us we’d get details about it....we haven’t got it...burn them f#ckers


We haven’t had all his information published before 2011....again burn these f#ckers


I don’t know why some want all this information for, it wont make them happy
 
Froome doesn’t need a TUE for his asthma

He would have needed to submit an Abbreviated TUE in 2007 & 2008 if he needed to inhale more than 1600 μg in 24 hours at Minolta & Barloworld so unlikely he ever filled out an ATUE there. From what I have read, generally athletes used it and if they showed >1000 in urine just had to explain why they were using it and how much they had used.

In 2009 he would have needed a normal 21 Day UCI TUE for any amount though. 2010 and onwards no 21 Day or RTUEs obviously.
 
While the conspiracy theories don't stand up to any scrutiny, Tom Dumoulin and his team don't have a long history of making up blatant and obvious lies on a seemingly endless number of topics. He's also not a 4-time Tour winner. Therefore, less skepticism and no conspiracy theories.

I don't think that's exactly difficult to process, is it?

But people have heard that explanation enough times that I assume this time won't make a difference to the whining.

No whining, not from me at least....just using a topical example to prove how easy it is to use a simple injury to explain a lengthy absence from competition.

As i said, even people with a proven history of lying generally tell the truth more often than not. Is that so difficult to process?

All the conspiracy theories seem to come to a dead end with the question 'why such an elaborate and complex and difficult to support story, when such a simple one would suffice?

Until i hear a remotely plausible answer to that one i'm sticking with my own filter that tells me, on this occasion, the great evil SDB/Sky/Ineos is actually telling the truth.
 
  1. Virtually everything about schisto. E.g., that the worms eat significant amounts of red cells (they don’t); that it may take several treatments with PZQ to rid the body of infection (extremely rare, even Froome’s own doctor said that); that after a treatment, it’s impossible to train for a week or more (not true, according to many people who have been treated). There are so many more lies about this one issue alone, that I’m not even going to try to go on, but it’s all been discussed in this forum.
  2. That the details of the salbutamol decision would be published within a few days of the announcement that Froome’s case had been dropped.
  3. That Froome has suffered from asthma since childhood. If so, why did he never have a TUE for it when it was necessary? If he did, why isn’t it in the records, and why won’t he furnish it?
  4. Technically not a lie, but why does he refuse to publish physiological/power numbers from before 2011, other than that one mysterious FAX? It certainly becomes a lie when Sky/Ineos/Froome claim transparency.
  1. This isn't a lie. This is a difference of opinions about the severity of a disease. A disease that I suspect you have no experience of. I'd be very surprised if a disease which has several variations and effects 200 million has uniform severity. You are making the classic sceptics error of confusing your opinion with fact.
  2. It's the UCI/WADA's report. It's up to them to publish. Again not a lie.
  3. Didn't he have a TUE? Have you asked Barloworld. Sure it wasn't in the Fancy Bear leak, but was he on Addams at the time?
  4. After three non-lies, you are already on to things you admit aren't lies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rick james
This is one tour de France that will stand the test of time. Now that's a lie.
There's been so much bollocks spewed by Sky/Brailsford, that it would take a long time to compile a list. Anyway, why bother. The good Sky soldiers will stick to their line anyway. People generally don't like being lied to, because they feel it insults their intelligence.
 
This is one tour de France that will stand the test of time. Now that's a lie.
There's been so much bollocks spewed by Sky/Brailsford, that it would take a long time to compile a list. Anyway, why bother. The good Sky soldiers will stick to their line anyway. People generally don't like being lied to, because they feel it insults their intelligence.
[/QUOTE]

That's got to be the worst example of a lie yet... i mean it's proven to be 100% accurate so far :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: wrinklyvet
If we're allowing personal opinions to be presented as lies, here's my top 10 lies about Froome made up by the Clinic/other internet posters:

  1. Chris Froome is not an exceptionally talented endurance athlete
  2. Chris Froome has never had Balharzia (or however you spell it)
  3. Chris Froome's best result pre 2011 was the anatomic jock race
  4. Chris Froome is a convicted doper
  5. Chris Froome rides a motorbike
  6. Chris Froome's 2007 test data was fabricated
  7. Chris Froomes's 2016 test data was fabricated
  8. Chris Froome didn't really crash his bike at the 2019 Dauphine
  9. Chris Froome hasnt got asthma
  10. Chris Froome hates bunny rabbits

Shame i've limited myself to 10, i could go on and on....
 
  1. This isn't a lie. This is a difference of opinions about the severity of a disease. A disease that I suspect you have no experience of. I'd be very surprised if a disease which has several variations and effects 200 million has uniform severity. You are making the classic sceptics error of confusing your opinion with fact.
Not a difference of opinion. Ask any doctor or person treated for the disease. Again, there is much, much more on this in one of threads. The worms aren't the problem wrt red blood cells; it's the eggs, which should alter passport readings, though Froome's were reported to be fine. His own doctor said he didn't understand how Froome could need more than two treatments. The timeline of treatments doesn't correlate at all with times of poor performance ascribed to having the disease. This goes on and on.

I'm not claiming he didn't have the disease. I'm claiming he lied about it, showed a lot of evidence of not even understanding it (he referred to the agents as a virus once), and that those lies were instrumental in building the false narrative that the disease could explain why he wasn't a better rider prior to 2011.

It's the UCI/WADA's report. It's up to them to publish. Again not a lie.

So Froome goes to UCI/WADA and says, I want this published to exonerate me in the public's eye. And they forbid him? Seriously? On what basis? And Froome doesn't make another announcement, saying he wants it published, but they won't let him? Seriously?

Didn't he have a TUE? Have you asked Barloworld. Sure it wasn't in the Fancy Bear leak, but was he on Addams at the time?

One of his own teammates at Barlo had it leaked by FB. Why not Froome?

After three non-lies, you are already on to things you admit aren't lies.

There are far more than three just on the schist issue alone. I was being brief, because it's been discussed before.
 
Last edited:
1. Are you seriously claiming that a disease has exactly uniform symptoms and levels of severity. And recovery is identical regardless of the patient. And still not a lie.
As for Froome's account - he's not a doctor. He's explaining something he doesn't really understand. Ask cancer sufferers to explain in detail the mechanism of cancer. Will they get it all right? Of course not. Not a lie .

2. Maybe they could have got into a further pointless battle with the UCI. But that doesn't make it a lie.

3. Cummings used to be on the British Track team. Maybe they adopted the Addams system early. Again just because there is no record of the asthma it doesn't mean he's lying. And why lie anyway - anyone's free to use ventolin, asthma or not.

4. Yet you have still haven't come up with a single lie


So where are these lies?
 
1. Are you seriously claiming that a disease has exactly uniform symptoms and levels of severity. And recovery is identical regardless of the patient. And still not a lie.

This is the kind of argument that people use to promote quack treatments. Nothing in medicine, or in life pretty much, is exactly uniform. Maybe one person in a hundred will have some side effect from a drug. Does that mean it's likely that someone at random will have the side effect? We would certainly use that probability to convict someone of doping, but we're going to give Froome a pass on what he says about schisto?

As for Froome's account - he's not a doctor. He's explaining something he doesn't really understand. Ask cancer sufferers to explain in detail the mechanism of cancer. Will they get it all right? Of course not. Not a lie .

This response of yours is, frankly, pathetic. I'm not talking about details, I'm talking about basic things anyone with a disease would know about. Not even taking into account that in this day and age, with the internet, most people become nearly as informed about a disease as their doctor.. I never heard someone with cancer refer to the causative agent as a virus (in most cases). Anyone with AIDS knows damned well that a virus is the agent, and not something else.

Beyond that, if you use physiology to advance an argument, you can't then plead ignorance about the physiology. If Froome doesn't know the details about schisto, he shouldn't be making claims about how it could affect his riding.

2. Maybe they could have got into a further pointless battle with the UCI. But that doesn't make it a lie.

Maybe you're different, but when I promise someone something, then don't deliver, I provide an explanation as to why I couldn't keep the promise. Having not done that, I certainly wouldn't complain that I can never satisfy people with my explanations.

3. Cummings used to be on the British Track team. Maybe they adopted the Addams system early. Again just because there is no record of the asthma it doesn't mean he's lying.

Again, someone who has nothing to hide will set the record straight. It's the easiest thing in the world to do.

4. Yet you have still haven't come up with a single lie.

Your responses indicate that you either don't understand, or are in major denial, about how dishonesty manifests itself. You want to get all technical about what a lie is, ignoring the enormous amount of deception that's occurring. Maybe technically, Clinton didn't lie about having sex with Lewinsky. He was still dishonest about it. Maybe technically, Trump's daughter doesn't lie to get ahead in business. She still, by her own written words, makes use of dishonesty. Sins of omission are just as dishonest as sins of commission.
 
  • Like
Reactions: red_flanders

TRENDING THREADS