Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1350 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
  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.
 
Reactions: red_flanders
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?



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.



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.



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



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.
Yet again none. of these are lies. They are just differences in how you think you would have behaved in a certain situation (always faultlessly with the benefit of several years hindsight and infallable knowledge and memory and entirely tailored to an audience exactly like you) and how people behave in reality
 
what is he meant to feed a snake? cornflakes?
Maybe the mice and rats he was feeding them before or buy rabbits instead of steal them.

"In captivity ball pythons can spend their entire lives feeding on either mice or rats. They will however also eat gerbils, multimammate mice, hamsters, and other small exotic breeds of mice. The vast majority however are happy to munch down domestic bred rodents."

"In particular, they might pay attention to Froome's choice of childhood pets: a pair of baby rock pythons whose diet evolved from mice and rats to rabbits. "It's an interesting fact that snakes won't eat dead food," their erstwhile keeper recalls, and it became his role, while barely into his teens, to supply them with live meals, which they squeezed to death before swallowing whole."

Can you prove that :oops:
No, but he seems to hate that kindergarten and it's students and he could have kept feeding his snakes rats and/or mice like previously.

"The rabbits were often stolen from a hutch at the kindergarten across the road from his family home outside Nairobi. "Young children would arrive at the class next day and their little baby bunny rabbits would be gone," he writes, remembering how the rabbits squealed piteously as the snakes grabbed them and started the coiling process that preceded ingestion. "I felt like intervening and stopping it. But the pythons had to be fed and it was my responsibility.""
 
Reactions: LaFlorecita
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....
What a surprise. The number of lies told by dozens, hundreds, thousands of people, most of whom are anonymous, and have to take no responsibility for their words, probably exceeds the number of lies told by one person, who is in the media spotlight, whose words are constantly publicized.

Who would have guessed?

I feed my kids beef...but I don't hate cows.
Maybe if you had to watch the "cows" being slaughtered, you would realize what a cop-out the term "don't hate" is.

I see people exploited every day, but I don't hate the system that exploits them.

People are killed in wars all the time, but I don't hate wars.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: TourOfSardinia
Yet again none. of these are lies. They are just differences in how you think you would have behaved in a certain situation (always faultlessly with the benefit of several years hindsight and infallable knowledge and memory and entirely tailored to an audience exactly like you) and how people behave in reality
From the time Froome was diagnosed to the time he and Sky began using this as an explanation, considerably more time elapsed than the "several years hindsight" you ascribe to me. Not to mention that like any large business, Sky had all the resources in the world to tailor their explanation to their audience.
 
Last edited:
So, taking all these divergent views into account, do any of them justify cynics immediately jumping to the conclusion that Froome's high speed collision with a wall was intended and was a put-up job with some hidden advantage?
 
As above, the only year he would have needed to apply for a TUE would have been 2009.
So, taking all these divergent views into account, do any of them justify cynics immediately jumping to the conclusion that Froome's high speed collision with a wall was intended and was a put-up job with some hidden advantage?
The conclusion is, Froome should have just done a Dumoulin and put some fake blood on his knee and said a bit of stone got in there and he needs 6 months off the bike (silent ban length's are always 6 months somehow?) rather than involve ITV Sport, Journalists, French Paramedics, A French SAMU Helicopter & Crew, French Police, A Small Village of gossiping locals, A.S.O. 2 French Surgeons, 1 Italian Surgeon and probably a dozen hospital staff such as porters, nurses and rehabilitation staff.
 
...
So, taking all these divergent views into account, do any of them justify cynics immediately jumping to the conclusion that Froome's high speed collision with a wall was intended and was a put-up job with some hidden advantage?
They don't. Because they conspiracy narrative doesn't comport with logic or reality...in this case.

But hopefully reasonable people understand why no one takes anything Ineos or Froome say at face value. There is simply too long a list of the nonsense to bother with. We understand that some will refuse to accept this and are determined to prop up a "Ineos are on the level" narrative. So be it.

Ineos have created the environment for conspiracies to thrive. Someone will always fill that vacuum.
 
What a surprise. The number of lies told by dozens, hundreds, thousands of people, most of whom are anonymous, and have to take no responsibility for their words, probably exceeds the number of lies told by one person, who is in the media spotlight, whose words are constantly publicized.

Who would have guessed?



Maybe if you had to watch the "cows" being slaughtered, you would realize what a cop-out the term "don't hate" is.

I see people exploited every day, but I don't hate the system that exploits them.

People are killed in wars all the time, but I don't hate wars.
Personally I stopped eating red meat a few years ago...but my kids love a good burger and I believe in letting my kids be kids and make their own simple choices in life. There’ll come a point soon enough when they’re old enough to think a bit more about stuff like this...

To be honest you’re attempts to lecture me with needless academic interpretation of the meaning of love and hate is a bit much for me on the weekend, I’ll stick with my own simple interpretations for now thanks....and don’t even think about commenting on my parenting approach

I love cows, they’re my second favourite farm animal after pigs
 
Well red_flanders, it's good of you to acknowledge that despite all this smoke and mirrors about not taking anything at face value, this situation at least is one where the critics should (as I would put it) just have been sensible and put their prejudices aside. "Filling the vacuum" may explain it but does not make it any the more reasonable. We (yes, we) are lucky this was not a fatality as we saw happen to an unfortunate accident victim just this week.
 
Well red_flanders, it's good of you to acknowledge that despite all this smoke and mirrors about not taking anything at face value, this situation at least is one where the critics should (as I would put it) just have been sensible and put their prejudices aside. "Filling the vacuum" may explain it but does not make it any the more reasonable. We (yes, we) are lucky this was not a fatality as we saw happen to an unfortunate accident victim just this week.
He must indeed be feeling lucky after what’s happened. Sobering.

Regarding prejudice, it means to have pre-judged. I don’t know anyone who pre-judged Froome or Sky., and in fact it seemed at the time we were all hoping Sky would actually walk the walk with regard to their team approach. We all hoped they would do well. We have judged them based on their actions and their public statements, not out of prejudice. That word just isn’t applicable in this case.
 
You said Ineos have created the environment for conspiracies to thrive . It's not an opinion I endorse - much of the outrage has been contrived. But to base one's opinion of the cause and result of the accident solely on an opinion of the truthfulness or otherwise of Ineos is to prejudge. One may prejudge for good reason, as you contend happened, or prejudge for no good reason at all, but taking a stance that does not admit reasonable thought into the particular situation because of one's pre-existing views is to prejudge.
 
Reactions: brownbobby

ASK THE COMMUNITY