Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Bolder]

I believe 100 percent that the injuries were as bad as reported. However everyone reacts to different treatments in different ways, and one broken bone is not necessarily equal to another.

A friend of mine shattered his femur, as in compound fracture, in a freak ice skating accident. Had rod put in practically from hip to knee -- but within about 9 months he was almost as mobile as before.

Froome could also easily get to 80 percent of fitness but then plateau. So we'll just have to see. I think the theories that this was somehow turned into a coverup effort or fig leaf for doping are beyond ridiculous. You can ding Froome for a lot of things but not in this case.

 

[Koronin]

At this point I believe the severity of the injuries were exaggerated.

 

[Parker]

At this point I believe the severity of the injuries were exaggerated.

By whom? The doctors and Ineos just gave out a list of injuries. Perhaps the exaggeration was in fact by those reading that list and deciding on the severity despite no medical knowledge or access to the patient.

 

[Koronin]

By whom? The doctors and Ineos just gave out a list of injuries. Perhaps the exaggeration was in fact by those reading that list and deciding on the severity despite no medical knowledge or access to the patient.

Yes by Ineos. I believe what was reported by the cycling media was exaggerated. Thus the information the cycling media was given in the first place was exaggerated. Not that complicated to comprehend.

 

[rick james]

At this point I believe the severity of the injuries were exaggerated.

please say that the doctors at the hospital that treated him and tell them you think they are liars

 

[Parker]

Yes by Ineos. I believe what was reported by the cycling media was exaggerated. Thus the information the cycling media was given in the first place was exaggerated. Not that complicated to comprehend.

So help me comprehend. What exactly did Ineos exaggerate? I'll agree the British tabloid media exaggerated - "Broken Neck!" etc, but only fools treat them as accurate reporters.

 

[brownbobby]

All this suspicion and doubt....I think all we're seeing here is the results of an extremely lean season for Froome in terms of on the bike performances and arising data for The Clinic and other such platforms to dissect......

...all we have are the injuries sustained in a crash to keep our minds occupied with the relentless search to discredit him. Its a bit like in the off season when thoughts turn to the pets he used to keep as a kid growing up in Africa...

 

[brownbobby]

He said 65% (left leg) vs 35%( right leg) on French TV last Sunday. Limping at the TDF presentation, surgery in couple of weeks for remove a pin from his hip. still a long way before being competitive.

Are you sure that limp wasn't just a fake limp

 

[Koronin]

please say that the doctors at the hospital that treated him and tell them you think they are liars

Exaggerated doesn't mean lied. Exaggerated means makes injuries (that are real) sound worse than they actually are. I also said the TEAM not the doctors.

 

[Koronin]

So help me comprehend. What exactly did Ineos exaggerate? I'll agree the British tabloid media exaggerated - "Broken Neck!" etc, but only fools treat them as accurate reporters.

They have exaggerated or hidden just about everything over the years.

By the way a fracture of a vertabrea in the neck would technically qualify as broken neck.

 

[Parker]

They have exaggerated or hidden just about everything over the years.

By the way a fracture of a vertabrea in the neck would technically qualify as broken neck.

So you can't point to anything specific that Ineos exaggerated. Not one thing? You said that this is 'not that complicated to comprehend'. So surely you must have an easy example if it's not that complicated.

 

[Koronin]

So you can't point to anything specific that Ineos exaggerated. Not one thing? You said that this is 'not that complicated to comprehend'. So surely you must have an easy example if it's not that complicated.

How about you point to something they haven't either exaggerated or tried to hide. They are not close to transparent on anything. They cannot be taken at their word on anything. Your comments prove you are nothing but one of their fanboys who isn't ever going to question them and just accept anything they say at face value. Sorry, but that doesn't work. How about provide physical proof of photos of Froome and his injuries right after the so called injuries took place. Provide PROOF of the X-rays. There is NONE of any of that. Thus anyone who isn't a Skybot is going to question them and rightfully so.

 

[carolina]

The 34 year old crashed towards the end of his route recon in Auvergne-Rhone-Alpes, sustaining injuries including a fractured right femur, a fractured elbow and fractured ribs.

(...)
Team Doctor, Richard Usher, said: "Chris was taken to Roanne Hospital where initial examinations confirmed multiple injuries, most notably a fractured right femur and right elbow. He has also suffered fractured ribs. (...)

https://www.teamineos.com/article/froome-ruled-out-of-tour-de-france

Froome suffered multiple serious injuries after crashing at 55kmph on a recon of stage four of the Criterium du Dauphine, and was taken to Roanne Hospital where he was stabilised and assessed, before being helicoptered to St Etienne Hospital for surgery.

Speaking to TeamINEOS.com, Doctor Richard Usher said: “First things first, the surgery was a success. The operation, which lasted for six hours, went very well.

“Chris woke up this morning and was reviewed by the intensive care consultants and the orthopaedic specialist who operated on him and they’re both very happy with his progress to date. (...)

https://www.teamineos.com/article/chris-froome-medical-update

I don't see any exaggeration.

 

[CTQ]

How about you point to something they haven't either exaggerated or tried to hide. They are not close to transparent on anything. They cannot be taken at their word on anything. Your comments prove you are nothing but one of their fanboys who isn't ever going to question them and just accept anything they say at face value. Sorry, but that doesn't work. How about provide physical proof of photos of Froome and his injuries right after the so called injuries took place. Provide PROOF of the X-rays. There is NONE of any of that. Thus anyone who isn't a Skybot is going to question them and rightfully so.

here in a video from AUGUST 3rd, X-rays ...............

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnLAPyRf7ZI

 

[Koronin]

That doesn't prove that there weren't exaggerations being made. If the claims of all the injuries were true, he would NOT even think of racing again until well after next season starts and he sure as heck would NOT even think he has any chance of winning the Tour again because it would not be possible due to the supposed severity of the injuries. The claims are specifically a leg injury that NO ONE has ever come back to the same level from. No one. So I still do NOT believe the injuries were as severe as was claimed and I still believe originally Ineos did EXAGGERATE the injuries. There is NOTHING here that shows the injuries weren't exaggerated.
The ONLY thing the video proves is he was injured. I don't remember saying he wasn't injured, just that the injuries were exaggerated.

 

[CTQ]

That doesn't prove that there weren't exaggerations being made. If the claims of all the injuries were true, he would NOT even think of racing again until well after next season starts and he sure as heck would NOT even think he has any chance of winning the Tour again because it would not be possible due to the supposed severity of the injuries. The claims are specifically a leg injury that NO ONE has ever come back to the same level from. No one. So I still do NOT believe the injuries were as severe as was claimed and I still believe originally Ineos did EXAGGERATE the injuries. There is NOTHING here that shows the injuries weren't exaggerated.
The ONLY thing the video proves is he was injured. I don't remember saying he wasn't injured, just that the injuries were exaggerated.

from your previous post:
"Provide PROOF of the X-rays. There is NONE of any of that. " tha'ts not really true.

 

[Koronin]

from your previous post:
"Provide PROOF of the X-rays. There is NONE of any of that. " tha'ts not really true.

If anything his little videos proves they DID exaggerate the injuries. Which leads to the question of why.

 

[Parker]

How about you point to something they haven't either exaggerated or tried to hide. They are not close to transparent on anything. They cannot be taken at their word on anything. Your comments prove you are nothing but one of their fanboys who isn't ever going to question them and just accept anything they say at face value. Sorry, but that doesn't work. How about provide physical proof of photos of Froome and his injuries right after the so called injuries took place. Provide PROOF of the X-rays. There is NONE of any of that. Thus anyone who isn't a Skybot is going to question them and rightfully so.

No this isn't how it works.. You said that Ineos exaggerated his injuries. I asked for an example of this.. Now you are asking for evidence that somthing that didn't happen, didn't happen.

Then you go into the 'fanboy' stuff. Froome has released his X Rays. What evidence do you have that those are faked.

Let's all take a step back and examine what we actually know (from doctors) and seperate it from what we 'know' from other sources - including our own preconceptions.

 

[Koronin]

No this isn't how it works.. You said that Ineos exaggerated his injuries. I asked for an example of this.. Now you are asking for evidence that somthing that didn't happen, didn't happen.

Then you go into the 'fanboy' stuff. Froome has released his X Rays. What evidence do you have that those are faked.

Let's all take a step back and examine what we actually know (from doctors) and seperate it from what we 'know' from other sources - including our own preconceptions.

Where did I say it (x-ray) was faked? I didn't. I said it was proof that the claims of the injuries were exaggerated. You either can't or are refusing to comprehend what I wrote. Your comments are that of a Skybot. So I shouldn't expect anything else.

 

[Parker]

Where did I say it (x-ray) was faked? I didn't. I said it was proof that the claims of the injuries were exaggerated. You either can't or are refusing to comprehend what I wrote. Your comments are that of a Skybot. So I shouldn't expect anything else.

I just asked you to provide an example of Ineos exaggerating an injury. Nothing more. If it's easy to comprehend, then an example should be readily available.

 

[Koronin]

I just asked you to provide an example of Ineos exaggerating an injury. Nothing more. If it's easy to comprehend, then an example should be readily available.

I already answered that question. So you may continue to troll all you wish, but the question was answered and will NOT be answered differently just because YOU don't like the answer that was already given. Thanks for proving you have NOT comprehended anything I wrote.

 

[Parker]

I already answered that question. So you may continue to troll all you wish, but the question was answered and will NOT be answered differently just because YOU don't like the answer that was already given. Thanks for proving you have NOT comprehended anything I wrote.

No you didn't. You have not highlighted any Ineos exaggeration. But I may be wrong, so I'll give you a chance to repeat in reply to this. You say I don't like the answer, but I've yet to see the answer. Maybe you could repeat it for me. Without sources like you have I can't understand like you do.

PS Using words like Troll doesn't boost your credibility.

 

[Koronin]

No you didn't. You have not highlighted any Ineos exaggeration. But I may be wrong, so I'll give you a chance to repeat in reply to this. You say I don't like the answer, but I've yet to see the answer. Maybe you could repeat it for me. Without sources like you have I can't understand like you do.

PS Using words like Troll doesn't boost your credibility.

You don't have to when all they do is either exaggerate or hide things. Thus you do NOT like the answer.

Your not accepting answers already killed your credibility. It's very evident you have major issues with anyone even thinking of questioning your favorite team and your favorite rider. Guess what, Sky/Ineos and Froome have brought this all on themselves.

 

[CTQ]

You don't have to when all they do is either exaggerate or hide things. Thus you do NOT like the answer.

Your not accepting answers already killed your credibility.

you know, Froome isn't responsible for the guys who left Valverde and Movistar.....

 

[Koronin]

you know, Froome isn't responsible for the guys who left Valverde and Movistar.....

Valverde and Movistar literally have nothing at all do with Froome's supposed injuries from the crash he had.

Ineos and the Italian agent, however ARE responsible for underhanded dealings with many teams over specific riders. However, that doesn't belong in this thread.