• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1354 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jan 26, 2019
6
1
35
Why would they fake the accident?
I saw on Twitter some suggestion it was to cover up a drug ban.
The more complex the cover up, the number of people involved, the easier it breaks down.
If it was a cover up, why not something simpler? Fake an illness, etc.
 
Why would they fake the accident?
I saw on Twitter some suggestion it was to cover up a drug ban.
The more complex the cover up, the number of people involved, the easier it breaks down.
If it was a cover up, why not something simpler? Fake an illness, etc.
Because no one will kick a man when he's had a bad accident ;)

All jokes aside, I think it's silly for people to think the accident didn't happen. Now I will agree that potentially his injuries weren't as severe as reported.
 
@ 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.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't surprise me at all that some people take the view that they must adopt a sceptical approach but it would never be my first reaction to the news of anyone's accident, anyone's injuries, or that it is the reason for their non-participation. if I could think of a team I dislike for any reason my position would be the same. People will think and do what they want to do. I would be the last to say they shouldn't adopt any contrary view. But I can still be hugely surprised that in the face of all the evidence this supposed conspiracy is still rumbling on as an allegedly acceptable theory. I can tell you that if the major bone in my leg were fractured into pieces like Froome's in the X-ray I would not be riding either and that's all it would take to stop me.
 
Reactions: del1962
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...
 
Why would they fake the accident?
I saw on Twitter some suggestion it was to cover up a drug ban.
The more complex the cover up, the number of people involved, the easier it breaks down.
If it was a cover up, why not something simpler? Fake an illness, etc.
Exactly. Tom Dumoulin also dropped out of the Dauphine and has now called an end to his season. He and Froome will probably be back racing around the same time. But there's no conspiracy or scrutiny around him. That's how you would do a "silent ban". (I don't doubt he's injured BTW)
 
Reactions: brownbobby
Yep, Tom Dumoulin has managed to turn an innocuous bit of road rash on his knee into a season ending injury......now if i was going down the silent ban conspiracy rabbit hole......but im not :D
 
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.
 
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.
 
Reactions: rick james
Jul 4, 2016
223
8
3,045
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.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts