Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1358 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
I'll accept an answer if you give me one. Just one example of Ineos exaggerating an injury. A link to some quotes maybe. You have said this isn't complicated. I await your answer eagerly.
 
I'll accept an answer if you give me one. Just one example of Ineos exaggerating an injury. A link to some quotes maybe. You have said this isn't complicated. I await your answer eagerly.
Not my problem you don't like the answer that was given. I eagerly await YOU accepting the answer that was given.
I'm not going back 4 months to look for the comments they were making that made it sound like he was dying or close to it.
I'm done talking to you about this because it's obviously not going anywhere and won't go anywhere.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: BrikoRaiderExtreme
Not my problem you don't like the answer that was given. I eagerly await YOU accepting the answer that was given.
I'm not going back 4 months to look for the comments they were making that made it sound like he was dying or close to it.
I'm done talking to you about this because it's obviously not going anywhere and won't go anywhere.
How can I accept an answer when you haven't given me one? I've asked several times now for an example. You may not want to go back four months but you said this was easy to comprehend. Obviously you have examples that make it easy. Perhaps you could help me.
 
How can I accept an answer when you haven't given me one? I've asked several times now for an example. You may not want to go back four months but you said this was easy to comprehend. Obviously you have examples that make it easy. Perhaps you could help me.
You may keep talking, but as I already stated the conversation is over. I will NOT be pulled farther into this abyss.
 
Last edited:
So you've got nothing then? Fair enough, that's fine.
To be fair to Koronin he did have something....lots of shouty angry capitals, accusations of trolling and then pulling out the 'skybot' card...a really nasty remark which aims to dehumanise the recipient. He also had the trump card which is that Sky have lied before which means that everything they ever say in the future will be a lie.

What he didnt actually have was any substantive reason as to why Sky would lie about Froome's injuries, what possible benefit it would offer them.

Even the most batsh1t crazy conspiracy theories have a motive.

Oops.
 
Reactions: brownbobby
To be fair to Koronin he did have something....lots of shouty angry capitals, accusations of trolling and then pulling out the 'skybot' card...a really nasty remark which aims to dehumanise the recipient. He also had the trump card which is that Sky have lied before which means that everything they ever say in the future will be a lie.

What he didnt actually have was any substantive reason as to why Sky would lie about Froome's injuries, what possible benefit it would offer them.

Even the most batsh1t crazy conspiracy theories have a motive.

Oops.
I believe "he" is a "she" (mentioned for accuracy only and not that that it should matter) and sadly, her recent insistence on not answering reasonable comments on her post is as bizarre as the comments made by her previously in non-Clinic areas in relation to the weather in Yorkshire and the World Champs. You others are on a hiding to nothing if you look for objective reasoning. Its sad, because those of you who write here regularly deserve better.
 
Sky/Ineos have given us years of reasons to not trust anything they say or do. So why should anyone take the injuries that Froome supposedly suffered at face value from them? Their "marginal gains" is plenty of proof of exaggerations. They have years of hiding everything they are doing while trying to claim they are transparent. Jiffy bag, lost laptop and medical records that were requested by courts. Spending huge money to get Froome off of a doping charge that others were given bans for having LESS with unadjusted numbers than his adjusted numbers were. All of those are proof of why what they say isn't worth much. At the time of the crash I did give the benefit of the doubt. However, since mid July it doesn't appear that what was originally said accurate and it appears it was exaggerated. So the question is why. However, no one here wants to talk about why they exaggerated what they said. As for it was a nasty looking crash. Well there have been plenty of auto racing (esp NASCAR) crashes that have looked horrific yet drivers walked away with no injuries while much crashes that look a lot tamer have killed drivers. While I'm still willing to believe the crash looked horrific, I'm not willing to believe the injuries were as bad as originally stated. If they were Froome would not even be thinking of trying to race before next year starts. I guess it's possible that he is trying to be optimistic.
 
Last edited:
That is not a very tangible benefit given the likelihood that medical staff may contradict them (which they didnt)

How do you know they exaggerated? Are you medically qualified? Were you there?
The supposed leg injury, no one, literally no one has ever come back to the level they were before the injury. So it's very likely the leg injury has been exaggerated a bit. There's also the how did he loose so much blood and not get moved much faster to a hospital to get a transfusion faster. Stetina and Phinney both had very bad leg injuries at much younger ages and never came close to what they were before those injuries. Also were both immobilized longer, which leads to questions about Froome's leg injury not being as severe as was originally claimed. This is along the lines of: we've seen riders with bad leg injuries before and we've seen how long it takes to recover and get back before and recently. Heck just last season one of the Indy Car drivers had horrible leg injuries (in a sports car crash) and months later still had issues walking. Being able to drive a race car is different. (Froome's leg injuries were not as bad as that driver's just by the photos.)
Were you there to know the injuries were not exaggerated? Are you medically qualified to tell us they aren't exaggerated?
 
Sky/Ineos have given us years of reasons to not trust anything they say or do. So why should anyone take the injuries that Froome supposedly suffered at face value from them? Their "marginal gains" is plenty of proof of exaggerations. They have years of hiding everything they are doing while trying to claim they are transparent. Jiffy bag, lost laptop and medical records that were requested by courts. Spending huge money to get Froome off of a doping charge that others were given bans for having LESS with unadjusted numbers than his adjusted numbers were. All of those are proof of why what they say isn't worth much. At the time of the crash I did give the benefit of the doubt. However, since mid July it doesn't appear that what was originally said accurate and it appears it was exaggerated. So the question is why. However, no one here wants to talk about why they exaggerated what they said. As for it was a nasty looking crash. Well there have been plenty of auto racing (esp NASCAR) crashes that have looked horrific yet drivers walked away with no injuries while much crashes that look a lot tamer have killed drivers. While I'm still willing to believe the crash looked horrific, I'm not willing to believe the injuries were as bad as originally stated. If they were Froome would not even be thinking of trying to race before next year starts. I guess it's possible that he is trying to be optimistic.
Are you an athlete? Successfully competitive. I know this might seem strange, but some people like to come out of setbacks by pushing through them.

So what’s the logic/argument here? Froome will get special treatment in the peloton and from fans because the severity of injuries was exaggerated. Okidoke
 
Are you an athlete? Successfully competitive. I know this might seem strange, but some people like to come out of setbacks by pushing through them.

So what’s the logic/argument here? Froome will get special treatment in the peloton and from fans because the severity of injuries was exaggerated. Okidoke
Yes I was a competitive athlete.

As I said, sympathy from fans for a rider who isn't exactly the most well liked rider. Although there are the conspiracy theories that it's a cover for a doping ban, I do believe that he's injured enough that the injuries are the reason he's not currently racing and aren't a cover for a ban. I'm just not fully convinced they are bad as what was first said. Thus believe the injuries were exaggerated.
 
Last edited:
Yes I was a competitive athlete.

As I said, sympathy from fans for a rider who isn't exactly the most well liked rider. Although there are the conspiracy theories that it's a cover for a doping ban, I do believe that he's injured enough that the injuries are the reason he's not currently racing and aren't a cover for a ban. I'm just not fully convinced they are bad as what was first said.
Actually, taking everything into consideration. I am not sure that it is at all important that you are not fully convinced. If others have any sense they won't think it important either.
 
Reactions: macbindle
The supposed leg injury, no one, literally no one has ever come back to the level they were before the injury. So it's very likely the leg injury has been exaggerated a bit. There's also the how did he loose so much blood and not get moved much faster to a hospital to get a transfusion faster. Stetina and Phinney both had very bad leg injuries at much younger ages and never came close to what they were before those injuries. Also were both immobilized longer, which leads to questions about Froome's leg injury not being as severe as was originally claimed. This is along the lines of: we've seen riders with bad leg injuries before and we've seen how long it takes to recover and get back before and recently. Heck just last season one of the Indy Car drivers had horrible leg injuries (in a sports car crash) and months later still had issues walking. Being able to drive a race car is different. (Froome's leg injuries were not as bad as that driver's just by the photos.)
Were you there to know the injuries were not exaggerated? Are you medically qualified to tell us they aren't exaggerated?
"There's also the how did he loose so much blood and not get moved much faster to a hospital to get a transfusion faster " We are talking about someone who had an accident in France, they work differently in France. Their philosophy is to deliver intensive care at the scene of the accident (SMUR)
 
The supposed leg injury, no one, literally no one has ever come back to the level they were before the injury. So it's very likely the leg injury has been exaggerated a bit.
Has Froome come back to his previous level yet? If he doesn’t get there does that mean the injuries weren’t exaggerated. How can we know his future level if he hasn’t even raced after the crash yet?

To me he looks miles away from his best, struggling to walk across a stage, never mind sprinting up Ventoux.
 
Reactions: carolina
Yes I was a competitive athlete.

As I said, sympathy from fans for a rider who isn't exactly the most well liked rider. Although there are the conspiracy theories that it's a cover for a doping ban, I do believe that he's injured enough that the injuries are the reason he's not currently racing and aren't a cover for a ban. I'm just not fully convinced they are bad as what was first said. Thus believe the injuries were exaggerated.
So what? Really?
 
Has Froome come back to his previous level yet? If he doesn’t get there does that mean the injuries weren’t exaggerated. How can we know his future level if he hasn’t even raced after the crash yet?

To me he looks miles away from his best, struggling to walk across a stage, never mind sprinting up Ventoux.
If he's so far away, why is talking about racing before the end of the season, or was that just the team saying stuff again? So that would lead to the question, what does the team have to gain by saying he can race before the end of the season, when the reality is that is not possible?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY