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

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1361 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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?
Yes, there are some who jumped to that conclusion, but others are merely sceptical. I have a lot of sympathy for the guy, crashing like that would be horrible, and the mental toughness he has shown (along with other athletes who come back from serious injury) in order to make a comeback is truly inspirational, regardless of whether he's doped in the past or not.

However, given the number of lies Sky have fed cycling fans, you can't blame someone for being slightly sceptical, and this is coming from a Froome fan
 
Froome was the second pro cyclist to break his femur this season. The first was Nathan Earle.

Earle returned to (proper) racing 110 days after his crash. The Saitama Crit is 137 days after Froome's crash.

A lot of people's suspicions (in the world in general) arise when reality doesn't match their own ignorance.
 
Last edited:
Froome was the second pro cyclist to break his femur this season. The first was Nathan Earle.

Earle returned to (proper) racing 110 days after his crash. The Saitama Crit is 137 days after Froome's crash.

A lot of people's suspicions (in the world in general) arise when reality doesn't match their own ignorance.
A broken femur is only one of the list of Froome's injuries reported.

Froome crashed into a wall at 37mph in the French town of Roanne last Wednesday, leaving him with multiple broken bones including a fractured neck, a fractured right femur, a broken hip and fractured ribs.
(link)

...recovering from multiple fractures and losing four pints of blood in the accident which saw him placed in intensive care for a number of days.
(link).

His recovery is quite remarkable. I don' t buy into the conspiracy theories, but the comparison isn't valid unless Nathan Earle suffered similar and equally severe additional injuries. I'm not familiar with Earle's crash details. I don't think a comparison which ignores the extent of Froome's injuries is going to reduce suspicions or quash silly conspiracy theories. I think one needs to start with being accurate about what was claimed.
 
Reactions: Angliru
His recovery is quite remarkable. I don' t buy into the conspiracy theories, but the comparison isn't valid unless Nathan Earle suffered similar and equally severe additional injuries. I'm not familiar with Earle's crash details. I don't think a comparison which ignores the extent of Froome's injuries is going to reduce suspicions or quash silly conspiracy theories. I think one needs to start with being accurate about what was claimed.
Do those other injuries take longer to heal than a broken femur? What's the cumulative effect of those injuries on recovery time compared to standard recovery?
 
Was Earles a compound fracture? That's a little more complicated than a break. Just Sayin
It's not a lot different. The bones are still made of the same material.

The point is Earle got back to full racing a month faster than Froome will return to an exhibition ride. Which is a better indication of recovery rate for a broken femur than your guesswork.

For another example, Luke Rowe returned to full racing just 6 months after breaking his leg in 20 places.

(And they're all lightweights compared to Billy Monger)
 
Do those other injuries take longer to heal than a broken femur? What's the cumulative effect of those injuries on recovery time compared to standard recovery?
I'm not a doctor, but having been injured many times, I can attest that hip, rib, and neck injuries each limit one's movement in the extreme, never mind all 3 plus a broken femur. Breathing is even difficult. Much harder to do all the things one can do to stay fit and recover from a leg injury if one also has severe injuries in several other major body areas. I would think those would slow one's recovery significantly over "only" a broken femur.

It does seem remarkable that he's back on the bike in 3 1/2 months, but he has only recovery to focus on and all the resources he could need to do it.
 
He's back on the bike, but that doesnt mean he has recovered. His biomechanics will be altered probably forever and he will have lost muscle.

I don't really have an opinion as to whether it is remarkable because I dont know the extent of his recovery.
 
Froome was the second pro cyclist to break his femur this season. The first was Nathan Earle.

Earle returned to (proper) racing 110 days after his crash. The Saitama Crit is 137 days after Froome's crash.
Actually, his first race after the accident was about 130 days later. But your point is taken. Earle seemed to have a somewhat similar accident, in that he crashed into a barrier, though it was one of those low corrugated metal ones, not a brick or stone wall. I don't think he suffered additional injuries like Froome, though, nor lost a lot of blood. OTOH, it's noteworthy that Earle was still recovering from a previous accident at the time.

But what we don't know is whether he's really been the same since. In 2018, he won 107 PCS points, 34 of them coming beginning in August. This year he had 43 prior to his accident in early April--comparable to 39 he had at the same time last year-- and only 15 since, after returning to racing in late July. That may not mean anything, but at the very least, I don't think anyone can say for sure whether Earle is back to 100% yet.

For another example, Luke Rowe returned to full racing just 6 months after breaking his leg in 20 places.
Rowe broke his tibia and fibula, not from a high speed crash into a barrier, but from jumping into a creek at a party. It was a simple fracture, i.e., the skin was not broken. Not to dismiss the seriousness of it, but recovery time from a fractured tibia or fibula is typically faster than from a broken femur.

Was he affected? He accumulated 322 PCS points in 2017, and that was with his season ending with the accident in early August. He won about 300 points in each of the previous two seasons. Though he returned to racing in February of 2018, he produced only 105 PCS points that season. This year, which began a year and a half after his accident, he's currently at 283. It appears he needed more than a year to return to his previous level.

He's back on the bike, but that doesnt mean he has recovered. His biomechanics will be altered probably forever and he will have lost muscle.
I would think so. I can't forget Beloki, who like Froome, suffered additional injuries to a broken femur (wrist, elbow). He did break his femur in two places, which I would think would be even more difficult to heal than a single break. In any case, while he returned to racing the next year, it was another year after that before he completed a GT, and he clearly was never the same rider again.

Every rider, and every accident, is different, but I would think Beloki would be a better comparison, not only because of the multiple injuries, but because he was an elite rider, who had more to lose, performance-wise, than Earle or Rowe.
 
Last edited:
Actually, his first race after the accident was about 130 days later. But your point is taken. Earle seemed to have a somewhat similar accident, in that he crashed into a barrier, though it was one of those low corrugated metal ones, not a brick or stone wall. I don't think he suffered additional injuries like Froome, though, nor lost a lot of blood. OTOH, it's noteworthy that Earle was still recovering from a previous accident at the time.

But what we don't know is whether he's really been the same since. In 2018, he won 107 PCS points, 34 of them coming beginning in August. This year he had 43 prior to his accident in early April--comparable to 39 he had at the same time last year-- and only 15 since, after returning to racing in late July. That may not mean anything, but at the very least, I don't think anyone can say for sure whether Earle is back to 100% yet.



Rowe broke his tibia and fibula, not from a high speed crash into a barrier, but from jumping into a creek at a party. It was a simple fracture, i.e., the skin was not broken. Not to dismiss the seriousness of it, but recovery time from a fractured tibia or fibula is typically faster than from a broken femur.

Was he affected? He accumulated 322 PCS points in 2017, and that was with his season ending with the accident in early August. He won about 300 points in each of the previous two seasons. Though he returned to racing in February of 2018, he produced only 105 PCS points that season. This year, which began a year and a half after his accident, he's currently at 283. It appears he needed more than a year to return to his previous level.
I don't think PCS points aren't a reliable judge of a domestique's form. Rowe doesn't get any points for getting Colombians through crosswinds at Paris-Nice, he gets them for getting in the right move in middling classics.

I thought Valverde's crash in 2017 would be a career ender. I was wrong. I didn't to cast suspicions to explain me being wrong though, which some are doing (mostly elsewhere_) with Froome.
 
Aug 12, 2018
24
22
630
Comparing one athlete's perceived injuries and crash to another's and drawing a conclusion to suit your very own conspiracy theory. Come on.

The surgeon who operated on Froome was very clear about the severity of his injuries. I understand this forum is for people to lay out their doping theories. But then to infer the medical teams are part of it stretches credulity beyond any reason.
 
That's probably where this post should have stopped, along with lots of other posts in this thread.

Beyond that, people need to understand that doctors are not one size fits all. If you are a high functioning professional (of means) that uses their body in specialized ways: whether as a pianist or an athlete you’re likely to be told different things by different specialists and therapists than if you’re just some average person for whom the concern is that you regain basic functioning and mobility. Much in the way that certain surgeons will make a decision not to pin a broken collarbone with an eye to complications later in life. That can change if one needs to be competitive in a race 4 weeks from now. This is largely how it is in the US. My experience with UK and French medical systems is far more limited, but I suspect similar tendencies hold.
 
What was the conspiracy-theory angle on this one, I didn't catch what that was about at the time, and can't see what the motive for Ineos would be. That Froome is actually undergoing some kind of unprecedented physical 'modifications', and the crash was staged to give a pretext for that? Froome was not as badly injured as originally reported, for example: the idea that he lost 2000ml of blood at the scene - and would have bled to death - was just false... and he wouldn't be back on the bike already if everything reported at that time were true. That having been said, it was just as Wout Poels described (he was genuinely freaked-out and deeply disturbed), and the scenario was confirmed by locals, who live on the street where Froome crashed. The speed of the crash was somewhat exaggerated but doesn't matter, because Froome could have been killed in that at any speed. I don't get what the conspiracy would be for
 
Beyond that, people need to understand that doctors are not one size fits all. If you are a high functioning professional (of means) that uses their body in specialized ways: whether as a pianist or an athlete you’re likely to be told different things by different specialists and therapists than if you’re just some average person for whom the concern is that you regain basic functioning and mobility. Much in the way that certain surgeons will make a decision not to pin a broken collarbone with an eye to complications later in life. That can change if one needs to be competitive in a race 4 weeks from now. This is largely how it is in the US. My experience with UK and French medical systems is far more limited, but I suspect similar tendencies hold.
Pretty much yes, I was hoping my short post implied this. Even if we take different advice as a given, the number of users who are willing to start implying they have any knowledge of mean recovery times for injuries across different demographics and treatment regimes is laughable, and by laughable I mean I have actually been sat laughing at some of it. It's like parents who have 1-3 children and think they know how to deal with every child and every parenting problem that might come up. The lack of self awareness is staggering.

A poster like @Merckx index will at least try and find some sort of reference and measure to compare things against. I'd argue it's still not really relevant as N is much to small and the subjects probably aren't really comparable, I'm sure MI would agree, but it's an attempt to not make assumptions and try and give the discussion some context.


It's not just that advice will change depending on circumstances, it's that aftercare and related physical therapy will be completely different. Froome is a valuable asset to Ineos and they will have provided the very best care possible. Even comparing him to Earle or Beloki likely isn't a great comparison, but at least it's an attempt.
 
Reactions: macbindle
You could substitute the words "I am not a doctor but" with "I have absolutely no real knowledge whatsoever but I'm going to give an opinion based on nothing regardless".

The Beloki crash was 16 years ago. 'I am not a doctor' but I suspect medical knowledge and expertise is better now than it was then.
 
Reactions: rick james

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS