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

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1362 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Ah....I see what you did there.

Invoking the 'fanboy' meme...a dogwhistle to try and rally a mob, whilst simultaneously trying to devalue the points made by your critics without actually countering them with reasoned argument.

Classy posting from you.
 
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
I think the conspiracy theory was that it was either to cover up a positive/ban or so he could be given drugs in case he tested positive. There was a lot on Twitter that was apparently absolutely crazy but I avoided it.

Scepticism over the seriousness of the injuries he suffered seems fair. These things get reported quickly and the more nuanced diagnosis and outlook isn't going to be in the papers, it's going to be between Froome and his doctors/team. whether there was purposeful misreporting is quite interesting considering the teams history.
 
Of course all we can do is speculate about how fast and to what extent Froome will recover. That's what this forum is for. Referring to previous riders who suffered crashes doesn't prove a case, but it does provide some reference material to guide the speculation.

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.
But such moves should be averaged out over an entire season. I do find it suggestive if not compelling that Rowe's point total was quite consistent for three straight years, then dropped by 2/3 the year after the accident, then rebounded to about what it had been prior to the accident after an additional year.

In any case, here is Rowe on his recovery last January, at the beginning of his second full season following the broken lower leg bones:

After undergoing surgery, Rowe returned to racing in early 2018 but suffered crashes in his target races.

He said: “[Recovering from the leg injury] is an on-going process and it could be that way for the rest of my life.

“I had another operation this winter where I had a couple of screws taken out.

“The rod itself is still in and probably will be for the rest of my life. That’s the way it is.

“It’s not necessarily ever going to get 100 per cent better, but we’re pretty much 90 per cent of the way and I think that’s where it’s going to stay.
Read more at https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/luke-rowe-dont-feel-ive-reached-full-potential-classics-years-ticking-404393#XGWPRvSecDVEOClD.99

That said, procyclingstats lists nine riders with a fractured femur this year, three of whom (in addition to Earle, already mentioned) have returned to racing:

Alois Kankovsky 6 weeks
Yukiya Arashiro 14 weeks
Oscar Cabedo 4 weeks (estimated at the time to be out 8 weeks)

Arashiro also suffered a fractured femur in 2016, and returned to racing after 12 weeks.
 
Last edited:
Sep 10, 2009
7
1
8,535
I also don't think he was as badly injured as first reported, the claim about blood loss seemed a little far fetched to me. the silent ban theory also doesn't seem right as he would have just invented another in the long line of illnesses that have blighted his career. but one thing I thought at the time was anyone who rides a bike to any level knows not to take your hands off the bars at 60kph going downhill in a sidewind with deep section wheels. you deserve all you get for that.
 
I also don't think he was as badly injured as first reported, the claim about blood loss seemed a little far fetched to me. the silent ban theory also doesn't seem right as he would have just invented another in the long line of illnesses that have blighted his career. but one thing I thought at the time was anyone who rides a bike to any level knows not to take your hands off the bars at 60kph going downhill in a sidewind with deep section wheels. you deserve all you get for that.
“more or less two litres” according to Giorgio Gresta, an orthopaedic surgeon at the Saint-Etienne hospital.
 

CTQ

Mar 12, 2016
424
4
3,285
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.
 
Reactions: Koronin
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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

Mar 12, 2016
424
4
3,285
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
 
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.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts