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.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
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.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.
Read more at https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/luke-rowe-dont-feel-ive-reached-full-potential-classics-years-ticking-404393#XGWPRvSecDVEOClD.99After 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.
That's probably where this post should have stopped, along with lots of other posts in this thread.
“more or less two litres” according to Giorgio Gresta, an orthopaedic surgeon at the Saint-Etienne hospital.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.
You believe the hospital doctors told lies?I don't think there was any cover up of a ban or anything. I just do not believe the injuries suffered were as bad as what was reported.
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.At this point I believe the severity of the injuries were exaggerated.
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.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.
please say that the doctors at the hospital that treated him and tell them you think they are liarsAt this point I believe the severity of the injuries were exaggerated.
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.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.
Are you sure that limp wasn't just a fake limpHe 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.
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.please say that the doctors at the hospital that treated him and tell them you think they are liars
They have exaggerated or hidden just about everything over the years.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.
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.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.
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.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.
https://www.teamineos.com/article/froome-ruled-out-of-tour-de-franceThe 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/chris-froome-medical-updateFroome 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. (...)
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.