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

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1364 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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

CTQ

Mar 12, 2016
424
4
3,285
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?
 

CTQ

Mar 12, 2016
424
4
3,285
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?

Criterium de Saitama is a PR event for the TDF and organized by the TDF, ""When contacted by AFP on Friday, race organisers ASO confirmed Froome would take part at Saitama, at the very least, in a team time-trial run over a short circuit. "" not supposed to do the road race.
 
Criterium de Saitama is a PR event for the TDF and organized by the TDF, ""When contacted by AFP on Friday, race organisers ASO confirmed Froome would take part at Saitama, at the very least, in a team time-trial run over a short circuit. "" not supposed to do the road race.

So it's not possible for him to race and it's just a PR stunt? However this seems like it's extremely risky to attempt if he's not really capable of racing.
 
Wait. I thought you said he wasn’t badly injured. What risk?
Nope, never said he wasn't badly injured. Saying the injuries were exaggerated does NOT mean they were not bad injuries. If an athlete misses two months of his/her sport due to an injury that is a bad injury. However there are different levels of how bad that injury is. A torn ACL is a worse injury than a twisted or sprained knee or ankle. However both can be bad injuries.

A broken thumb is a bad injury. However a broken thumb for a quaterback on his throwing hand is a worse injury (that will cost him several games) than a broken thumb on his non throwing hand (which may only cost him a few series).
 
Last edited:
Reactions: BrikoRaiderExtreme
So you don’t know but think you do. Can we leave it at that?
My original comment, I stated that I BELIEVED that his injuries were exaggerated. So where exactly does that state it's anything except for my BELIEF. Of course because this is my BELIEF, I'm not sure why I have to provide PROOF of anything because I never actually stated that they were just that I believe they were.

So why does it seem that people are having a hard time understanding the words BELIEF and EXAGGERATE?


I should expect each and everyone single one of you to go after everyone who has a different opinion (or belief) than you do the same you have gone after me, correct? Or am I only one who is not allowed to have any opinions or beliefs on these boards?
 
Last edited:
My original comment, I stated that I BELIEVED that his injuries were exaggerated. So where exactly does that state it's anything except for my BELIEF. Of course because this is my BELIEF, I'm not sure why I have to provide PROOF of anything because I never actually stated that they were just that I believe they were.

So why does it seem that people are having a hard time understanding the words BELIEF and EXAGGERATE?


I should expect each and everyone single one of you to go after everyone who has a different opinion (or belief) than you do the same you have gone after me, correct? Or am I only one who is not allowed to have any opinions or beliefs on these boards?
Great post. There's MANY here who get all upset when your opinion doesn't jive with theirs. They'll shout from rooftops how wrong you are, and how right they are. When you call them out on it, they disappear pretty quickly.
 
Reactions: BrikoRaiderExtreme
My original comment, I stated that I BELIEVED that his injuries were exaggerated. So where exactly does that state it's anything except for my BELIEF. Of course because this is my BELIEF, I'm not sure why I have to provide PROOF of anything because I never actually stated that they were just that I believe they were.

So why does it seem that people are having a hard time understanding the words BELIEF and EXAGGERATE?


I should expect each and everyone single one of you to go after everyone who has a different opinion (or belief) than you do the same you have gone after me, correct? Or am I only one who is not allowed to have any opinions or beliefs on these boards?
Why would you waste time believing his injuries are exaggerated?
 
I stated that I BELIEVED that his injuries were exaggerated. So where exactly does that state it's anything except for my BELIEF. Of course because this is my BELIEF, I'm not sure why I have to provide PROOF of anything because I never actually stated that they were just that I believe they were.
There are rules. Simple rules.
Amendment to Forum Rules for Discussions in The Clinic
  • Discussion or speculation of professional cyclist use of performance enhancers or banned substances should include supporting evidence.
  • Users are required to provide evidence when challenged, as well as engaging with arguments counter to the assertion with substantive facts and references.
  • Remember that the subject of speculation and discussion on this matter are human beings deserving of respect and dignity.
  • We ask that you keep discourse within expectations of these guidelines to ensure a healthy community for this topic.
Thank you for your understanding and compliance
Is it your belief rules don't apply to you?
 
My original comment, I stated that I BELIEVED that his injuries were exaggerated. So where exactly does that state it's anything except for my BELIEF. Of course because this is my BELIEF, I'm not sure why I have to provide PROOF of anything because I never actually stated that they were just that I believe they were.

So why does it seem that people are having a hard time understanding the words BELIEF and EXAGGERATE?


I should expect each and everyone single one of you to go after everyone who has a different opinion (or belief) than you do the same you have gone after me, correct? Or am I only one who is not allowed to have any opinions or beliefs on these boards?

Wow. So you think you can post your opinions and then get all SHOUTY and AGGRESSIVE when people ask you to justify your opinions.

Not sure you've understood what a forum is for.
 
I read recently, possibly on twitter, that he will have the plate removed from his hip fracture soon, that sounds like a fairly serious fracture to me. They don't plate fractures or use other metal work unless it's a complex fracture, such as a comminuted (shattered) and/or displaced fracture. Not sure if they will remove any other metal work, such as that used for his femur fracture. If not, that will surely mean he can't return to his previous level I would have thought, just on the basis of having metal work in and around his femur. Even if they do remove it all I doubt he will be challenging for the TDF next year. It's sounds like a combination of him hoping for the optimal outcome and Ineos PR.
 
Reactions: flahute
fmk_rol, please explain how you provide evidence of an opinion. I also originally did give reasons for my opinion, but those were not close to good enough to even be considered a reason by a specific poster here. So I did technically follow the rules. The problem is a poster did not agree with or like the answer. The 2nd bulletin is the only part that looks to me to apply to this part. The first is specifically talking about doping and the last 3rd was not an issue. If we fully take the rule, literally no one may ever again post any opinion on these forums. So I hope you tell that to ANYONE who posts any opinion as they are obviously not welcome at all. So I shall just read and watch and see if you make sure no one posts anything other than substantiated facts and never again posts any opinion. I thought that was talking about doping and such and not when discussion actual injuries or non injuries. So I guess I read the rules differently. Thus now you must ensure that no one in this form ever posts any opinion because the way it seems the rules you opinions are not allowed in this forum.

macbindle, I did answer the original question, but when the poster did not like the answer and kept asking the same question expecting a different answer there was no reason to continue. Also when posters are accusing you of saying things that you did NOT say then there is no discussion to be had as the person asking doesn't want a discussion. I was asked to justify things I never said to begin with. Do you try to justify things you never said? I was asked to justify an opinion that doctors or the team lied. Well I never once said anyone lied so I will not justify that as I did not state that.
 
Last edited:
fmk_rol, please explain how you provide evidence of an opinion. I also originally did give reasons for my opinion, but those were not close to good enough to even be considered a reason by a specific poster here. So I did technically follow the rules. The problem is a poster did not agree with or like the answer. The 2nd bulletin is the only part that looks to me to apply to this part. The first is specifically talking about doping and the last 3rd was not an issue.

macbindle, I did answer the original question, but when the poster did not like the answer and kept asking the same question expecting a different answer there was no reason to continue. Also when posters are accusing you of saying things that you did NOT say then there is no discussion to be had as the person asking doesn't want a discussion. I was asked to justify things I never said to begin with. Do you try to justify things you never said? I was asked to justify an opinion that doctors or the team lied. Well I never once said anyone lied so I will not justify that as I did not state that.
“Lied”. You said they exaggerated. Specifically to incite positive sentiment toward an unpopular rider. Surely a transcript of the PR meeting would suffice. Some texts? Emails? Hearsay in the pub?
 
please explain how you provide evidence of an opinion. I also originally did give reasons for my opinion
Your reasons for your opinion seem to consist of the self-sustaining cuircular argument: they lie, QED they lied.

You wouldn't accept that crap from others, would you? Hell, you won't even accept proper evidence-based arguments from others, you just SHOUT them down unless they agree with your opinion.

This is actually really simple. You say they exaggerated. Show what they said, and show how that stretches the truth.

I don't actually expect you to accept this response, it differs from your opinion of what you think you're entitled to get away with, so I'll get me ear-plugs and be ready for your SHOUTY reply when it comes.
 
“Lied”. You said they exaggerated. Specifically to incite positive sentiment toward an unpopular rider. Surely a transcript of the PR meeting would suffice. Some texts? Emails? Hearsay in the pub?
Sorry about the misspelling.
How exactly do you get your hands on something like that? It's speculation, but obviously speculation is not allowed in these forums.
Hearsay is not evidence or facts, so according to bulletin 2 can't be used. I have seen posts (elsewhere than these forums) state that the PR from Ineos feels like they want fans to feel sorry for Froome. However, again, that is not evidence or facts and not possible to provide links to because it would take forever to scroll through to hope to find the articles where the comments were made in the first place.
 
One makes an argument based on more circumstances than first person feeling. Otherwise it’s just noise.

Hearsay of someone actually in a position to know (i.e. connected to the team) would float.

Comments from random posters on other boards wouldn’t.
 
Last edited:
The man himself on the state of his recovery:
I’m keeping the legs ticking over, basically. It’s just tourist riding at the moment really, but it’s such a good feeling to get out on the road and be back on the bike – I’ve really missed it the last few months

At the same time, I’m just not on the level to be back in a peloton, accelerating out of corners in a criterium. That’s why tomorrow [Sunday], I’ll hopefully be with the guys at the start of the team time trial, but my recovery is not at the point yet where I can be back racing.

It’s pretty cool to be back in the cycling bubble again. I’ve missed it. Watching it from behind a screen is not the same. Even though this [the Saitama Criterium] is not a proper race, it’s cool to be around the riders again and back in the swing of things. I definitely needed it – I could just focus on my recovery, and that’s all I’ve been doing for the past few months. Now I’m happy to be back integrating into the cycling world.
 
They don't plate fractures or use other metal work unless it's a complex fracture, such as a comminuted (shattered) and/or displaced fracture.
I'm not a doctor and it sounds like you may have more knowledge than me here, but how does this square with collarbone fractures which may be plated at the patient's discretion? My understanding is that hardware expedites the healing process even when it's not strictly necessary.
 
Hardware does expedite healing and provides stability if one needs movement and strength right away. But it can lead to complications later. And some surgeons will refuse based on their ethical read of the benefits and potential complications.
 
I'm not a doctor and it sounds like you may have more knowledge than me here, but how does this square with collarbone fractures which may be plated at the patient's discretion? My understanding is that hardware expedites the healing process even when it's not strictly necessary.
most of the clinic isn't either so don't let that hold you back ….
 
I always thought using plates/hardware depended on the circumstances. Obviously a break where the bone has to be pulled back together or an ACL (or something similar) replacement requires hardware. (My husband has screws from ACL replacement surgery. I know someone who had a broken kneecap (broken in multiple pieces) and it required several screws to put it back together. She is supposed to eventually have surgery to have the screws removed, however, right now she can't afford to take the time off work to have that done.
 
Plates/hardware does depend on the circumstances. I have several friends broken collarbones the doctors did not recommend surgery. I broke my scapula and ribs and there was no surgery.
Some people have nothing better to do than attack your POV.
 
Reactions: Koronin

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts