Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[brownbobby]

Just an alternative thought...
Maybe the reason there are lots of inconsistencies and contradictions from Froome on dates etc when referring to the whole issue is because he's actually telling the truth and therefore never felt the need to accurately memorise the whole history, as i'm sure he would have been much more prone to do if he was fabricating a complete lie to sell to the public.

I'm pretty sure if i was asked by numerous different people over the course of several years to recount my medical history over the last ten years or so id just be taking a guess at some of the dates and would be almost certain to get some of them wrong and therefore contradict myself.

I've no idea if Froome is lying about this or not, but there appears to be a commonly held belief on here that examples of where he's contradicted himself provides positive proof that he's lying.

On the basis that someone trying to fabricate and support such a huge lie with devastating consequences if found out, would be much more polished and consistent in presenting said lie to the public, it could just as strongly be held up in support of the belief that he's actually telling the truth.

 

[King Boonen]

Froome's story has been debunked many times here. Recently, Hitch, who has looked into it especially thoroughly, sent me a long article documenting all the lies and/or misstatements Froome/Sky have made on the matter. Really, the fact that after all this time Froome would refer to schisto as a virus says it all.

It's not just that needing five separate treatments with PZQ is unheard of, even one of Froome's own doctors was quoted as saying it didn't make sense. Even if we bought into this, the timeline of treatments doesn't jibe with his performance. E.g., he needed another treatment not long after his 2011 Vuelta win. As Hitch has documented in detail, Froome can't even get his story straight about when and how it was initially diagnosed, and when and where and what his treatments consisted of.

As I said in my first post, I'm not defending Froome at all, I'm well aware that his account has been pulled apart many times and each telling has been inconsistent. I've just finally got sick of people reading WebMD and then posting "facts" as if they've spent the last 10 years as a parasitologist/immunologist working in a rural clinic in Kenya.

I thik the Dr's would notice the blood abnormalities and attempt to find the reason. Froome said they munch all the red blood cells so surely there must have been a low RBC, no? From there they should be able to track down the reason for infection. Not a virus like dawg says. He doesn't even know what his own ilness is. Counterfeit.

Same as above really. My problem is people stating facts that are wrong and the general impression that schistosomiasis is easily detectable and treatable in every infection.

 

[thehog]

Just an alternative thought...
Maybe the reason there are lots of inconsistencies and contradictions from Froome on dates etc when referring to the whole issue is because he's actually telling the truth and therefore never felt the need to accurately memorise the whole history, as i'm sure he would have been much more prone to do if he was fabricating a complete lie to sell to the public.

I'm pretty sure if i was asked by numerous different people over the course of several years to recount my medical history over the last ten years or so id just be taking a guess at some of the dates and would be almost certain to get some of them wrong and therefore contradict myself.

I've no idea if Froome is lying about this or not, but there appears to be a commonly held belief on here that examples of where he's contradicted himself provides positive proof that he's lying.

On the basis that someone trying to fabricate and support such a huge lie with devastating consequences if found out, would be much more polished and consistent in presenting said lie to the public, it could just as strongly be held up in support of the belief that he's actually telling the truth.

Based on the Froome’s account, both Chris and Michele, it certainly looks like the both of them read WebMD and attempted to make up the condition and it’s ailments. The inconsistencies from interview to interview is what’s most troubling.

 

[veganrob]

Just an alternative thought...
Maybe the reason there are lots of inconsistencies and contradictions from Froome on dates etc when referring to the whole issue is because he's actually telling the truth and therefore never felt the need to accurately memorise the whole history, as i'm sure he would have been much more prone to do if he was fabricating a complete lie to sell to the public.

I'm pretty sure if i was asked by numerous different people over the course of several years to recount my medical history over the last ten years or so id just be taking a guess at some of the dates and would be almost certain to get some of them wrong and therefore contradict myself.

I've no idea if Froome is lying about this or not, but there appears to be a commonly held belief on here that examples of where he's contradicted himself provides positive proof that he's lying.

On the basis that someone trying to fabricate and support such a huge lie with devastating consequences if found out, would be much more polished and consistent in presenting said lie to the public, it could just as strongly be held up in support of the belief that he's actually telling the truth.

Based on the Froome’s account, both Chris and Michele, it certainly looks like the both of them read WebMD and attempted to make up the condition and it’s ailments. The inconsistencies from interview to interview is what’s most troubling.

Copy KB on that.

 

[CTQ]

" If eggs are present at the time of diagnosis, follow-up examination 1 to 2 mo after treatment is suggested to help confirm cure. Treatment is repeated if eggs are still present."

"Patients should be examined for living eggs 3 and 6 mo after treatment. Retreatment is indicated if egg excretion has not decreased markedly"

It's not necessarly a 'one shot' treatment, easily treated as someone wrote.

http://www.merckmanuals.com/en-ca/professional/infectious-diseases/trematodes-flukes/schistosomiasis

 

[King Boonen]

Just an alternative thought...
Maybe the reason there are lots of inconsistencies and contradictions from Froome on dates etc when referring to the whole issue is because he's actually telling the truth and therefore never felt the need to accurately memorise the whole history, as i'm sure he would have been much more prone to do if he was fabricating a complete lie to sell to the public.

I'm pretty sure if i was asked by numerous different people over the course of several years to recount my medical history over the last ten years or so id just be taking a guess at some of the dates and would be almost certain to get some of them wrong and therefore contradict myself.

I've no idea if Froome is lying about this or not, but there appears to be a commonly held belief on here that examples of where he's contradicted himself provides positive proof that he's lying.

On the basis that someone trying to fabricate and support such a huge lie with devastating consequences if found out, would be much more polished and consistent in presenting said lie to the public, it could just as strongly be held up in support of the belief that he's actually telling the truth.

Based on the Froome’s account, both Chris and Michele, it certainly looks like the both of them read WebMD and attempted to make up the condition and it’s ailments. The inconsistencies from interview to interview is what’s most troubling.

Could well be the case. Pick something that is endemic to a region you spend some time in, has an incubation period that would likely put you out of that region when it manifests and you have a good cover.

 

[brownbobby]

Just an alternative thought...
Maybe the reason there are lots of inconsistencies and contradictions from Froome on dates etc when referring to the whole issue is because he's actually telling the truth and therefore never felt the need to accurately memorise the whole history, as i'm sure he would have been much more prone to do if he was fabricating a complete lie to sell to the public.

I'm pretty sure if i was asked by numerous different people over the course of several years to recount my medical history over the last ten years or so id just be taking a guess at some of the dates and would be almost certain to get some of them wrong and therefore contradict myself.

I've no idea if Froome is lying about this or not, but there appears to be a commonly held belief on here that examples of where he's contradicted himself provides positive proof that he's lying.

On the basis that someone trying to fabricate and support such a huge lie with devastating consequences if found out, would be much more polished and consistent in presenting said lie to the public, it could just as strongly be held up in support of the belief that he's actually telling the truth.

Based on the Froome’s account, both Chris and Michele, it certainly looks like the both of them read WebMD and attempted to make up the condition and it’s ailments. The inconsistencies from interview to interview is what’s most troubling.

Could well be the case. Pick something that is endemic to a region you spend some time in, has an incubation period that would likely put you out of that region when it manifests and you have a good cover.

I don't disagree but that was also kind of my point, if you're going to create a lie which is so huge and potentially you're going to use to defend/justify your status as one of the greatest cyclists in history, surely you would study really hard and take the time to revise your lines to ensure that you weren't so easily tripped up. We all know how easy the internet has made it for people to do their own research these days.

Lance Armstrong was initially a pretty convincing liar to a lot of people. The biggest lies tend to be thought up by the best liars, yet the contradictions in the Froome stories are laughable, so laughable that it crossed my mind that they might just be telling the truth but with pretty poor memories.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Keep in mind that the Bilharzia thing popped up mid-Vuelta in 2011. Froome was far from a cycling great back then, to the point where he was still being sacrificed for Wiggins' sake. I doubt the whole thing was planned or even truly envisioned; and it's not that hard to believe that they made up a simple explanation, and then later had to adapt it, when certain holes became apparent. The first interview also doesn't mention the fact that he suffered from it in earlier years, for instance.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-hopes-to-keep-vuelta-lead-as-long-as-possible

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

Keep in mind that the Bilharzia thing popped up mid-Vuelta in 2011. Froome was far from a cycling great back then, to the point where he was still being sacrificed for Wiggins' sake. I doubt the whole thing was planned or even truly envisioned; and it's not that hard to believe that they made up a simple explanation, and then later had to adapt it, when certain holes became apparent. The first interview also doesn't mention the fact that he suffered from it in earlier years, for instance.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-hopes-to-keep-vuelta-lead-as-long-as-possible

Valid points but both with possible credible counterarguments, ie. why bother coming up with an excuse at all at the 2011 Vuelta. Through history cyclists have come up with one off performances that raise eyebrows. Whilst the questioning would have grown in intensity as this kind of performance became the norm for him, Froome could have easily deflected such questions at the 2011 Vuelta without having to come up with such an ill thought out and easily discredited lie. Whatever the Froomes may be, i dont believe that they're stupid. Quite the opposite in fact.
The fact he didn't mention previous issues doesnt automatically mean they didn't exist. I dont automtically recount my full life story every time someone asks me a question about a certain point or event in my life.

 

[yaco]

Nowhere have I posted that the UCI tests would have definitely diagnosed Bilharzia or any other illness - What I've stated is it gives medical practitioners a base line for further investigations - For example my guess is any follow up from medical practitioners would delve into Froome's background - Where he's lived/travelled/ risk factors etc to determine the next course of action - After all he was diagnosed with bilharzia ?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Nowhere have I posted that the UCI tests would have definitely diagnosed Bilharzia or any other illness

Really?

I am certain that this series of tests would eventually detect Bilharzia

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Keep in mind that the Bilharzia thing popped up mid-Vuelta in 2011. Froome was far from a cycling great back then, to the point where he was still being sacrificed for Wiggins' sake. I doubt the whole thing was planned or even truly envisioned; and it's not that hard to believe that they made up a simple explanation, and then later had to adapt it, when certain holes became apparent. The first interview also doesn't mention the fact that he suffered from it in earlier years, for instance.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-hopes-to-keep-vuelta-lead-as-long-as-possible

Valid points but both with possible credible counterarguments, ie. why bother coming up with an excuse at all at the 2011 Vuelta. Through history cyclists have come up with one off performances that raise eyebrows. Whilst the questioning would have grown in intensity as this kind of performance became the norm for him, Froome could have easily deflected such questions at the 2011 Vuelta without having to come up with such an ill thought out and easily discredited lie. Whatever the Froomes may be, i dont believe that they're stupid. Quite the opposite in fact.
The fact he didn't mention previous issues doesnt automatically mean they didn't exist. I dont automtically recount my full life story every time someone asks me a question about a certain point or event in my life.

It reminds of the Armstrong cortisone positive. They spent 30 minutes on the Internet looking for the same drug in other treatments. When they found the saddle sore cream that became the “story”. I think Froome was much the same. When he started going full genius at the 2011 Vuelta they needed a quick back story and Badzhilla became that story without the time to do all the nessacary research into the lie.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

Keep in mind that the Bilharzia thing popped up mid-Vuelta in 2011. Froome was far from a cycling great back then, to the point where he was still being sacrificed for Wiggins' sake. I doubt the whole thing was planned or even truly envisioned; and it's not that hard to believe that they made up a simple explanation, and then later had to adapt it, when certain holes became apparent. The first interview also doesn't mention the fact that he suffered from it in earlier years, for instance.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-hopes-to-keep-vuelta-lead-as-long-as-possible

Valid points but both with possible credible counterarguments, ie. why bother coming up with an excuse at all at the 2011 Vuelta. Through history cyclists have come up with one off performances that raise eyebrows. Whilst the questioning would have grown in intensity as this kind of performance became the norm for him, Froome could have easily deflected such questions at the 2011 Vuelta without having to come up with such an ill thought out and easily discredited lie. Whatever the Froomes may be, i dont believe that they're stupid. Quite the opposite in fact.
The fact he didn't mention previous issues doesnt automatically mean they didn't exist. I dont automtically recount my full life story every time someone asks me a question about a certain point or event in my life.

It reminds of the Armstrong cortisone positive. They spent 30 minutes on the Internet looking for the same drug in other treatments. When they found the saddle sore cream that became the “story”. I think Froome was much the same. When he started going full genius at the 2011 Vuelta they needed a quick back story and Badzhilla became that story without the time to do all the nessacary research into the lie.

Maybe, but as i said earlier why bother at all at this stage....its quite a different scenarion from LA's positive drug test that absolutely needed some kind of explanation in a hurry.

Whilst there were definetely eyebrows being raised, no one was pushing so hard for answers in 2011 that the Froomes would have felt compelled to hurriedly come up with excuses.

Hell, Froome didn't even have his own thread on the Clinic until 2012!

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Keep in mind that the Bilharzia thing popped up mid-Vuelta in 2011. Froome was far from a cycling great back then, to the point where he was still being sacrificed for Wiggins' sake. I doubt the whole thing was planned or even truly envisioned; and it's not that hard to believe that they made up a simple explanation, and then later had to adapt it, when certain holes became apparent. The first interview also doesn't mention the fact that he suffered from it in earlier years, for instance.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-hopes-to-keep-vuelta-lead-as-long-as-possible

Valid points but both with possible credible counterarguments, ie. why bother coming up with an excuse at all at the 2011 Vuelta. Through history cyclists have come up with one off performances that raise eyebrows. Whilst the questioning would have grown in intensity as this kind of performance became the norm for him, Froome could have easily deflected such questions at the 2011 Vuelta without having to come up with such an ill thought out and easily discredited lie. Whatever the Froomes may be, i dont believe that they're stupid. Quite the opposite in fact.
The fact he didn't mention previous issues doesnt automatically mean they didn't exist. I dont automtically recount my full life story every time someone asks me a question about a certain point or event in my life.

It reminds of the Armstrong cortisone positive. They spent 30 minutes on the Internet looking for the same drug in other treatments. When they found the saddle sore cream that became the “story”. I think Froome was much the same. When he started going full genius at the 2011 Vuelta they needed a quick back story and Badzhilla became that story without the time to do all the nessacary research into the lie.

Maybe, but as i said earlier why bother at all at this stage....its quite a different scenarion from LA's positive drug test that absolutely needed some kind of explanation in a hurry.

Whilst there were definetely eyebrows being raised, no one was pushing so hard for answers in 2011 that the Froomes would have felt compelled to hurriedly come up with excuses.

Hell, Froome didn't even have his own thread on the Clinic until 2012!

There is a Froome thread from 2011 Vuelta named “No way Froome and Sky are clean”. Many Skyfans at the time were stating how Froome was about to “drop off” as he had done all his hard work in the first week helping Wiggins

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

Keep in mind that the Bilharzia thing popped up mid-Vuelta in 2011. Froome was far from a cycling great back then, to the point where he was still being sacrificed for Wiggins' sake. I doubt the whole thing was planned or even truly envisioned; and it's not that hard to believe that they made up a simple explanation, and then later had to adapt it, when certain holes became apparent. The first interview also doesn't mention the fact that he suffered from it in earlier years, for instance.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-hopes-to-keep-vuelta-lead-as-long-as-possible

Valid points but both with possible credible counterarguments, ie. why bother coming up with an excuse at all at the 2011 Vuelta. Through history cyclists have come up with one off performances that raise eyebrows. Whilst the questioning would have grown in intensity as this kind of performance became the norm for him, Froome could have easily deflected such questions at the 2011 Vuelta without having to come up with such an ill thought out and easily discredited lie. Whatever the Froomes may be, i dont believe that they're stupid. Quite the opposite in fact.
The fact he didn't mention previous issues doesnt automatically mean they didn't exist. I dont automtically recount my full life story every time someone asks me a question about a certain point or event in my life.

It reminds of the Armstrong cortisone positive. They spent 30 minutes on the Internet looking for the same drug in other treatments. When they found the saddle sore cream that became the “story”. I think Froome was much the same. When he started going full genius at the 2011 Vuelta they needed a quick back story and Badzhilla became that story without the time to do all the nessacary research into the lie.

Maybe, but as i said earlier why bother at all at this stage....its quite a different scenarion from LA's positive drug test that absolutely needed some kind of explanation in a hurry.

Whilst there were definetely eyebrows being raised, no one was pushing so hard for answers in 2011 that the Froomes would have felt compelled to hurriedly come up with excuses.

Hell, Froome didn't even have his own thread on the Clinic until 2012!

There is a Froome thread from 2011 Vuelta named “No way Froome and Sky are clean”. Many Skyfans at the time were stating how Froome was about to “drop off” as he had done all his hard work in the first week helping Wiggins

Fair enough; as a relative newcomer that was obviously before my time and i'm just referring to the beginnings of this thread......still doesn't really change my original hypothesis (which may or may not be complete nonsense) that there was still no real pressure in 2011 that would have led the Froomes to come up with such an ill conceived, ill researched, ill presented and ultimately self contradicted history of medical problems, thus raising the still unlikely but not entirely implausible explanation that they may just be telling the truth as well as they remember it.

 

[bigcog]

Just an alternative thought...
Maybe the reason there are lots of inconsistencies and contradictions from Froome on dates etc when referring to the whole issue is because he's actually telling the truth and therefore never felt the need to accurately memorise the whole history, as i'm sure he would have been much more prone to do if he was fabricating a complete lie to sell to the public.

I'm pretty sure if i was asked by numerous different people over the course of several years to recount my medical history over the last ten years or so id just be taking a guess at some of the dates and would be almost certain to get some of them wrong and therefore contradict myself.

I've no idea if Froome is lying about this or not, but there appears to be a commonly held belief on here that examples of where he's contradicted himself provides positive proof that he's lying.

On the basis that someone trying to fabricate and support such a huge lie with devastating consequences if found out, would be much more polished and consistent in presenting said lie to the public, it could just as strongly be held up in support of the belief that he's actually telling the truth.

Based on the Froome’s account, both Chris and Michele, it certainly looks like the both of them read WebMD and attempted to make up the condition and it’s ailments. The inconsistencies from interview to interview is what’s most troubling.

Could well be the case. Pick something that is endemic to a region you spend some time in, has an incubation period that would likely put you out of that region when it manifests and you have a good cover.

I was under the impression from a post on here that he showed his medical records to a journalist showing the diagnosis/treatment ? Obviously depends on whether you believe the journalist or not.

 

[King Boonen]

Just an alternative thought...
Maybe the reason there are lots of inconsistencies and contradictions from Froome on dates etc when referring to the whole issue is because he's actually telling the truth and therefore never felt the need to accurately memorise the whole history, as i'm sure he would have been much more prone to do if he was fabricating a complete lie to sell to the public.

I'm pretty sure if i was asked by numerous different people over the course of several years to recount my medical history over the last ten years or so id just be taking a guess at some of the dates and would be almost certain to get some of them wrong and therefore contradict myself.

I've no idea if Froome is lying about this or not, but there appears to be a commonly held belief on here that examples of where he's contradicted himself provides positive proof that he's lying.

On the basis that someone trying to fabricate and support such a huge lie with devastating consequences if found out, would be much more polished and consistent in presenting said lie to the public, it could just as strongly be held up in support of the belief that he's actually telling the truth.

Based on the Froome’s account, both Chris and Michele, it certainly looks like the both of them read WebMD and attempted to make up the condition and it’s ailments. The inconsistencies from interview to interview is what’s most troubling.

Could well be the case. Pick something that is endemic to a region you spend some time in, has an incubation period that would likely put you out of that region when it manifests and you have a good cover.

I was under the impression from a post on here that he showed his medical records to a journalist showing the diagnosis/treatment ? Obviously depends on whether you believe the journalist or not.

I don't know, I didn't even post in the Badzhilla thread, I was just responding to Hog's suggestion.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

I don't disagree but that was also kind of my point, if you're going to create a lie which is so huge and potentially you're going to use to defend/justify your status as one of the greatest cyclists in history, surely you would study really hard and take the time to revise your lines to ensure that you weren't so easily tripped up. We all know how easy the internet has made it for people to do their own research these days.

Lance Armstrong was initially a pretty convincing liar to a lot of people. The biggest lies tend to be thought up by the best liars, yet the contradictions in the Froome stories are laughable, so laughable that it crossed my mind that they might just be telling the truth but with pretty poor memories.

If all that stood between you and 4 TdFs was Schistosomiasis, how much would you know about the parasite? Would you be calling it a virus years later?

More likely, it was the nearest, easiest answer to "What happened"? Uhhhh. I had this disease that really tanked my performance. But It's all good now. Because yeah, he probably had it and it was an easy thing to grasp at. After that, it's all about managing the lie. Hence, "he just lost the fat".

John Swanson

 

[thehog]

Just an alternative thought...
Maybe the reason there are lots of inconsistencies and contradictions from Froome on dates etc when referring to the whole issue is because he's actually telling the truth and therefore never felt the need to accurately memorise the whole history, as i'm sure he would have been much more prone to do if he was fabricating a complete lie to sell to the public.

I'm pretty sure if i was asked by numerous different people over the course of several years to recount my medical history over the last ten years or so id just be taking a guess at some of the dates and would be almost certain to get some of them wrong and therefore contradict myself.

I've no idea if Froome is lying about this or not, but there appears to be a commonly held belief on here that examples of where he's contradicted himself provides positive proof that he's lying.

On the basis that someone trying to fabricate and support such a huge lie with devastating consequences if found out, would be much more polished and consistent in presenting said lie to the public, it could just as strongly be held up in support of the belief that he's actually telling the truth.

Based on the Froome’s account, both Chris and Michele, it certainly looks like the both of them read WebMD and attempted to make up the condition and it’s ailments. The inconsistencies from interview to interview is what’s most troubling.

Could well be the case. Pick something that is endemic to a region you spend some time in, has an incubation period that would likely put you out of that region when it manifests and you have a good cover.

I was under the impression from a post on here that he showed his medical records to a journalist showing the diagnosis/treatment ? Obviously depends on whether you believe the journalist or not.

Link that one for us all, please.

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

Nowhere have I posted that the UCI tests would have definitely diagnosed Bilharzia or any other illness

Really?

I am certain that this series of tests would eventually detect Bilharzia

I suggest you carefully read my series of posts and link them as one, instead of cherry-picking isolated sentences from different posts, to prove nothing - I was asked about medical tests/screenings conducted by cycling teams/UCI. I have clearly stated the initial battery of tests conducted yearly by a cycling team's doctor's and the quarterly tests conducted by the UCI's doctor's can only provide initial results - Doctor's then undertake further tests/procedures to make a definitive diagnosis - So it's doubtful Bilharzia would come up in the first series of tests, but some abnormality may be found in one of the markers, which leads to further testing - After all, many illnesses are not found just from one blood test or urine test or stool sample.

 

[King Boonen]

So, you are basically saying that it is possible to diagnose Schistosomiasis? Thanks for that.

 

[Merckx index]

I’m not questioning that Froome actually contracted schisto. To make that up from whole cloth, he would need to have several doctors in on the lie, and I don’t buy that. Where he quite apparently embellished the story is in the details, and particularly in creating a story that both the disease, and its treatment, severely impacted his performance. This has all the earmarks of a relatively minor episode in his life until, having suddenly become the greatest GT rider in the world, he saw that it made a convenient explanation for his transformation.

Notice that in the quote that fmk posted upthread, which started this renewed discussion of Froome and schisto, Froome actually gave three reasons for his transformation. In addition to schisto, he mentioned 1) the weight loss, and 2) having to stay close to Wiggins, rather than getting in breaks. IOW, it was not a situation when he intentionally did some things in advance that he thought would make him better as much as one when having suddenly greatly improved, he started looking for reasons post facto that he could make public, that allowed him to sidestep doping questions. Those three reasons are not lies, they’re all things that quite apparently happened. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that any or all of them really do much heavy lifting in explaining the transformation.

Brownbobby might be partly correct. Maybe his inconsistencies in the schisto story are partly the result of a poor memory. But the reason his recall would be poor is just because the disease was not a big deal at the time. As others have noted, if this was a really serious matter, he was constantly or periodically feeling ill, of course he would remember exactly when and how he was diagnosed, and other details.

Why was he tested in the first place? Maybe it was a combination of feeling a little sick at the time and passport abnormalities, even if the latter were not enough to trigger a WADA investigation. But it could be something much more mundane. Maybe he always remembered swimming somewhere he could have become infected—wouldn’t anyone from that part of the world be aware of the possibility?--but since he had never had any symptoms, he hadn’t worried about it. But now, as a rider who was frequently being subjected to checkups and who wanted to be on top of his physical condition at all times, he decided he might as well get tested to make sure, even if he wasn’t feeling ill at all (much as someone who is at low but non-zero risk for HIV might not bother to get tested until s/he is entering a sexual relationship with an innocent partner).

Following diagnosis, he took PZQ, like millions of others, but despite what he and Cound said, it’s very unlikely that the immediate effects of the drug prevented him from training for several weeks. That sounds very much like BS, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they weren’t lying, they just didn’t remember very clearly. Maybe minor symptoms over 2-3 days became more severe conditions over 2-3 weeks.

After one treatment, he would have a checkup six months or so later. If there were still some eggs present, he might have another treatment. More than two treatments is very unusual, and as I said before, one of his own doctors remarked on that. So why the further treatments? Without knowing more details, it’s hard to say. Maybe his body was having trouble clearing the eggs, but maybe also by that time, which was post-Vuelta, he exaggerated his case to his doctor so that he could get further treatments he really didn’t need, but which would help the story. But again, there's a simple explanation that doesn't ascribe nefarious intentions to Froome. Maybe he just wanted to be absolutely certain his health was as good as possible, so he wanted the treatments even though he wasn’t feeling sick at that time at all, and probably didn’t need them. If you’re a world class rider, and had these worms at one time, even if the evidence suggests very strongly they’re gone, you might have additional treatments just because there’s no real downside. But having gone through them, he could then point to them as evidence that it took him several years to shake the disease, when in fact it most likely did not.

 

[Parker]

Link that one for us all, please.

The journalist's name is Nick Harris. He's on twitter, you can ask him yourself. Although last time he mentioned it he got abused by the usual suspects so he might not answer.

 

[thehog]

Link that one for us all, please.

The journalist's name is Nick Harris. He's on twitter, you can ask him yourself. Although last time he mentioned it he got abused by the usual suspects so he might not answer.

So, no link?

 

[Parker]

Link that one for us all, please.

The journalist's name is Nick Harris. He's on twitter, you can ask him yourself. Although last time he mentioned it he got abused by the usual suspects so he might not answer.

So, no link?

Find it yourself. Go ask him @sportingintel. I've told you all you need to know. I'm not searching twitter for you to then add another layer of conspiracy to protect yourself for the idea that your trolling dogma may be wrong.