Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[bigcog]

Re:

7 weeks later

No scars, bruises, and especially no swelling?

Bruising and swelling go fairly quickly, a few weeks and most of it, if not all of it will be gone. The scars will be small based on the surgical incisions/staple line, plus the the footage you have uploaded is a bit blurred. I bust my upper arm in two places and it was deep purple from bruising which went in a few weeks at most.

 

[Singer01]

I got knocked off my bike by a car. My left thigh was black from top to bottom. It healed in 2 weeks. You lot are fully mental.

 

[PremierAndrew]

idk, im not convinced either way, but definitely think the conspiracy theories aren't completely unfounded here

 

[Koronin]

I do agree the scares don't match. The bruising and swelling should be gone after a few weeks. But there should still be some noticeable scaring.

By contrast of what you see with Froome's leg, this picture is of Valverde's scars on his leg 2 years after his Tour crash. (This picture is from the presentation at this past weekend's San Sebastian.

Scars just don't disappear in few weeks. They can after 10 years or more. My husband has scars that aren't noticeable unless you are looking for them from ACL surgery over 20 years ago.

Having said all of that, I do believe Froome had a very nasty and scary crash. I'm just not fully convinced they injuries were as bad as they said.

 

[wrinklyvet]

It certainly is absurd to deny the evidence of this video, including the X-ray evidence. Guys and gals, his femur was in pieces! Never mind anything else. You may also assume Froome has received and is receiving the best of care for his rehabilitation. You can see some of this. It's easy to argue about how long it takes for scars to heal or not show and never agree That's hardly the point. We are all different and circumstances are too. Conspiracy theories are unnecessary and pointless. They are not deserving of your time.

 

[bigcog]

Re:

I do agree the scares don't match. The bruising and swelling should be gone after a few weeks. But there should still be some noticeable scaring.

By contrast of what you see with Froome's leg, this picture is of Valverde's scars on his leg 2 years after his Tour crash. (This picture is from the presentation at this past weekend's San Sebastian.

Scars just don't disappear in few weeks. They can after 10 years or more. My husband has scars that aren't noticeable unless you are looking for them from ACL surgery over 20 years ago.

Having said all of that, I do believe Froome had a very nasty and scary crash. I'm just not fully convinced they injuries were as bad as they said.

In terms of scars you are comparing two different fractures ... A fractured patella, if severe which Valverde had will leave a scar of about 6 to 8 inches down the kneecap area. This is totally different to a femur fracture where there will be an external fixator which will leave a few small scars on the side of the thigh near the injury area.

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

I do agree the scares don't match. The bruising and swelling should be gone after a few weeks. But there should still be some noticeable scaring.

By contrast of what you see with Froome's leg, this picture is of Valverde's scars on his leg 2 years after his Tour crash. (This picture is from the presentation at this past weekend's San Sebastian.

Scars just don't disappear in few weeks. They can after 10 years or more. My husband has scars that aren't noticeable unless you are looking for them from ACL surgery over 20 years ago.

Having said all of that, I do believe Froome had a very nasty and scary crash. I'm just not fully convinced they injuries were as bad as they said.

In terms of scars you are comparing two different fractures ... A fractured patella, if severe which Valverde had will leave a scar of about 6 to 8 inches down the kneecap area. This is totally different to a femur fracture where there will be an external fixator which will leave a few small scars on the side of the thigh near the injury area.

To me those scars at this point should still be visible. As I said, I do believe he was injured.

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

I do agree the scares don't match. The bruising and swelling should be gone after a few weeks. But there should still be some noticeable scaring.

By contrast of what you see with Froome's leg, this picture is of Valverde's scars on his leg 2 years after his Tour crash. (This picture is from the presentation at this past weekend's San Sebastian.

Scars just don't disappear in few weeks. They can after 10 years or more. My husband has scars that aren't noticeable unless you are looking for them from ACL surgery over 20 years ago.

Having said all of that, I do believe Froome had a very nasty and scary crash. I'm just not fully convinced they injuries were as bad as they said.

In terms of scars you are comparing two different fractures ... A fractured patella, if severe which Valverde had will leave a scar of about 6 to 8 inches down the kneecap area. This is totally different to a femur fracture where there will be an external fixator which will leave a few small scars on the side of the thigh near the injury area.

To me those scars at this point should still be visible. As I said, I do believe he was injured.

That's only because you can actually think.

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

7 weeks later

No scars, bruises, and especially no swelling?

Sooo....Ineos and Froome create this great deception, French emergency first responsers are on board, highly respected Doctors. surgeons and medical institutions are on board, they then go to the trouble of producing and editing a professional PR video (not some youube clip filmed on a camera phone btw) over several weeks.....then some douchebag in the make up department forgets to draw his scars on for one of the scenes...DOH

 

[PremierAndrew]

I mean, if they were faking it, they could easily just say open fracture of femur, no need to lay out all the other injuries he suffered.
Also if they were faking it and worried about protecting a lie, it wouldn't be hard to have originally placed a neck brace on Froome for the photos, etc etc
Dan Martin also reported seeing the aftermath of the crash, and as mentioned by some others, and some highly acclaimed surgeons and medics would be risking their career for this "lie", something they just don't need to do.

BUT, the scars just don't match up, and Sky don't exactly have a history of being crystal clear. If they wanted to cover up a doping ban, they'd have the budget to do all this. Not saying it *is* a conspiracy, but I think it's fair to question it

 

[PremierAndrew]

First is an image released by Ineos to show the scarring to Froome's leg supposedly following the Dauphine crash

Second is an image of Froome's knee after a crash in Catalunya a few months earlier

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

First is an image released by Ineos to show the scarring to Froome's leg supposedly following the Dauphine crash

Second is an image of Froome's knee after a crash in Catalunya a few months earlier

Sorry, what am i missing here....i don't really understand what the relevance of these 2 photos taken pre and post crash is?

 

[rick james]

My god....some crazy person took a still of a ineos video of froomes leg to study it to claim conspiracy

 

[Pantani Attacks]

Dat dere Alien Dawg skin

 

[samhocking]

I don't get it? I see a swollen leg with staples and a normal leg with a bit of road rash?

 

[MatParker117]

The mental gymnastics of some people...

 

[myrideissteelerthanyours]

Why do you think they updated the forum software today? Finestre... leg gate... there are no coincidences in cycling

 

[Pier14]

Why would they fake the accident?
I saw on Twitter some suggestion it was to cover up a drug ban.
The more complex the cover up, the number of people involved, the easier it breaks down.
If it was a cover up, why not something simpler? Fake an illness, etc.

 

[rick james]

easier ways to cover up a doping ban than involving a major hospital and a rider from another team

 

[SHAD0W93]

Why would they fake the accident?
I saw on Twitter some suggestion it was to cover up a drug ban.
The more complex the cover up, the number of people involved, the easier it breaks down.
If it was a cover up, why not something simpler? Fake an illness, etc.

Because no one will kick a man when he's had a bad accident

All jokes aside, I think it's silly for people to think the accident didn't happen. Now I will agree that potentially his injuries weren't as severe as reported.

 

[wrinklyvet]

@ SHADOW99
Agree with whom?
Cyclingnews originally reported like this, "Team Ineos confirmed Wednesday evening that Froome suffered a fractured femur in the crash. In addition to the broken leg, Froome also fractured his elbow and ribs in the wreck, effectively ending his hopes of adding a record-tying fifth Tour de France title in July. "
I suppose you mean the crash happened but some of those injuries were overstated (or did not happen) and you agree with the naysayers. I wonder which.

 

[MartinGT]

Ineos / Sky are as transparent as a brick wall and some of their communications are appalling. This hasnt helped them one bit in the past and present so you can see why people are sceptical

 

[wrinklyvet]

It doesn't surprise me at all that some people take the view that they must adopt a sceptical approach but it would never be my first reaction to the news of anyone's accident, anyone's injuries, or that it is the reason for their non-participation. if I could think of a team I dislike for any reason my position would be the same. People will think and do what they want to do. I would be the last to say they shouldn't adopt any contrary view. But I can still be hugely surprised that in the face of all the evidence this supposed conspiracy is still rumbling on as an allegedly acceptable theory. I can tell you that if the major bone in my leg were fractured into pieces like Froome's in the X-ray I would not be riding either and that's all it would take to stop me.

 

[brownbobby]

Its one thing to be sceptical about anything they say WRT to doping or associated issues....IF they are doping, then of course they are going to lie to cover that up, i mean no one in the history of the sport (or at least since it became illegal) has ever just come out and told the truth about their doping practices unless faced with the most overwhelming evidence (eg. Lance) or some kind of financial motive eg . books to sell. Even then i'm sure we only ever hear a glossed over version to paint said dopers in the best light possible.

If active dopers are questioned directly about doping, then they are going to lie about doping. That's a fact.

But lying about something like this is a whole different ball game.....fact is in life people are rarely ever pure; decent people lie occasionally, and bad people tell the truth occasionally. You just have to try and apply your own filters when judging information, and in this case my own filter is saying even if these people have lied to us in the past, why on earth would they have lied about this...

 

[Parker]

Why would they fake the accident?
I saw on Twitter some suggestion it was to cover up a drug ban.
The more complex the cover up, the number of people involved, the easier it breaks down.
If it was a cover up, why not something simpler? Fake an illness, etc.

Exactly. Tom Dumoulin also dropped out of the Dauphine and has now called an end to his season. He and Froome will probably be back racing around the same time. But there's no conspiracy or scrutiny around him. That's how you would do a "silent ban". (I don't doubt he's injured BTW)