Yep, Tom Dumoulin has managed to turn an innocuous bit of road rash on his knee into a season ending injury......now if i was going down the silent ban conspiracy rabbit hole......but im not
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Because, wasn't it SDB that said "if you cheat on Monday you will cheat on Tuesday". Why should Sky/Ineos get any benefit of telling the truth when we know they gahve lied extensively in the past.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...
I keep hearing this. Lied extensively. "Blatant and obvious lies" (Red Flanders above).Because, wasn't it SDB that said "if you cheat on Monday you will cheat on Tuesday". Why should Sky/Ineos get any benefit of telling the truth when we know they gahve lied extensively in the past.
@ 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.
I keep hearing this. Lied extensively. "Blatant and obvious lies" (Red Flanders above).
So what are these lies? Just pick your favourite few.
I'll start you off with Simon Cope going to see Emma Pooley. A lie or bad memory of a five year old event? I'd lean towards the latter, but I'll grant you that one.
So what are some more? Verifiable lies, not matters of opinion.
(Red Flanders, feel free to join in)
I'm just asking what these lies are? Help me to understand. If they're 'blatant and obvious' surely you should be able to point out a couple of them. I'll drop the semantics if you wish.There's an entire Sky/Ineos thread, a Froome thread, maybe a Bilharzia thread (I can't recall) that outlines all the reasons why people don't trust them.
There is a clear difference between "obvious and blatant" and "verifiable". People forming an opinion about Brailsford, Sky, or Froome make up their minds based on their opinion about what they've been told which doesn't in any way comport with reality. "Verifiable" is something which sets a bar very few people may be interested in. We're not trying to prosecute anyone, we're discussing whether we think we've been lied to. We all form opinions about people's credibility based on repeated interactions.
If you don't understand why people don't trust them or think they've obviously been lying about innumerable topics, nothing I can say now is going to change that. Folks are just in different mindsets after 8 or 9 years of watching this team.
To be honest, it's really hard for me to believe that someone truly doesn't get why folks don't trust anything this outfit puts out there.
I'm just asking what these lies are? Help me to understand. If they're 'blatant and obvious' surely you should be able to point out a couple of them. I'll drop the semantics if you wish.
What are your top three Sky/Ineos lies?
Because, wasn't it SDB that said "if you cheat on Monday you will cheat on Tuesday". Why should Sky/Ineos get any benefit of telling the truth when we know they gahve lied extensively in the past.
Froome doesn’t need a TUE for his asthma
- Virtually everything about schisto. E.g., that the worms eat significant amounts of red cells (they don’t); that it may take several treatments with PZQ to rid the body of infection (extremely rare, even Froome’s own doctor said that); that after a treatment, it’s impossible to train for a week or more (not true, according to many people who have been treated). There are so many more lies about this one issue alone, that I’m not even going to try to go on, but it’s all been discussed in this forum.
- That the details of the salbutamol decision would be published within a few days of the announcement that Froome’s case had been dropped.
- That Froome has suffered from asthma since childhood. If so, why did he never have a TUE for it when it was necessary? If he did, why isn’t it in the records, and why won’t he furnish it?
- Technically not a lie, but why does he refuse to publish physiological/power numbers from before 2011, other than that one mysterious FAX? It certainly becomes a lie when Sky/Ineos/Froome claim transparency.
Froome doesn’t need a TUE for his asthma
While the conspiracy theories don't stand up to any scrutiny, Tom Dumoulin and his team don't have a long history of making up blatant and obvious lies on a seemingly endless number of topics. He's also not a 4-time Tour winner. Therefore, less skepticism and no conspiracy theories.
I don't think that's exactly difficult to process, is it?
But people have heard that explanation enough times that I assume this time won't make a difference to the whining.
- Virtually everything about schisto. E.g., that the worms eat significant amounts of red cells (they don’t); that it may take several treatments with PZQ to rid the body of infection (extremely rare, even Froome’s own doctor said that); that after a treatment, it’s impossible to train for a week or more (not true, according to many people who have been treated). There are so many more lies about this one issue alone, that I’m not even going to try to go on, but it’s all been discussed in this forum.
- That the details of the salbutamol decision would be published within a few days of the announcement that Froome’s case had been dropped.
- That Froome has suffered from asthma since childhood. If so, why did he never have a TUE for it when it was necessary? If he did, why isn’t it in the records, and why won’t he furnish it?
- Technically not a lie, but why does he refuse to publish physiological/power numbers from before 2011, other than that one mysterious FAX? It certainly becomes a lie when Sky/Ineos/Froome claim transparency.
Well I have to tell you that what you have quoted cannot at present be called a lie, because the test of time is not so easily satisfied. Until it is proved to be a lie by failing to stand, it is not a lie. It is just a predictionThis is one tour de France that will stand the test of time. Now that's a lie.
Froome doesn’t need a TUE for his asthma
- This isn't a lie. This is a difference of opinions about the severity of a disease. A disease that I suspect you have no experience of. I'd be very surprised if a disease which has several variations and effects 200 million has uniform severity. You are making the classic sceptics error of confusing your opinion with fact.
Not a difference of opinion. Ask any doctor or person treated for the disease. Again, there is much, much more on this in one of threads. The worms aren't the problem wrt red blood cells; it's the eggs, which should alter passport readings, though Froome's were reported to be fine. His own doctor said he didn't understand how Froome could need more than two treatments. The timeline of treatments doesn't correlate at all with times of poor performance ascribed to having the disease. This goes on and on.
I'm not claiming he didn't have the disease. I'm claiming he lied about it, showed a lot of evidence of not even understanding it (he referred to the agents as a virus once), and that those lies were instrumental in building the false narrative that the disease could explain why he wasn't a better rider prior to 2011.
It's the UCI/WADA's report. It's up to them to publish. Again not a lie.
So Froome goes to UCI/WADA and says, I want this published to exonerate me in the public's eye. And they forbid him? Seriously? On what basis? And Froome doesn't make another announcement, saying he wants it published, but they won't let him? Seriously?
Didn't he have a TUE? Have you asked Barloworld. Sure it wasn't in the Fancy Bear leak, but was he on Addams at the time?
One of his own teammates at Barlo had it leaked by FB. Why not Froome?
After three non-lies, you are already on to things you admit aren't lies.
There are far more than three just on the schist issue alone. I was being brief, because it's been discussed before.
1. Are you seriously claiming that a disease has exactly uniform symptoms and levels of severity. And recovery is identical regardless of the patient. And still not a lie.
As for Froome's account - he's not a doctor. He's explaining something he doesn't really understand. Ask cancer sufferers to explain in detail the mechanism of cancer. Will they get it all right? Of course not. Not a lie .
2. Maybe they could have got into a further pointless battle with the UCI. But that doesn't make it a lie.
3. Cummings used to be on the British Track team. Maybe they adopted the Addams system early. Again just because there is no record of the asthma it doesn't mean he's lying.
4. Yet you have still haven't come up with a single lie.