Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Parker]

Not my problem you don't like the answer that was given. I eagerly await YOU accepting the answer that was given.
I'm not going back 4 months to look for the comments they were making that made it sound like he was dying or close to it.
I'm done talking to you about this because it's obviously not going anywhere and won't go anywhere.

How can I accept an answer when you haven't given me one? I've asked several times now for an example. You may not want to go back four months but you said this was easy to comprehend. Obviously you have examples that make it easy. Perhaps you could help me.

 

[Koronin]

How can I accept an answer when you haven't given me one? I've asked several times now for an example. You may not want to go back four months but you said this was easy to comprehend. Obviously you have examples that make it easy. Perhaps you could help me.

You may keep talking, but as I already stated the conversation is over. I will NOT be pulled farther into this abyss.

 

[simoni]

You may keep talking, but as I already stated the conversation is over. I will NOT be pulled farther into this abyss.

So you've got nothing then? Fair enough, that's fine.

 

[macbindle]

So you've got nothing then? Fair enough, that's fine.

To be fair to Koronin he did have something....lots of shouty angry capitals, accusations of trolling and then pulling out the 'skybot' card...a really nasty remark which aims to dehumanise the recipient. He also had the trump card which is that Sky have lied before which means that everything they ever say in the future will be a lie.

What he didnt actually have was any substantive reason as to why Sky would lie about Froome's injuries, what possible benefit it would offer them.

Even the most batsh1t crazy conspiracy theories have a motive.

Oops.

 

[wrinklyvet]

To be fair to Koronin he did have something....lots of shouty angry capitals, accusations of trolling and then pulling out the 'skybot' card...a really nasty remark which aims to dehumanise the recipient. He also had the trump card which is that Sky have lied before which means that everything they ever say in the future will be a lie.

What he didnt actually have was any substantive reason as to why Sky would lie about Froome's injuries, what possible benefit it would offer them.

Even the most batsh1t crazy conspiracy theories have a motive.

Oops.

I believe "he" is a "she" (mentioned for accuracy only and not that that it should matter) and sadly, her recent insistence on not answering reasonable comments on her post is as bizarre as the comments made by her previously in non-Clinic areas in relation to the weather in Yorkshire and the World Champs. You others are on a hiding to nothing if you look for objective reasoning. Its sad, because those of you who write here regularly deserve better.

 

[gregrowlerson]

That was longer than the Sampras & Agassi rally.

 

[Koronin]

Sky/Ineos have given us years of reasons to not trust anything they say or do. So why should anyone take the injuries that Froome supposedly suffered at face value from them? Their "marginal gains" is plenty of proof of exaggerations. They have years of hiding everything they are doing while trying to claim they are transparent. Jiffy bag, lost laptop and medical records that were requested by courts. Spending huge money to get Froome off of a doping charge that others were given bans for having LESS with unadjusted numbers than his adjusted numbers were. All of those are proof of why what they say isn't worth much. At the time of the crash I did give the benefit of the doubt. However, since mid July it doesn't appear that what was originally said accurate and it appears it was exaggerated. So the question is why. However, no one here wants to talk about why they exaggerated what they said. As for it was a nasty looking crash. Well there have been plenty of auto racing (esp NASCAR) crashes that have looked horrific yet drivers walked away with no injuries while much crashes that look a lot tamer have killed drivers. While I'm still willing to believe the crash looked horrific, I'm not willing to believe the injuries were as bad as originally stated. If they were Froome would not even be thinking of trying to race before next year starts. I guess it's possible that he is trying to be optimistic.

 

[macbindle]

Sky/Ineos have given us years of reasons to not trust anything they say or do. So why should anyone take the injuries that Froome supposedly suffered at face value from them?

You still haven't explained what benefit you think Sky would gain by lying about Froome's injuries.

 

[Koronin]

You still haven't explained what benefit you think Sky would gain by lying about Froome's injuries.

I never said they lied. I said they exaggerated. A very simple reason would be to try to get sympathy for an unliked rider.

 

[macbindle]

That is not a very tangible benefit given the likelihood that medical staff may contradict them (which they didnt)

How do you know they exaggerated? Are you medically qualified? Were you there?

 

[Koronin]

That is not a very tangible benefit given the likelihood that medical staff may contradict them (which they didnt)

How do you know they exaggerated? Are you medically qualified? Were you there?

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?

 

[aphronesis]

Sky/Ineos have given us years of reasons to not trust anything they say or do. So why should anyone take the injuries that Froome supposedly suffered at face value from them? Their "marginal gains" is plenty of proof of exaggerations. They have years of hiding everything they are doing while trying to claim they are transparent. Jiffy bag, lost laptop and medical records that were requested by courts. Spending huge money to get Froome off of a doping charge that others were given bans for having LESS with unadjusted numbers than his adjusted numbers were. All of those are proof of why what they say isn't worth much. At the time of the crash I did give the benefit of the doubt. However, since mid July it doesn't appear that what was originally said accurate and it appears it was exaggerated. So the question is why. However, no one here wants to talk about why they exaggerated what they said. As for it was a nasty looking crash. Well there have been plenty of auto racing (esp NASCAR) crashes that have looked horrific yet drivers walked away with no injuries while much crashes that look a lot tamer have killed drivers. While I'm still willing to believe the crash looked horrific, I'm not willing to believe the injuries were as bad as originally stated. If they were Froome would not even be thinking of trying to race before next year starts. I guess it's possible that he is trying to be optimistic.

Are you an athlete? Successfully competitive. I know this might seem strange, but some people like to come out of setbacks by pushing through them.

So what’s the logic/argument here? Froome will get special treatment in the peloton and from fans because the severity of injuries was exaggerated. Okidoke

 

[Koronin]

Are you an athlete? Successfully competitive. I know this might seem strange, but some people like to come out of setbacks by pushing through them.

So what’s the logic/argument here? Froome will get special treatment in the peloton and from fans because the severity of injuries was exaggerated. Okidoke

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.

 

[wrinklyvet]

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.

 

[CTQ]

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)

 

[wansteadimp]

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.

 

[aphronesis]

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?

 

[Koronin]

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]

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.

 

[Koronin]

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.

 

[aphronesis]

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?

 

[Koronin]

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).

 

[aphronesis]

So you don’t know but think you do. Can we leave it at that?

 

[Koronin]

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?

 

[86TDFWinner]

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.