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.