Which, again, clashes with the idea that Froome was protected
Even assuming it was a shadow ban, there's infinitely easier ways to fake an injury than faking a catastrophic crash that leaves you bed-ridden in an actual hospital. It doesn't make any sense. It's completely ridiculous
I have no trouble grasping that Froome is a proven liar. That's obvious. However, the people peddling conspiracy theories fail to satisfactorily answer the single most important question to every conspiracy theory: why though
Froome was doped to the gills and was and is a liar.
Was he protected by the UCI in his glory days? I don't know.
Was he too big to fall? Yes and no. Money/lawyers could make a positive go away if there was even a hint of grey. But, if he tested positive for some serious smack and it became public, he would have been taken down.
Was the crash legit? Yes, and there was no way he was ever going to reach his top level again.
Why is he being discussed now? I guess people are bored but we'll have bigger fish to fry in July.
June 12, 2019: Froome crashes and his career is effectively over.
One month later he gets retrospectively awarded the 2011 vuelta (his first and last gt win).
The rise and fall of Froome: it's a story of passion and betrayal, of truth and love.
It's one for the scrapbook.