Chris Froome abandons Vuelta as scans confirm ankle fracture

Kadinkski wrote:

Why would their plan be for Froome to not finish? I don't get what Sky get out of that.

he is suggesting that no one believes you can win back to back GT's clean so by putting Froome in and say finishing a credible 10th or not finishing due to no energy it proves he is clean.

The problem with that theory is that was it not Pantani the last to do it and he was not clean. So in all the years since we have had so many dopers and even they could not do it so does it get proved anyway.

And only Contador two in one season with a rest for the TDF when he was likely not to have been clean.

If anyone wins back to back GT's or even two in one season now, do we really think it is possible (given the speed and ferocity of the peloton now - hence all the crashes) to do that clean or dirty ?

stumps wrote:

fukawitribe - mate dont rise to his opinions he's just trying his best to be a troll.

I know, you're absolutely right, couldn't stop myself... dumb, dumb, dumb.

daddyELVIS wrote:

Plan complete! Maybe not how they wanted it, but job done!

What an unutterable ****

bikeboy76 wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

Plan complete! Maybe not how they wanted it, but job done!

What an unutterable ****

So you think Sky put Froome in Vuelta to win it? Froome might believe his own hype but the Sky management knew he couldn't win it. He was there for one reason, and he achieved it (just not in the fashion they were expecting).

I questioned Sky's decision to send Froome a few weeks ago, on this very website, and said it could end in disaster for him. I said it wasn't worth it - but Sky had their reasons!

I was shot down at the time. Now, who was right?

daddyELVIS wrote:

bikeboy76 wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

Plan complete! Maybe not how they wanted it, but job done!

What an unutterable ****

So you think Sky put Froome in Vuelta to win it? Froome might believe his own hype but the Sky management knew he couldn't win it. He was there for one reason, and he achieved it (just not in the fashion they were expecting).

I questioned Sky's decision to send Froome a few weeks ago, on this very website, and said it could end in disaster for him. I said it wasn't worth it - but Sky had their reasons!

I was shot down at the time. Now, who was right?

The people who thought the race was important enough, and the chance of victory high enough, and the media exposure good enough to warrant going.

Your 'Sky had their reasons' ? You said "Sky looking to rub salt in the wounds of the other teams" and "suggesting that Sky arrogance may be getting the better of them" at the time - and now their plan all along was for Froome to not finish ? Bullshit. Next time you have some wacky theory, at least have the balls to stand by it.

fukawitribe wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

bikeboy76 wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

Plan complete! Maybe not how they wanted it, but job done!

What an unutterable ****

So you think Sky put Froome in Vuelta to win it? Froome might believe his own hype but the Sky management knew he couldn't win it. He was there for one reason, and he achieved it (just not in the fashion they were expecting).

I questioned Sky's decision to send Froome a few weeks ago, on this very website, and said it could end in disaster for him. I said it wasn't worth it - but Sky had their reasons!

I was shot down at the time. Now, who was right?

The people who thought the race was important enough, and the chance of victory high enough, and the media exposure good enough to warrant going.

Your 'Sky had their reasons' ? You said "Sky looking to rub salt in the wounds of the other teams" and "suggesting that Sky arrogance may be getting the better of them" at the time - and now their plan all along was for Froome to not finish ? Bullshit. Next time you have some wacky theory, at least have the balls to stand by it.

That was when it was first announced Froome would ride the Vuelta - the main thing I said there was warning about the huge risk (i.e. Froome getting injured in a pointless exercise).

Then, when the full Sky team was revealed, the plan became apparent, and I said exactly:

"Blimey - is G going for burn-out?! I can't believe Sky will do much in this race other than 'prove' they are human!"

Now, how do you like them apples?!

ianrobo wrote:

I think his anger at the motor camera was about himself more than the guy on the bike

Oooo for a number of reasons i'd wager a large part of it was actually about the bike myself..

ct wrote:

I mean, I don't even take the bikes off the roof...just drive around to cycley areas throwing thumbs up at 'cyclists' who are actually cycling

It is the most reliable way to get a Strava KOM these days.

There's definitely something in cycling culture which teaches riders not to give up and always to try and make the end of a stage. But there's also the fact that it's a low/no impact activity and you don't have to bear your weight on your limbs most of the time - it would be a lot more difficult to continue in a marathon, for example, because of the impact on the ankle.

That doesn't take away from the fact that these guys endure serious pain in order to carry on, just for the sake of professional pride in most cases. Tough guys, without a doubt.

vonhelmet wrote:

I'm sure there must be something innate in cyclists that makes them continue against ludicrous odds, up to and including broken bones. Maybe it's because we cyclists are used to finding ourselves in a state of exhaustion 10, 25, 50 miles from home in the middle of nowhere, with a puncture to fix, clouds gathering overhead, and knowing we have to just get back on the bike and make our way home before nightfall. You got yourself all the way out there, you're the only one that can get you back.

Road cyclist tend to but others seem to drive about with bikes on the roof of their cars and drive home after.

Yorkshie Whippet wrote:

He rode all that way and up them hills on a broken ankle!

Respect.

And only 8 mins or so slower than the fastest. And then answers press questions at the end when he can't even walk. Big respect.

Wonder who it was that knocked him sideways? Hope it's not yet another moto incident - saw he was very upset with a moto he passed later in the stage

DaveE128 wrote:

Yorkshie Whippet wrote:

He rode all that way and up them hills on a broken ankle!

Respect.

And only 8 mins or so slower than the fastest. And then answers press questions at the end when he can't even walk. Big respect.

Wonder who it was that knocked him sideways? Hope it's not yet another moto incident - saw he was very upset with a moto he passed later in the stage

Is there a plan here to hospitalise all the possible winners except one?

according to Froome he was knocked but no mention of a rider or a motorbike, just a plain accident.

ianrobo wrote:

according to Froome he was knocked but no mention of a rider or a motorbike, just a plain accident.

Very true but i think he's to much of a gent to start throwing accusations about other riders.

stumps wrote:

ianrobo wrote:

according to Froome he was knocked but no mention of a rider or a motorbike, just a plain accident.

Very true but i think he's to much of a gent to start throwing accusations about other riders.

Or bottles.