Why do some people not believe Froome crashed?

velo.2010

There is a small but strong vocal group on twitter, led by a well known account/troll, who genuinely believe that Chris Froome did not crash and break his leg during the Dauphine. They believe that - something along the lines of - Froome was 'glowing' and on the verge of being popped by authorities and that Ineos came up with a plan to remove Froome from racing by organising a fake crash and faking every detail that followed.

I wouldn't normally give much credit to Froome or Ineos - Froome got away away with murder on that salbutamol case and very few believe the bilharzia story - however, the claim that he and his team faked a crash is beyond farce. These folk also believe that Bernal did not break his collarbone before the Giro even though footage of him having the staples removed is availible to see on his Youtube account.

They strike me as the kind of people that believe that because the World Trade Centre buildings falling did not fall in a particular way, it must mean they were blown up in a contrived manner by the US government.

Is this simply echo chamber, tin foil hat stuff? Are people so pissed off with doping stories that they simply don't believe anything they see anymore? Or is it simply modern day, unrelenting trollery - just take the piss out of everyone who is in shape or athletic, perhaps because they, themselves, can't be bothered/don't have the genetics etc, to get into that sort of shape and be that fit? Is it a form of jealousy?

This is a disturbing trend I've noticed recently. I'd be interested to hear if anyone shares the same views. Have they read the various posts and tweets online. Is there any doubt about Froome's crash and the details released by Froome and the team?

Raam

Because they are idiots.

neris

A well known podcaster was saying the same thing about Bernal but his 2 co hosts quickly shot his theory down

dastardly00

Well Dan Martin saw Froome crashing...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/dan-martin-im-still-replaying-chris-froomes-dauphine-crash-in-my-head/

Large bottle small glass

dastardly00 wrote: »

Well Dan Martin saw Froome crashing...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/dan-martin-im-still-replaying-chris-froomes-dauphine-crash-in-my-head/

He's in on it.

Got a double payment for having a sh1t tour to

odyssey06

dastardly00 wrote: »

Well Dan Martin saw Froome crashing...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/dan-martin-im-still-replaying-chris-froomes-dauphine-crash-in-my-head/

Stunt double. Obviously.

Or, they saw that scene in Escape to Victory where they injure the goalie so Stallone can play, and did the same to Froome.

More excuses to follow...

loudymacloud

Is the theory actually that the injuries they claim Froome sustained from the crash were false, not that he didnt crash.

manwithaplan

We're in a post-truth era. All opinions are valid (even the ridiculously stupid ones).

Borderfox

As with most things in cycling time will tell

TheW1zard

They are all on drugs Shirley

Eamonnator

Don't call me Shirley.

velo.2010

@loudymcloudre. Yes, some do believe he crashed and sustained little injury. They point to his visible leg injuries being from another crash, earlier in the season.

What is disappointing is having someone like Ross Tucker engaging with these guys on other topics and potentially giving some validity to their more bizarre beliefs.

Cee-Jay-Cee

I don’t have a Twitter account and have never heard or read that conspiracy story about Froome anywhere else which just goes to re-affirm my belief that twitter is a breeding site for arseholes.

ridelikeaturtle

The "conspiracy theory" level of thinking is incredible.

What is /possibly credible/ is the idea that it is quite a convenient excuse to avoid all the bad press and to save the rest of the team from a huge doping violation just in front of the TdF, which certainly none of the TdF organizers wanted, the team didn't want, the fans didn't want... and so the idea the extent of his injuries were inflated - like all good conspiracy theories - is based on a hint of plausibility.

Did Froome "break his neck"? Probably not, at least not in the common terminology of what people think of when you say "break your neck". But mysteriously crashing on purpose to avoid a doping violation, and fully recovered and back on the bike in a matter of weeks? Yeah, right... but it makes a great story.

ridelikeaturtle

velo.2010 wrote: »

@loudymcloudre. Yes, some do believe he crashed and sustained little injury. They point to his visible leg injuries being from another crash, earlier in the season.

I saw something on Twitter comparing two photos - total bizzaro-land stuff!

rtmie

Wishbone Ash

velo.2010 wrote: »

...They strike me as the kind of people that believe that because the World Trade Centre buildings falling did not fall in a particular way, it must mean they were blown up in a contrived manner by the US government.....

I wouldn't pay any attention to the conspiracy theorists. They are the type of people who like to ignore 99.9% of evidence and focus on the .1% - just like those who think that LHO had nothing to do with the JFK assassination.

mamax

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

I don’t have a Twitter account and have never heard or read that conspiracy story about Froome anywhere else which just goes to re-affirm my belief that twitter is a breeding site for arseholes.

Couldn't have said it better
Now mods can close this thread :P

gmacww

Absolutely nothing to do with Froome but this is absolutely brilliant and explains twitter perfectly...

https://twitter.com/tonymc39/status/1152554373047824384

Utter Consternation

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

I don’t have a Twitter account and have never heard or read that conspiracy story about Froome anywhere else which just goes to re-affirm my belief that twitter is a breeding site for arseholes.

Ther's nothing middle of the road on twitter. Just a bunch of knobs entrenched in their ideas shouting at each.