Sergio Henao

[JimmyFingers]

Yup.....and crazy that SKY would take a chance on a rider with his history unless they fully checked him out and submitted an exception to the UCI. There is zero indication they did this.

Sky is in for a very rough few months. The JTL case is a mess. Even they think he is a doper. Add in Henao and at best they appear to have done zero due diligence on their riders. At worst......well, I am sure the folks here will point what the worst it.

The JTL case is prior to his involvement with Sky, so while you can accuse them of naivety you can also point to the fact he was clearly riding clean while at Sky, and that is the reason he got pinged. Haneo is suspended by the team not by the authorities, so again while you can accuse them of negligence you can at least say their intentions are right.

I understand why people want to criticise a team whose mantra is attention to detail when clearly they, like other teams and you and me make mistakes, but none of this to me adds up to the team being complicit in their rider's doping. The opposite in fact.

 

[Catwhoorg]

In the ideal world:

A team has questions over (blood or steroid) longitudinal data, they suspend (on full pay) the rider whilst addressing any possible legitimate causes. This clearly doesn't have to be at the same level of confidence that opening a biopassport case requires.

This should occur behind closed doors, due to the presumption of innocence at this stage (a genuinely clean rider's reputation shouldn't be sullied if there is a legitimate reason).

The problem here is Henao's agent forced this into the public domain.

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

I have not said it does.

My point is clear, despite their claims Sky's background checks on riders and staff are weak at best and their lack of due diligence continues to result in embarrassment for the team and questions of their cleanliness

Grey's Law: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice".

 

[TheGame]

Shall we play a game to see how many successive posts we can have without actually talking about Henao

 

[Escarabajo]

In the ideal world:

A team has questions over (blood or steroid) longitudinal data, they suspend (on full pay) the rider whilst addressing any possible legitimate causes. This clearly doesn't have to be at the same level of confidence that opening a biopassport case requires.

This should occur behind closed doors, due to the presumption of innocence at this stage (a genuinely clean rider's reputation shouldn't be sullied if there is a legitimate reason).
The problem here is Henao's agent forced this into the public domain.

+1.

Agreed. I thought Sky was going to do due diligence behind doors and a pi$$ed off agent triggered the alarm and backfired.

 

[the sceptic]

You're entirely correct.

Luckily Sky have done exactly the right thing here.

doping up a rider is doing the right thing?

 

[Beech Mtn]

+1.

Agreed. I thought Sky was going to do due diligence behind doors and a pi$$ed off agent triggered the alarm and backfired.

Or the team were about to hang the rider out to dry as a bad apple, off doing naughty things in remote Colombia where the upstanding Anglo team couldn't possibly have known about it. So the agent made a pre-emptive strike to protect his rider, pointing attention back to the team before they could fire Henao and throw all the blame on him.

Or some other possibility. Who knows?
Would really love to see a follow-up interview with Henao's agent.

 

[Afrank]

Let's keep it on the topic of Henao, I'm moving a few posts on JTL/Sky to the Sky thread.

 

[proffate]

Or the team were about to hang the rider out to dry as a bad apple, off doing naughty things in remote Colombia where the upstanding Anglo team couldn't possibly have known about it.

Yea, let's ship him off to the jungle to study him in his natural habitat. Anthropology. White man's burden and all that. Maybe they'll find a cure for cancer in his bone marrow?

 

[TailWindHome]

doping up a rider is doing the right thing?

At this stage there is no evidence to support the assertion that Sky 'doped up' Henao

There is strong evidence to support the assertion that they have reviewed data collected by a WADA accredited lab/agency, reviewed it themselves, had concerns, contacted the UCI and withdrew the rider from competition.

This is exactly the course of action a team should take.

 

[the sceptic]

At this stage there is no evidence to support the assertion that Sky 'doped up' Henao

There is strong evidence to support the assertion that they have reviewed data collected by a WADA accredited lab/agency, reviewed it themselves, had concerns, contacted the UCI and withdrew the rider from competition.

This is exactly the course of action a team should take.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Brailsford press releases does not count as "strong evidence", no matter how much you and your friends on BikeRetard want it to be that way

 

[TailWindHome]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Brailsford press releases does not count as "strong evidence", no matter how much you and your friends on BikeRetard want it to be that way

How about you focus on the discussion instead of the childish name calling?

 

[DirtyWorks]

The JTL case is prior to his involvement with Sky

Ugh. Not this again. The guy was attending Sky training camps over a long period of time even though he was contracted with another team. He was a Sky rider in practice. If you demand that he was not because it wasn't official, then we agree to disagree.

you can also point to the fact he was clearly riding clean

We can? Because? Again, one of the fundamental problems is the wild inconsistencies of anti-doping enforcement.

I understand why people want to criticise a team whose mantra is attention to detail when clearly they, like other teams and you and me make mistakes

All is forgiven then. Any time, any offence.

 

[the sceptic]

How about you focus on the discussion instead of the childish name calling?

what discussion? if you were open for discussion you wouldnt blindly accept the sky propaganda as fact.

Let me know when you have an open mind, then we can have a discussion.

 

[JimmyFingers]

And to think I got banned for bickering

 

[DirtyWorks]

At this stage there is no evidence to support the assertion that Sky 'doped up' Henao

There is strong evidence to support the assertion that they have reviewed data collected by a WADA accredited lab/agency, reviewed it themselves, had concerns, contacted the UCI and withdrew the rider from competition.

This is exactly the course of action a team should take.

Leave the allegation regarding the possibility there was doping aside and not even get into Sky's role.

Your post needs some clarification. A WADA certified lab does not collect samples. They only test and post results to APMU. Some anti-doping authority somewhere ordered an OOC test on Henao and no one is saying which one. At any given time an anti-doping authority could be a federation, a race organizer, a NADO.

Based on the vapours of evidence we have at the moment, there seemed to have been an out-of-competition sample taken as an a part of anti-doping enforcement.

The unknown test comes back with some out of range score. Yet, no anti-doping action and the UCI apparently uninterested in an anti-doping matter.

Is it sinking in yet? The federation has no interest in generating any anti-doping controversy and we have another wildly inconsistent doping situation. This does not inspire any confidence Sky or the UCI are on the right side of anti-doping.

 

[Justinr]

Based on the vapours of evidence we have at the moment, there seemed to have been an out-of-competition sample taken as an a part of anti-doping enforcement.

The unknown test comes back with some out of range score. Yet, no anti-doping action and the UCI apparently uninterested in an anti-doping matter.

Is it sinking in yet? The federation has no interest in generating any anti-doping controversy and we have another wildly inconsistent doping situation. This does not inspire any confidence Sky or the UCI are on the right side of anti-doping.

OR another perfectly plausible explanation is the result was not what SKY would expect (too low / too high Hematocrit or too wild a change in such a short time) but was still within the range of tolerances of the UCI/WADA or whoever. Why does everyone immediately jump to conspiracy theories? If another team did this I would say exactly the same. They are concerned, they have withdrawn the rider from duties while they investigate. Absolutely the right thing to do but the ant-SKY brigade clearly think there must be a rat to smell.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Leave the allegation regarding the possibility there was doping aside and not even get into Sky's role.

Your post needs some clarification. A WADA certified lab does not collect samples. They only test and post results to APMU. Some anti-doping authority somewhere ordered an OOC test on Henao and no one is saying which one. At any given time an anti-doping authority could be a federation, a race organizer, a NADO.

Based on the vapours of evidence we have at the moment, there seemed to have been an out-of-competition sample taken as an a part of anti-doping enforcement.

The unknown test comes back with some out of range score. Yet, no anti-doping action and the UCI apparently uninterested in an anti-doping matter.

Is it sinking in yet? The federation has no interest in generating any anti-doping controversy and we have another wildly inconsistent doping situation. This does not inspire any confidence Sky or the UCI are on the right side of anti-doping.

Unless... You remember re-testing of Lance's 99 Tour samples in order to validate the new EPO test? They indicated doping, but weren't a 'positive'. I wonder if samples are being screened for a new substance as part of a validation study. That would explain why Sky might have found out before the UCI, and why they don't know what to do about Henao (i.e., putting him on the shelf rather than firing him or racing him).

John Swanson

 

[Benotti69]

«There is no secret at Team Sky, they simply do all the little things better than anyone else, focusing on the details that matter. These are the little things that help make big things possible.»

Taken from Sky Facebook!

"they simply do all the little things better than anyone else, focusing on the details that matter."

And they wonder, when asked whether they did a Vo2Max test on Froome and the answer is, no, people just find it incredulous!

Or when asked why 'marginal gains' worked so well on Wiggins, Froome, Rogers, Porte and not the super talented EBH, they mumble....

When they state that attacking up climbs are signs of doping and Sky dont do that until Froomes does so they then come out with 'Clean performances are surpassing doped performances' with no evidence to support this!

Now we Henao who showed an anomaly and they instead of calling it "rider popped for irregular blood value" they twist it to "scientific study on altitude natives".

 

[Justinr]

Unless... You remember re-testing of Lance's 99 Tour samples in order to validate the new EPO test? They indicated doping, but weren't a 'positive'. I wonder if samples are being screened for a new substance as part of a validation study. That would explain why Sky might have found out before the UCI, and why they don't know what to do about Henao (i.e., putting him on the shelf rather than firing him or racing him).

John Swanson

Well the 99 samples weren't meant to be used for popping people - they were for research to test the test. It was only L'Equipe who connected the dots.

The UCI could have made more of it but didn't. I think they were in a tricky situation - retesting had occurred but possibly not under ideal circumstances but the way they had it all investigated was pretty shoddy.

Retrospective testing now is much more formal from what I understand.

 

[hfer07]

This should occur behind closed doors, due to the presumption of innocence at this stage (a genuinely clean rider's reputation shouldn't be sullied if there is a legitimate reason).The problem here is Henao's agent forced this into the public domain.

+1.Agreed. I thought Sky was going to do due diligence behind doors and a pi$$ed off agent triggered the alarm and backfired.

IF SKY's concern was legitimate on Henao's OCTOBER anomalies-the most logical approach to the matter was to prevent him from racing since the time of the incident and have the so called "study" started back then-but nonetheless he was allowed to compete up to Oman-then the team decides to bench him-that's the matter in question. IMO Sergio either showed more "serious anomalies" AFTER Oman, so SKY recurred to the OCTOBER issue to justify his removal from the team and make it appear an internal decision- OR Sergio and his agent have issues with the SKY management to the point that he was benched "purposely", which forced the OCTOBER issue to be leaked to La Gazzetta, as a vendetta/blackmailing response to the matter.

bottom line is - the more I think about the issue- the more convinced I am about the OCTOBER test to be an scapegoat for a serious problems at SKY's management level with riders being "uncertain" of circumstances and panic spreading among the personnel...

 

[hfer07]

Or the team were about to hang the rider out to dry as a bad apple, off doing naughty things in remote Colombia where the upstanding Anglo team couldn't possibly have known about it. So the agent made a pre-emptive strike to protect his rider, pointing attention back to the team before they could fire Henao and throw all the blame on him.

Or some other possibility. Who knows?
Would really love to see a follow-up interview with Henao's agent.

...but those naughty things happened in Colombia where the upstanding Anglo team couldn't possibly have known about it NEVER AFFECTED RIGOBERTO URAN IN THREE YEARS WITH SKY TRAINING THERE

 

[gospina]

There is a reason why I call these "conspirations". They are conspiracies that are so full of it, they are constipated...
Reality check #1: S. Henao is not even close to being the top guy at Sky. He wasn't even the top Colombian at Sky until this year. Why would Sky care for someone that is not British or Australian? No point of spending all this money to try to cover up for him (unless you throw in that this is for Froome, not Sergio).
They could care less if Sergio leaves..they may not even pick him for TDF if Wiggo is there.
Reality check #2: Sergio has only been with Sky in the WT. Doubt that he was acting as a lone wolf. Most likely, he shows some abnormal values, not enough to be flagged by the UCI (does it mean outside his biological passport?), he has no history with doping, more information or data is needed, hence a study.
Reality check #3: Sergio is not the top Colombian. He is #4 or #5. The Colombian cycling federation doesn't have the money to try to dope a nobody, since its what some are suggesting, that he has been doping for 5 years, when he was 18-19 yrs old. He wouldn't be the guy some 'hidden group' will use to dope and get results.
Reality check #4: No one can compare to Lance. Lance had US cycling backing him, he had the US Olympics backing him, was world class already at 18-19. People saw an investment opportunity in a country with plenty of money. His doping starting before his TDF days, but he was already world champ, already winning multiple races in US. Sergio won one big race, the Vuelta a Colombia. Again, not enough to have a system in place to help him dope and cover it up.
Reality check #5: UCI has new management. They want to at the LEAST to seem to be cleaner than the previous regime. A guy like Sergio is perfect to use as a scapegoat...he's young...he's well known, but he isn't de creme dela creme...if they don't want to pursue something, its because they don't see an issue enough to raise a flag...not because they can't afford another doping scandal. There is no scandal here....people would love to hang him if they could....he's expandable.

Conclusion: Sergio probably didn't dope, probably has some values that raise question marks, not flags...research is the way to go.

Now, to fuel more anti-colombian clinic ideas: The colombian cycling federation and the colombian olympic committee has been trying for YEARS to get the hematocrit levels to be raised to 52% for native people that live in altitude. There is plenty of research on that already.

 

[Beech Mtn]

...but those naughty things happened in Colombia where the upstanding Anglo team couldn't possibly have known about it NEVER AFFECTED RIGOBERTO URAN IN THREE YEARS WITH SKY TRAINING THERE

And the naughty things haven't happened with his cousin either.

To be fair, I don't know what Sky would have done if the agent hadn't leaked it to the press. I can only surmise that something happened to cause the agent to feel that a leak to the press would somehow help his client. The only guess I can make is that maybe the agent felt Sky were getting ready to throw Henao under the bus, and this was a preemptive action to put the spotlight back on the team itself.

We really need to hear more from Sergio or the agent, but I'm guessing SH probably won't say much as long as he's still under contract to Sky.

edit-
For me, the biggest question in all this is the agent's motivation to tell the press. I see no reason why Sky wouldn't have conducted the research in private, simply not raced Henao, told the public he was injured/special training camp for later goals/etc and never told anybody anything about strange test values. There's little reason for the team to want to bring down suspicions or questions on themselves.

 

[thrawn]

My guess is that Sky pulled him from racing as he was going to test positive (if tested in competition).