Sergio Henao

[vedrafjord]

It's either personal doping down to Henao, in which case why is Sky backing him up so much, or it's personal to Sky, in which case, why can't they keep Henao under their own or even UCI's radar each spring for two years running now like they do with all their other riders?

I don't think Sky hand out juice to Johnny Foreigner, it's possible they turn a blind eye and trust them not to bring attention to themselves. In the past they've hired old warhorses like Rogers and Kiryienka who would have been able to look after themselves.

 

[T_S_A_R]

Landa?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

So all the indications are that Henao is going to be robustly defended by Sky rather than Tiernan-Locked ?

UCI vs Sky. Henao must be absolutely off the charts for UCI to take this on

Maybe, just maybe Henao is telling the truth..can you grasp that?

Maybe Henao is a physiological super freak.

super freaky yeahhhhow.

come over here Charlie Murphy.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

What I don't understand regarding the WADA/CADFUCI and their approach to the BP process is, once a guys numbers start to come back "suspicious", according to their tinfoil hat experts; then why don't they start doing more targeted tested/surprise testing of that athlete and try to get a stone cold bust of something in their system?

The whole BP process, then getting CADF involved to assume guilt, without anything more than a few anomalies, is a bit odd. Having a urine/blood test popping somebody is 100% tight.

But, CADF, as we know with Jonathan Tierne, is going to suspend Henao, whether he has some story or not....guilty until you prove your innocence. Kind of backward from the rest of the judicial process and World in civilized normal countries.

That is how the WADA system works. It comes down to being publicly frogmarched to a kangaroo court where you need to prove your innocence in front of USADA's pet arbs with the prosecution allowed to define the rules of adjudication to put the accused at the most disadvantage possible. USADA recently banned a triathlete for using a contaminated supplement. USADA accepted the supplement was contaminated. She still got six months. Even when USADA accepts that you are innocent, you are guilty.

Supposedly the ABP is used for targeted testing, but there is no test for autologous transfusions and riders using careful timing and dosages for injection of the typical drugs used will not test positive.

The ABP was sold on the premise that it would be longitudinal testing and values outside an established profile would be the sign that doping was being employed. The truth is the range of normal variation is large enough to allow a very significant amount of doping to take place without being anomalous. Samples are taken infrequently so there is not enough data for most riders to form a trend. The result is that most ABP cases come down to an extreme anomaly, usually in conjunction with an important race. Cases are opened years after the anomaly, leaving the athlete with no memory or access to proof of what was going on healthwise at that time.

The JTL case is particularly enlightening of the process because the arbs decided that no pro athlete would binge drink on the eve of an important event. After being banned, JTL was caught drunk driving. Maybe, just possibly, he has a drinking problem. Or maybe he should have gotten his ABP hearing arbs to decide his drunk driving case; it would have saved him a driving license suspension.

no quite...as to be that dehydrated you not only needed to be that pished (scottish phrase) you needed then not to drink any water the next day...that compounds the incredulity about the drinking...and of course he did his best ever performance in his longest ever event...apart from our Paula who can do things like that...a remarkably difficult feat

 

[thehog]

Team Sky: We're not responsible for publishing Henao report

Since Henao's initial case, a study by Yorck O. Schumacher et al published in Drug Testing and Analysis looked at differences in Athlete Biological Passport numbers between altitude natives and sea-level residents racing at the Tour of Qinghai Lake. While they saw some anomalies (high reticulocytes, low OFF score), they concluded that it was "highly unlikely that any of the abnormal values observed in this study would have triggered an antidoping rule violation procedure after the qualitative review of the experts."

LOL, more Sky BS, they actually becoming comedic. Is one is even better;

It is they who will be responsible for the timelines of publication,” a Team Sky spokesperson told Cyclingnews via email.

“We commissioned the report due to a lack of available scientific research on altitude natives. The research was carried out independently of Team Sky, under rigorous testing conditions and using WADA accredited laboratories. There are processes that those leading the research will wish to complete before full publication and so it is understandable that this will take time.

“The results of the research were submitted to the anti-doping authorities at the conclusion of the independent testing, which was carried out with their knowledge and after Team Sky made the issue public.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-were-not-responsible-for-publishing-henao-report/

 

[Valv.Piti]

What are the chances that he will be cleared for Giro d Italia?

 

[Nick C.]

Team Sky: We're not responsible for publishing Henao report

Since Henao's initial case, a study by Yorck O. Schumacher et al published in Drug Testing and Analysis looked at differences in Athlete Biological Passport numbers between altitude natives and sea-level residents racing at the Tour of Qinghai Lake. While they saw some anomalies (high reticulocytes, low OFF score), they concluded that it was "highly unlikely that any of the abnormal values observed in this study would have triggered an antidoping rule violation procedure after the qualitative review of the experts."

LOL, more Sky BS, they actually becoming comedic. Is one is even better;

It is they who will be responsible for the timelines of publication,” a Team Sky spokesperson told Cyclingnews via email.

“We commissioned the report due to a lack of available scientific research on altitude natives. The research was carried out independently of Team Sky, under rigorous testing conditions and using WADA accredited laboratories. There are processes that those leading the research will wish to complete before full publication and so it is understandable that this will take time.

“The results of the research were submitted to the anti-doping authorities at the conclusion of the independent testing, which was carried out with their knowledge and after Team Sky made the issue public.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-were-not-responsible-for-publishing-henao-report/

I read that article and couldn't make heads or tails out of what their (Sky) were trying to say or their point. Then again maybe that's the point.

 

[samhocking]

Team Sky: We're not responsible for publishing Henao report

Since Henao's initial case, a study by Yorck O. Schumacher et al published in Drug Testing and Analysis looked at differences in Athlete Biological Passport numbers between altitude natives and sea-level residents racing at the Tour of Qinghai Lake. While they saw some anomalies (high reticulocytes, low OFF score), they concluded that it was "highly unlikely that any of the abnormal values observed in this study would have triggered an antidoping rule violation procedure after the qualitative review of the experts."

LOL, more Sky BS, they actually becoming comedic. Is one is even better;

It is they who will be responsible for the timelines of publication,” a Team Sky spokesperson told Cyclingnews via email.

“We commissioned the report due to a lack of available scientific research on altitude natives. The research was carried out independently of Team Sky, under rigorous testing conditions and using WADA accredited laboratories. There are processes that those leading the research will wish to complete before full publication and so it is understandable that this will take time.

“The results of the research were submitted to the anti-doping authorities at the conclusion of the independent testing, which was carried out with their knowledge and after Team Sky made the issue public.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-were-not-responsible-for-publishing-henao-report/

I read that article and couldn't make heads or tails out of what their (Sky) were trying to say or their point. Then again maybe that's the point.

Sky commisioned the report, but Sheffield Uni are publishing it when they have studied the data. What's so complicated to understand? That's how it often works in Academia - a company goes to a University, commissions a study to gather data on something that hasn't been studied before and uses the data, then the University release their report when they have studied the data.

Sky needed the initial report on the data for Henao's physiological profile in 2014, they don't need the final report of the University's findings. That's how I understand it anyway. i.e. it's up to Sheffield Uni to study the data to compile a report. That could take several years, we don't know what the timescale or priority to complete their findings is. A couple of years I would say at least.

“The research around this case has been taken very seriously and we undertook a large amount of complex scientific analysis before giving our recommendation for Sergio to be allowed to return to racing,” he stated on Wednesday.

“It’s still our intention to publish the results in the scientific literature. There are many processes to take into account when you write and publish scientific papers and delays of over a year are not unusual in these cases. We hope it can be done as soon as possible.”

 

[thehog]

Team Sky: We're not responsible for publishing Henao report

Since Henao's initial case, a study by Yorck O. Schumacher et al published in Drug Testing and Analysis looked at differences in Athlete Biological Passport numbers between altitude natives and sea-level residents racing at the Tour of Qinghai Lake. While they saw some anomalies (high reticulocytes, low OFF score), they concluded that it was "highly unlikely that any of the abnormal values observed in this study would have triggered an antidoping rule violation procedure after the qualitative review of the experts."

LOL, more Sky BS, they actually becoming comedic. Is one is even better;

It is they who will be responsible for the timelines of publication,” a Team Sky spokesperson told Cyclingnews via email.

“We commissioned the report due to a lack of available scientific research on altitude natives. The research was carried out independently of Team Sky, under rigorous testing conditions and using WADA accredited laboratories. There are processes that those leading the research will wish to complete before full publication and so it is understandable that this will take time.

“The results of the research were submitted to the anti-doping authorities at the conclusion of the independent testing, which was carried out with their knowledge and after Team Sky made the issue public.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-were-not-responsible-for-publishing-henao-report/

I read that article and couldn't make heads or tails out of what their (Sky) were trying to say or their point.

Then again maybe that's the point.

Yes, I think that's the point with Sky. I never understand their press releases. Apparently JTL wasn't their responsibility, now it seems neither is the infamous Heano report. Looks like a hatchet job to avoid the passport by Sky which didn't pay off... one can only assume Oli Cookson losing his job at Sky now has direct consequence!

 

[samhocking]

That's not what Dr Eddie Hampton seems to suggest.

 

[JRanton]

The interesting thing with Henao is that he's nearly always at exactly the same level in terms of performance across the entire season. So if he's a doper then he must be topping himself up at pretty regular intervals which you'd think would make him more likely to be caught, especially as he should have been target tested in the last year or so after he came back from injury.

 

[JRanton]

Re:

What are the chances that he will be cleared for Giro d Italia?

Zero.

It does seem quite likely that Sky got freaked out when they initially saw Henao's dodgy test results back in early 2014 and decided to come up with the best defence they could in the circumstances. I know they brought in a Basque coach to start working with the Henao's last year but I imagine Sky have always had very little oversight of what Sergio was up to when he went back to Colombia.

 

[Nick C.]

Team Sky: We're not responsible for publishing Henao report

Since Henao's initial case, a study by Yorck O. Schumacher et al published in Drug Testing and Analysis looked at differences in Athlete Biological Passport numbers between altitude natives and sea-level residents racing at the Tour of Qinghai Lake. While they saw some anomalies (high reticulocytes, low OFF score), they concluded that it was "highly unlikely that any of the abnormal values observed in this study would have triggered an antidoping rule violation procedure after the qualitative review of the experts."

LOL, more Sky BS, they actually becoming comedic. Is one is even better;

It is they who will be responsible for the timelines of publication,” a Team Sky spokesperson told Cyclingnews via email.

“We commissioned the report due to a lack of available scientific research on altitude natives. The research was carried out independently of Team Sky, under rigorous testing conditions and using WADA accredited laboratories. There are processes that those leading the research will wish to complete before full publication and so it is understandable that this will take time.

“The results of the research were submitted to the anti-doping authorities at the conclusion of the independent testing, which was carried out with their knowledge and after Team Sky made the issue public.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-were-not-responsible-for-publishing-henao-report/

I read that article and couldn't make heads or tails out of what their (Sky) were trying to say or their point. Then again maybe that's the point.

Sky commisioned the report, but Sheffield Uni are publishing it when they have studied the data. What's so complicated to understand? That's how it often works in Academia - a company goes to a University, commissions a study to gather data on something that hasn't been studied before and uses the data, then the University release their report when they have studied the data.

Sky needed the initial report on the data for Henao's physiological profile in 2014, they don't need the final report of the University's findings. That's how I understand it anyway. i.e. it's up to Sheffield Uni to study the data to compile a report. That could take several years, we don't know what the timescale or priority to complete their findings is. A couple of years I would say at least.

“The research around this case has been taken very seriously and we undertook a large amount of complex scientific analysis before giving our recommendation for Sergio to be allowed to return to racing,” he stated on Wednesday.

“It’s still our intention to publish the results in the scientific literature. There are many processes to take into account when you write and publish scientific papers and delays of over a year are not unusual in these cases. We hope it can be done as soon as possible.”

It seems peculiar to look to get to the bottom of things by sending off the question to some entity that you then announce has no timetable to provide results of their findings, but in the interim you have been free to or unilaterally took action. I get that if Sky could control when and where the findings came out the accusation would be that the study was done by their puppet but this seems like wanting to take credit for a job that may never get done.

 

[zigmeister]

Sky commisioned the report, but Sheffield Uni are publishing it when they have studied the data. What's so complicated to understand? That's how it often works in Academia - a company goes to a University, commissions a study to gather data on something that hasn't been studied before and uses the data, then the University release their report when they have studied the data.

Sky needed the initial report on the data for Henao's physiological profile in 2014, they don't need the final report of the University's findings. That's how I understand it anyway. i.e. it's up to Sheffield Uni to study the data to compile a report. That could take several years, we don't know what the timescale or priority to complete their findings is. A couple of years I would say at least.

“The research around this case has been taken very seriously and we undertook a large amount of complex scientific analysis before giving our recommendation for Sergio to be allowed to return to racing,” he stated on Wednesday.

“It’s still our intention to publish the results in the scientific literature. There are many processes to take into account when you write and publish scientific papers and delays of over a year are not unusual in these cases. We hope it can be done as soon as possible.”

What likely happened, and I'm not defending Sky by any means, is they commissioned a report by a researcher who works at a University I believe.

Professors/researchers really make their name/money and pay increases from getting published in peer review journals.

Thus, the agreement may have been that Sky will not release, had a non-disclosure agreement with the author, who wants to try and get published by a peer-review respected journal, before any info is publicly released.

The author probably just wants to protect himself...the byproduct, Sky is protected, for at least awhile, until eventually the report will make its way out into the public realm.

This is the same scenario that Sky admitted, along with Froome, regarding his "Testing" earlier in the year. They weren't going to public release information on the study, some basic stuff only, and the author/researchers want to get it published in a peer review journal, then we will all see it for ourselves.

Surely a PR/Media annoucement would be done shortly before the publishing of the documents/research of these riders.

 

[kwikki]

Whatever happened to zero tolerance?

 

[JRanton]

Re:

Whatever happened to zero tolerance?

That was for people who have been sanctioned for an anti-doping violation.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Whatever happened to zero tolerance?

That was for people who have been sanctioned for an anti-doping violation.

Don't worry David Walsh will get to the bottom of the story... he was embedded in Team Sky Professional Cycling Team, he knows about their transparency.

 

[samhocking]

Sky commisioned the report, but Sheffield Uni are publishing it when they have studied the data. What's so complicated to understand? That's how it often works in Academia - a company goes to a University, commissions a study to gather data on something that hasn't been studied before and uses the data, then the University release their report when they have studied the data.

Sky needed the initial report on the data for Henao's physiological profile in 2014, they don't need the final report of the University's findings. That's how I understand it anyway. i.e. it's up to Sheffield Uni to study the data to compile a report. That could take several years, we don't know what the timescale or priority to complete their findings is. A couple of years I would say at least.

“The research around this case has been taken very seriously and we undertook a large amount of complex scientific analysis before giving our recommendation for Sergio to be allowed to return to racing,” he stated on Wednesday.

“It’s still our intention to publish the results in the scientific literature. There are many processes to take into account when you write and publish scientific papers and delays of over a year are not unusual in these cases. We hope it can be done as soon as possible.”

What likely happened, and I'm not defending Sky by any means, is they commissioned a report by a researcher who works at a University I believe.

Professors/researchers really make their name/money and pay increases from getting published in peer review journals.

Thus, the agreement may have been that Sky will not release, had a non-disclosure agreement with the author, who wants to try and get published by a peer-review respected journal, before any info is publicly released.

The author probably just wants to protect himself...the byproduct, Sky is protected, for at least awhile, until eventually the report will make its way out into the public realm.

This is the same scenario that Sky admitted, along with Froome, regarding his "Testing" earlier in the year. They weren't going to public release information on the study, some basic stuff only, and the author/researchers want to get it published in a peer review journal, then we will all see it for ourselves.

Surely a PR/Media annoucement would be done shortly before the publishing of the documents/research of these riders.

There's three sides to what is being published on Henao. First, the several months of WADA accredited blood tests at altitude on Henao while grounded in Columbia and which Sky handed to CADF and was added to Henao's passport I believe. Second, Sheffield Uni's recommendation/report that sky commissioned to help them decide if they should allow Henao to return to racing or not and finally the report of the University itself on all this data which is still ongoing.

The thing is, CADF wouldn't have known who's passport data has just triggered a suspicion worthy of more investigation until after it triggered the suspicion. They work blind with the riders passports. Nowhere is there an athletes name and data together, while they are looking at. I don't see how they can effectively agree by way of not taking any action in 2015 with all the WADA tests Sky handed over to them, but in 2016 now effectively disagree. If the altitude blood test in winter 2015 is triggering the same things as the 2 blood tests they have from Henao in 2014, I can't see there's much CADF can sanction unless they want to become completely hypocritical about the data itself?

 

[Tonton]

The interesting thing with Henao is that he's nearly always at exactly the same level in terms of performance across the entire season. So if he's a doper then he must be topping himself up at pretty regular intervals which you'd think would make him more likely to be caught, especially as he should have been target tested in the last year or so after he came back from injury.

For a moment I thought you were talking about Valverde ...who, if it wasn't for Piti would never have been caught BTW.

I'd like to see how this all develops (and more details) before forming an opinion.

Not that I imply that Sky set Henao up, but in a way, it could be great PR: "we are serious against doping, always have been...blah, blah, blah...we had doubts and decided to investigate...blah,blah,blah...we police our own team...blah, blah,blah...cycling should thank us...blah, blah, blah...the other riders are clean".

 

[samhocking]

I'm not convinced the reasons Sky did what they did with Henao and Sheffiled Uni was to protect Henao or themselves from anything blowing up. CADF hadn't pulled up Henao first time round, Sky had. All Sky had to do was say nothing? Why would they voluntarily and without being asked by CADF or UCI go and send Henao back home and pull 10 weeks of blood out of him for a WADA lab to test and then forward on to CADF to include in Henao's passport? The only possible reason, would be to perhaps keep Henao's levels artificially stable for 10 weeks. The thing is, he was already back in Europe in March 2014, so and 'doctoring' of Henao's blood could have been done alongside the other riders surely?

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

What are the chances that he will be cleared for Giro d Italia?

With Landa performing the way he did at Trentino why would Sky need Henao?

Swept under the carpet this will be.

 

[Pentacycle]

The most important specifics a commissioner of academic research wants to know are required budget and time. If the Sky organisation is involved in this research as such, they must've set a deadline back then together with the Uni, based on the personnel available and the scope of the research. The attitude of Sky towards this project is laughable if they are not up to date about the progress, as then they have neither respect for scientific research nor their sponsors. Anyways, it seems like a fairly unconcealed(if published) but effective cover-up.

 

[sniper]

Re:

...Anyways, it seems like a fairly unconcealed(if published) but effective cover-up.

they have made ample experience with covering up 50+ htc readings through Hayles (2008), but also indirectly through Cioni (2004) and Julich (2004).

 

[thehog]

Appears there was never actually a Heano report ever commissioned. Someone is lying. Good work by Benson on this occasion for asking the question, several times.

Tried several times to contact Dr Hampton (worked out the Henao report). Finally told 'to contact Sky, as he has no comment'.

 

[thehog]

Appears there was never actually a Heano report ever commissioned. Someone is lying.

ya sure? hoggy......quick search says.....report pending.....

now? who is lying.......

Mark L

Yes, finding WMDs in Iraq is still pending 8 years and 3 wars later, lol!

There is no Heano report, never was, just spin by Brailsford/Sky to circumvent the passport.

Well done for Daniel Benson for following up what a lot of UK journalists simply refuse to do.