Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[TailWindHome]

Good. Now that we have gotten that twist out of the way, maybe we can get back to my initial post where I said it was bad that another sky rider was found to have suspicius values.

As a sky fan, how do you feel about it?

I'm not a Sky fan. But I'll play along

If Henao has suspicious values then it's good that his Team have benched him and raised the issue with the UCI.

If his ethnicity or the country he resides in is a potential cause of these suspicious values that that certainly merits further investigation

Should it transpire that he is a doper then I hope he doesn't let the door hit his ar5e on the way out.

Would that other teams took the same approach....


You disagree with Sky's approach here?
What would you have them do differently?

 

[thehog]

Sigh.

DW = Dear Wiggo.

Sigh indeed.

Inside Sky = "OMFG, are you serious?" and "awwww he loves them, cute" and "you hang up first! No you! Go on, you hang up first! No, you, I just want to hear your voice one last time before I sleep" and "love you David, love you too Dave".



You have to admit, Walsh is not the go to man on Sky doping. If you want the real story look elsewhere.

 

[Samson777]

Sky said it.

UCI confirmed it.

Now all we need is Kreml to confirm it as well.

 

[TailWindHome]

Good. Now that we have gotten that twist out of the way, maybe we can get back to my initial post where I said it was bad that another sky rider was found to have suspicius values.

As a sky fan, how do you feel about it?

I'm not sure what 'twist' you are referring to.

You disagree with the assertion that Sky raised issues with the UCI's own OCT before benching their own rider - highlighting an issue that the UCI may not have seen?

 

[Rollthedice]

So, UCI's tests mean nothing. They don't have a clue. They catch dopers only when the doper's team notifies them. Interesting...

 

[Beech Mtn]

Well some of us are trying to talk about the "sick" guy, and asking for people to explain possible/plausible nefarious reasons for him to pull out if he wasn't "sick", but other than just asserting it's 'dodgy' no one's actually coming up with anything coherent as far as I can see. . . Why do you think, if he wasn't "sick", he pulled out?

To be fair, I don't know whether Porte actually was sick or not. But claims of illness and injury have traditionally been used in cycling when a team needs to pull a rider out of a race for dope-related reasons. You don't announce to the world that a guy got a bad blood bag, or had a bad reaction to doping substances, or has just taken a test that he will almost certainly fail, or has just gotten notice of a new test on the block that he will almost certainly fail. You don't say any of those things. You pull him from the race and tell the public he had an illness or some sort of injury to explain his absence.

Now. None of that is to say that Porte was not actually sick. Only that these kinds of coverups have been done before many times.

 

[Samson777]

So, UCI's tests mean nothing. They don't have a clue. They catch dopers only when the doper's team notifies them. Interesting...

It's all good. Cleanest Peloton ever

 

[Beech Mtn]

Absolutely true. But if UCI, WADA and CADA had shown no interest to date, and you just want to hide the guy, why inform them and offer data? UCI appear to have confirmed this happened.

Maybe it's all part of a masterful Sky plot to check their own doping, I don't know. Just doesn't seem to fit to me.

This is something that's bugging me as well. It wouldn't seem to serve Sky's interest to contact UCI about this if it was only an internal process, nothing to do with UCI. They would be expected to have anti-doping clauses in rider contracts, and could take action themselves if it was a problem found internally of one bad apple doping without the team knowing or approving of it. For me, it seems to be a biopassport case. Little else makes sense.

What the CN article says is:

Cyclingnews contacted the UCI for a response. The sport’s governing body confirmed that they had been notified of the situation in the last few days but would not give a specific date

Now Sky says they contacted the UCI, but the UCI doesn't actually specify who contacted them. If this was an ABP issue, UCI would've presumably been contacted by the APMU guys at the same time as APMU contacted Sky. It could be that that Sky simply contacted UCI to acknowledge that they had received notice of the anomaly and are investigating, meanwhile will hold Henao out of races.

That is my best guess anyway.

We contacted the relevant authorities - the UCI and CADF – pointed to these readings and asked whether they could give us any insights,” Brailsford added in the team’s press statement

I take this to mean that Sky are asking for all Henao's other data on file so they can compare, help build a case for what might explain his abnormal values from the off-season. Maybe checking for other previous tests that show similar trends when he's at altitude, etc.

 

[Rollthedice]

It's all good. Cleanest Peloton ever

Really, I think this story's big lesson is that UCI has no clue or willingness to catch guys who manipulate their blood values. I think this proves clearly that you can win lots of races, TdF and at least last Vuelta included without a problem. Just gotta be smart.

 

[martinvickers]

This is something that's bugging me as well. It wouldn't seem to serve Sky's interest to contact UCI about this if it was only an internal process, nothing to do with UCI. They would be expected to have anti-doping clauses in rider contracts, and could take action themselves if it was a problem found internally of one bad apple doping without the team knowing or approving of it. For me, it seems to be a biopassport case. Little else makes sense.

What the CN article says is:


Now Sky says they contacted the UCI, but the UCI doesn't actually specify who contacted them. If this was an ABP issue, UCI would've presumably been contacted by the APMU guys at the same time as APMU contacted Sky. It could be that that Sky simply contacted UCI to acknowledge that they had received notice of the anomaly and are investigating, meanwhile will hold Henao out of races.

That is my best guess anyway.



I take this to mean that Sky are asking for all Henao's other data on file so they can compare, help build a case for what might explain his abnormal values from the off-season. Maybe checking for other previous tests that show similar trends when he's at altitude, etc.

I asked Dan Benson that specific question -who informed UCI - ADA or Sky. He was quite clear it was Sky.

 

[lllludo]

I'm not a Sky fan. But I'll play along

If Henao has suspicious values then it's good that his Team have benched him and raised the issue with the UCI.

If his ethnicity or the country he resides in is a potential cause of these suspicious values that that certainly merits further investigation
Should it transpire that he is a doper then I hope he doesn't let the door hit his ar5e on the way out.
You disagree with Sky's approach here?
What would you have them do differently?

http://www.gazzetta.it/Ciclismo/19-...uota-colombiano-allenamento-80266570473.shtml
according to la Gazzetta it was a WADA out of competition test.
The italians seem well informed on this one...
So Team SKY got the test result (how? ... maybe via Henao) and informed the UCI probably before WADA informs UCI.
To me this is damage control more than ethics.

You are also right to point out that there are new riders in pro cycling: the colombians and we don't know well the effect of altitude on their blood values. Probably there are never been blood tests carried out on pro-cyclists in Colombia.
But don't worry Brailsford is setting-up a commission of independant experts to sort this out. David Walsh can apply, EnacheV, TailWindHome as well

 

[the sceptic]

I'm not sure what 'twist' you are referring to.

You disagree with the assertion that Sky raised issues with the UCI's own OCT before benching their own rider - highlighting an issue that the UCI may not have seen?

Now you are trying to twist again. You should read my posts, and not read anything more into them than what they actually say.

When my post says "I think it is bad for team sky that another of their riders was found to have dodgy values" It means exactly that.

I am aware that to you and other sky apologists this is just another random unfortunate event (like getting struck by lightning again), and Im sure you will find a way to rationalise it in your mind with sky being clean and transparent.

But to me, it is another bit of dodgy data that makes sky look even worse than they already did.

 

[Samson777]

Really, I think this story's big lesson is that UCI has no clue or willingness to catch guys who manipulate their blood values. I think this proves clearly that you can win lots of races, TdF and at least last Vuelta included without a problem. Just gotta be smart.

Difficult to disagree with. Well maybe beside the point that you need to be smart, I think it's fair to doubt, how smart you have to be.

 

[zlev11]

Sigh indeed.

Inside Sky = "OMFG, are you serious?" and "awwww he loves them, cute" and "you hang up first! No you! Go on, you hang up first! No, you, I just want to hear your voice one last time before I sleep" and "love you David, love you too Dave".



You have to admit, Walsh is not the go to man on Sky doping. If you want the real story look elsewhere.

I thought the tweet from Walsh about how Sky "wanted to avoid another JTL situation" was very telling. That's exactly what this is. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a second rider on the team with dodgy blood values, but this time it looks better, especially for the True Believers, who can use it to bring up more buzz words and talking points.

 

[martinvickers]

I thought the tweet from Walsh about how Sky "wanted to avoid another JTL situation" was very telling. That's exactly what this is. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a second rider on the team with dodgy blood values, but this time it looks better, especially for the True Believers, who can use it to bring up more buzz words and talking points.

Really? I would think it looks worse. JTL is deniable - the dodgy value predates Sky, and it's an easy story to tell - he doped to get a big payday, then had to come off.

Henao is their baby. If he doped, all bets are off.

 

[Beech Mtn]

I asked Dan Benson that specific question -who informed UCI - ADA or Sky. He was quite clear it was Sky.

Thanks for that. It's an important clarification.

 

[zlev11]

Really? I would think it looks worse. JTL is deniable - the dodgy value predates Sky, and it's an easy story to tell - he doped to get a big payday, then had to come off.

Henao is their baby. If he doped, all bets are off.

Yes, but JTL was officially sanctioned by the UCI. This time Sky wrote up some ridiculous press release to make it look like they're doing it themselves. "Transparency", etc.

 

[sideshadow]

I don't get this at all.

Possibly this is SKY's attempt to control the narrative in the the same way that the JTL case was leaked. Get ahead of the story. A way to seem like they have an excellent anti doping structure inside the team. It doesn't count if you bust your own riders.

Otherwise, if this is indeed SKY's own internal program that caught Henao, then it is really disgusting behavior from the team. Having information leaked out about 'suspicious values' which they admit to having no clue to what it actually means. There seems to be an abundance of reasonable doubt in this case and yet now Henoa is ousted as a possible doper, by his own team no less? It's BS, they have the stones to admit they don't know what to make of the values, yet somehow their tests are better than the AD agencies?

Another option is that the leak didn't come from SKY but rather WADA and if this is the case than it appears to be poor damage control being done by SKY and I hate to admit the UCI as well.

 

[Mellow Velo]

I'm not a Sky fan.

Wrong.
You are here.
You are offering an alternative (sensible) arguement.
You are a Sky fan.

That's pure conjecture at this stage. Could be they want to be ahead of the inevitable.

LOL: Could be......contagious conjecture.

 

[thehog]

http://www.gazzetta.it/Ciclismo/19-...uota-colombiano-allenamento-80266570473.shtml
according to la Gazzetta it was a WADA out of competition test.
The italians seem well informed on this one...
So Team SKY got the test result (how? ... maybe via Henao) and informed the UCI probably before WADA informs UCI.
To me this is damage control more than ethics.

You are also right to point out that there are new riders in pro cycling: the colombians and we don't know well the effect of altitude on their blood values. Probably there are never been blood tests carried out on pro-cyclists in Colombia.
But don't worry Brailsford is setting-up a commission of independant experts to sort this out. David Walsh can apply, EnacheV, TailWindHome as well

I'd not read the Italian and original version.

It's a little different than the cyclingnews interpretation.

WADA in a "controlli a sorpresa" so a surprise control tested Heano. That test came back or directly at the time reported "adverse results".

So Sky contacted the UCI and asked for the test to stopped and clarity sort. Sky said they'd provide information to WADA and UCI on the outcome of their tests.

Their claim is that a rider who lives and spends most of his time at altitude shouldn't report such levels.

Most odd. The surprise control I find most revealing along with the contact of the UCI to circumvent the result. ie damage control.

Interesting. And hence why Heano's agent reported to the Gazetta as Sky are acting alone here.

 

[martinvickers]

Thanks for that. It's an important clarification.

From my timeline

Daniel Benson ‏@******
8h

UCI tell CN they were informed about Henao recently, as in the last few days. Say JTL case is ongoing.

Reply Retweet Favorite More Expand

Me ‏@***********
7h to
Daniel Benson

@******* were they informed by sky or Ada?

Reply Delete Favorite More Expand

Daniel Benson ‏@*********
7h
to @************ (me)

Sky

Hide conversation Reply Retweet Favorite More
- 19 Mar 2014 · Details

 

[Beech Mtn]

I don't get this at all.

Possibly this is SKY's attempt to control the narrative in the the same way that the JTL case was leaked. Get ahead of the story. A way to seem like they have an excellent anti doping structure inside the team. It doesn't count if you bust your own riders.

Otherwise, if this is indeed SKY's own internal program that caught Henao, then it is really disgusting behavior from the team. Having information leaked out about 'suspicious values' which they admit to having no clue to what it actually means. There seems to be an abundance of reasonable doubt in this case and yet now Henoa is ousted as a possible doper, by his own team no less? It's BS, they have the stones to admit they don't know what to make of the values, yet somehow their tests are better than the AD agencies?

Another option is that the leak didn't come from SKY but rather WADA and if this is the case than it appears to be poor damage control being done by SKY and I hate to admit the UCI as well.

Apparently the leak to the press came from Henao's own agent. Which raises questions as to his motives.

 

[the sceptic]

Thanks for that. It's an important clarification.

and he was also quite clear it happened only a few days ago.

damage control mode.

 

[thehog]

Apparently the leak to the press came from Henao's own agent. Which raises questions as to his motives.

Correct. As CN/Benson spoke to Sky.

Gazetta spoke to Heano's agent then Brailsford.

My take is Sky are about to hang another rider out to dry.

 

[the sceptic]

From my timeline

Martin. You do of course realize that your top secret twitter can now be found by anyone who goes to take a look at Bensons twitter right?

Maybe you will get banned for outing yourself now.