Henao withdrawn from racing

Crankbrother

As the saying goes ... 'There's no smoke ... It's been blown up SKY's ar$e' ...

bigmat

I have a feeling Sky might be a bit warier with new signings, particularly from Columbia. I really hope that country doesn't become the "Jamaica" of modern pro-cycling as I've really enjoyed their recent resurgence.

Macaloon

curium wrote:

Not so. The equipment is fairly standard for a comprehensive lab. I think it's the expertise that is likely to be the limiting factor.

At least there's no shortage of experts on rider (homo lemonderthal) physiology

frenchfighter

BigMat wrote:

I have a feeling Sky might be a bit warier with new signings, particularly from Columbia. I really hope that country doesn't become the "Jamaica" of modern pro-cycling as I've really enjoyed their recent resurgence.

+1

Richmond Racer

Macaloon wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

Maca, remember - embarrassingly, before signing JTL they hadnt even had blood tests done on him, instead relying on the fact that he'd been tested OK by Garmin. And that the likes of Herety vouched for him.

In the wake of the JTL affair (sorry to repeat myself), Brailsford and Kerrison instigated a big programme of monitoring, review and analysis - and hired an independent body to assist. Walsh wrote up some information about it in his Scourge-of-the-Clinic-book-on-Sky, and I've heard about it from other sources close to the team.

Its easy to assume that pro teams in general are all over their riders blood etc profiles on an ongoing basis - but they are amazingly laissez-faire.

Thanks for that. Seems like a chasm between rhetoric and reality. And a colossal amount of reputation exposure for management svengali DB.

Well, here's the difference: Sky have instigated this program - unlike other teams. One thing about 'management svengalis' as you like to term Brailsford - good ones learn from mistakes and build better practices off the back of those learnings.

Richmond Racer

iainf72 wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Who's talking about getting rid of him? Part of the passport is being able to understand different values, so they'd work to understand that and involving the UCI / CADF.

If. I have not read that they would.

Can you confirm that what I wrote is indeed the situation?

Pretty much. They want to get more tests done when they know what's going on, so they can understand the impact of altitude.

Walsh guessing they've learnt from the JTL thing and want to clear things up rather than have UCI open a case

Which is, I think, exactly the case.

joelsim

frenchfighter wrote:

BigMat wrote:

I have a feeling Sky might be a bit warier with new signings, particularly from Columbia. I really hope that country doesn't become the "Jamaica" of modern pro-cycling as I've really enjoyed their recent resurgence.

+1

I can't imagine that their testing is any different to anyone else's. If the Columbians are getting away with something, then I suspect the majority of the peloton are too. Only time will tell.

Richmond Racer

ddraver wrote:

the simple reason is that it's phenominally expensive to run such monitoring programs Maca, most teams simply couldnt.

The Colombian conti team 4-72 Colombia, set aside part of their annual budget on bio passports for their riders - they pay an independent, WADA-accredited outfit to assist. Its a first step - and they're certainly not a mega$$$ team.

blazing_saddles

Joelsim wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

BigMat wrote:

I have a feeling Sky might be a bit warier with new signings, particularly from Columbia. I really hope that country doesn't become the "Jamaica" of modern pro-cycling as I've really enjoyed their recent resurgence.

+1

I can't imagine that their testing is any different to anyone else's. If the Columbians are getting away with something, then I suspect the majority of the peloton are too. Only time will tell.

By imagine, you mean you are guessing? Huge doping issues below the top tier.
Are we talking about clothing or the record company here?

It's Colombia, guys.

Let's get that right at least.

Macaloon

Richmond Racer wrote:

Well, here's the difference: Sky have instigated this program - unlike other teams. One thing about 'management svengalis' as you like to term Brailsford - good ones learn from mistakes and build better practices off the back of those learnings.

At the risk of flogging a dead horse, Brailsford the manager has a stunning track ( ) record of repeated success while setting ballsy/ludicrous public targets - eg win the Tour in 5 years. His performance with Sorrel on that meet the svengali was genuinely interesting.

I had assumed, given the admirable substance of the man, that he'd have a trust but verify policy with his team, not just trust. Otherwise what is his basis for frequent references to racing clean?

By the way, do the track squad have internal monitoring, independent of WADA controls?

Richmond Racer

Macaloon wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

Well, here's the difference: Sky have instigated this program - unlike other teams. One thing about 'management svengalis' as you like to term Brailsford - good ones learn from mistakes and build better practices off the back of those learnings.

At the risk of flogging a dead horse, Brailsford the manager has a stunning track ( ) record of repeated success while setting ballsy/ludicrous public targets - eg win the Tour in 5 years. His performance with Sorrel on that meet the svengali was genuinely interesting.

I had assumed, given the admirable substance of the man, that he'd have a trust but verify policy with his team, not just trust. Otherwise what is his basis for frequent references to racing clean?

By the way, do the track squad have internal monitoring, independent of WADA controls?

Shall we start exploring what OPQS, BMC, Saxo etc do? Just so that we get a broad spectrum of practices? And the Aus, French and German track teams who dominated the recent Worlds?

Because its all very well using this as a stick to beat someone who heads up a team who've taken this step. But how about looking at the wider context, the wider environment of cycling teams and their practices?

dish_dash

Richmond Racer wrote:

Shall we start exploring what OPQS, BMC, Saxo etc do? Just so that we get a broad spectrum of practices? And the Aus, French and German track teams who dominated the recent Worlds?

Because its all very well using this as a stick to beat someone who heads up a team who've taken this step. But how about looking at the wider context, the wider environment of cycling teams and their practices?

Yes

The_Boy

Richmond Racer wrote:

Macaloon wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

Maca, remember - embarrassingly, before signing JTL they hadnt even had blood tests done on him, instead relying on the fact that he'd been tested OK by Garmin. And that the likes of Herety vouched for him.

In the wake of the JTL affair (sorry to repeat myself), Brailsford and Kerrison instigated a big programme of monitoring, review and analysis - and hired an independent body to assist. Walsh wrote up some information about it in his Scourge-of-the-Clinic-book-on-Sky, and I've heard about it from other sources close to the team.

Its easy to assume that pro teams in general are all over their riders blood etc profiles on an ongoing basis - but they are amazingly laissez-faire.

Thanks for that. Seems like a chasm between rhetoric and reality. And a colossal amount of reputation exposure for management svengali DB.

Well, here's the difference: Sky have instigated this program - unlike other teams. One thing about 'management svengalis' as you like to term Brailsford - good ones learn from mistakes and build better practices off the back of those learnings.

Genuine question, but the Sky press release refers to

“In our latest monthly review, our experts had questions about Sergio’s out-of-competition control tests at altitude - tests introduced this winter by the anti-doping authorities." [my bold, obvs]

When you refer to Sky instigating a program what exactly do you mean, because it looks like UCI/WADA/whatever testing that has raised the question mark here.

above_the_cows

curium wrote:

ddraver wrote:

I should ve done Biochem or Physiology instead of geology, that sounds like a fun study to do...

I did Biochemistry but this is a very specialised area. While I understand many of the pathways the data is just not there to be able to apply strict cutoffs in most cases. The full extent of biological variation is not understood for many analytes. There can also be issues with assay standardisation.

It would also be interesting to know how applicable current research is for non-Caucasian individuals. This could be more of an issue as the sport globalises. For instance it is known that black males have a higher circulating concentration of the enzyme creatine kinase than Caucasian males but the exact difference you can expect is not known because most research is carried out using Caucasian males.
This could be the case for a number of other analytes and the authorities will need to bear this is mind before handing out bans.

Some people will have a genetic advantage due to ethnicity and evolution but the pool of data the rules are built on come from a very narrow base.

I don't understand the specifics but thanks for the insightful post. It is a common practice in multiple sectors that testing be done on Caucasians. Facial recognition software for one, e.g. in automated passport gates.

As for Henao, good that Sky are being so vigilant, worrying up to a point that it wasn't picked up by AD, but sort of possibly mitigated by the parameters laid out by curium. I'm sure someone though is claiming this is only so that they can turn him into Super Sergio in their underground high altitude Volcano lair.

above_the_cows

Anyway what does this mean for Sky's ready pool of engines? What does this do to the Giro team for example?

Macaloon

Richmond Racer wrote:

Shall we start exploring what OPQS, BMC, Saxo etc do? Just so that we get a broad spectrum of practices? And the Aus, French and German track teams who dominated the recent Worlds?

Because its all very well using this as a stick to beat someone who heads up a team who've taken this step. But how about looking at the wider context, the wider environment of cycling teams and their practices?

Not my intention. I've huge admiration for DB and team's achievements. But the team was specifically set up to challenge existing practices. Odd it seems to have taken the JTL case to direct attention to compliance.

I don't think they should be held to a higher standard than other teams, they should be judged against standards they set themselves.

Richmond Racer

The_Boy wrote:

Genuine question, but the Sky press release refers to

“In our latest monthly review, our experts had questions about Sergio’s out-of-competition control tests at altitude - tests introduced this winter by the anti-doping authorities." [my bold, obvs]

When you refer to Sky instigating a program what exactly do you mean, because it looks like UCI/WADA/whatever testing that has raised the question mark here.

OOC tests were done on Henao out in Colombia, and results sent to the rider and the team. The Sky team set up to conduct this monthly monitoring and review process (that's the new programme I'm referring to) picked up on results, and pointed them out to the UCI/CADF.

The question marks have been raised by the team, not by the UCI.

As per earlier posts, the indications are that they want to address any issues before they potentially turn into major problem such as a ADRV.

Richmond Racer

Above The Cows wrote:

Anyway what does this mean for Sky's ready pool of engines? What does this do to the Giro team for example?

Henao wasnt doing the Giro. All on for supporting Froome at the Tour.

joelsim

I've huge admiration for DB too, he has transformed British cycling over the last few years.

But the whole world of cycling is so murky. If you look at the books written post Festina, they are all saying pretty much what is said by many today, that the problems with doping are a thing of the past.

Let's not kid ourselves that the sport is in any way, shape or form, clean.

The_Boy

Above The Cows wrote:

Anyway what does this mean for Sky's ready pool of engines? What does this do to the Giro team for example?

Not a lot effect on Giro as Henao was going to the Tour. I suppose if you a conspiranoid you might connect todays news with Porte's recent injury and tie yourself in knots.

edit: beaten to it by RR.

The_Boy

Richmond Racer wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

Genuine question, but the Sky press release refers to

“In our latest monthly review, our experts had questions about Sergio’s out-of-competition control tests at altitude - tests introduced this winter by the anti-doping authorities." [my bold, obvs]

When you refer to Sky instigating a program what exactly do you mean, because it looks like UCI/WADA/whatever testing that has raised the question mark here.

OOC tests were done on Henao out in Colombia, and results sent to the rider and the team. The Sky team set up to conduct this monthly monitoring and review process (that's the new programme I'm referring to) picked up on results, and pointed them out to the UCI/CADF.

The question marks have been raised by the team, not by the UCI.

As per earlier posts, the indications are that they want to address any issues before they potentially turn into major problem such as a ADRV.

Gotcha, cheers.

slim_boy_fat

Joelsim wrote:

I've huge admiration for DB too, he has transformed British cycling over the last few years.

But the whole world of cycling is so murky. If you look at the books written post Festina, they are all saying pretty much what is said by many today, that the problems with doping are a thing of the past.

Let's not kid ourselves that the sport is in any way, shape or form, clean.

However, likewise lets not kid ourselves that there aren't people in the sport who are striving to compete fairly and cleanly. It's guaranteed, in my opinion, that some are up to the old tricks but I'm also pretty sure plenty of people are trying to do it right.

above_the_cows

Richmond Racer wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Anyway what does this mean for Sky's ready pool of engines? What does this do to the Giro team for example?

Henao wasnt doing the Giro. All on for supporting Froome at the Tour.

Ah ha. I see. Maybe less disastrous team wise then.

DeVlaeminck

Richmond Racer wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

Genuine question, but the Sky press release refers to

“In our latest monthly review, our experts had questions about Sergio’s out-of-competition control tests at altitude - tests introduced this winter by the anti-doping authorities." [my bold, obvs]

When you refer to Sky instigating a program what exactly do you mean, because it looks like UCI/WADA/whatever testing that has raised the question mark here.

OOC tests were done on Henao out in Colombia, and results sent to the rider and the team. The Sky team set up to conduct this monthly monitoring and review process (that's the new programme I'm referring to) picked up on results, and pointed them out to the UCI/CADF.

The question marks have been raised by the team, not by the UCI.

As per earlier posts, the indications are that they want to address any issues before they potentially turn into major problem such as a ADRV.

That is the official version. It would be interesting to know whether Sky had been informed of any irregularities in the data or whether they realised that there were obvious irregularities which anti doping authorities would at least have their eye on.

That's not something we can know for sure of course, it just seems an unusual step to take a top rider out of competition for so long without any external pressure to do so on the basis of test results which the authorities were quite happy with.

frenchfighter

The Gazzetta first reported it. Sky then had to put out the pr.

joelsim

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

I've huge admiration for DB too, he has transformed British cycling over the last few years.

But the whole world of cycling is so murky. If you look at the books written post Festina, they are all saying pretty much what is said by many today, that the problems with doping are a thing of the past.

Let's not kid ourselves that the sport is in any way, shape or form, clean.

However, likewise lets not kid ourselves that there aren't people in the sport who are striving to compete fairly and cleanly. It's guaranteed, in my opinion, that some are up to the old tricks but I'm also pretty sure plenty of people are trying to do it right.

Agree totally. Looks like the passport has at least cut out some of the huge improvement margins.

ddraver

Richmond Racer wrote:

ddraver wrote:

the simple reason is that it's phenominally expensive to run such monitoring programs Maca, most teams simply couldnt.

The Colombian conti team 4-72 Colombia, set aside part of their annual budget on bio passports for their riders - they pay an independent, WADA-accredited outfit to assist. Its a first step - and they're certainly not a mega$$$ team.

And they deserve a phenomonal amount of credit for that...

Crankbrother

frenchfighter wrote:

The Gazzetta first reported it. Sky then had to put out the pr.

Known in cycling circles as 'doing a Vaughters' ...

ddraver

DeVlaeminck wrote:

That is the official version. It would be interesting to know whether Sky had been informed of any irregularities in the data or whether they realised that there were obvious irregularities which anti doping authorities would at least have their eye on.

That's not something we can know for sure of course, it just seems an unusual step to take a top rider out of competition for so long without any external pressure to do so on the basis of test results which the authorities were quite happy with.

Would you have the same opinon if the UCI had opened a passport case against Henao? Correct me if I'm wrong but I suspect if youre honest you'd be pouring hellfire on them for not picking it up in their internal investigations. Sky are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. Maybe think about these things in a wider context and think what other teams do before beating them so harshly?

curium wrote:

Good Stuff

Putting cycling aside for a moment, it could be a very interesting insight into evoloution. Following @TakeThatDarwin on twitter reveals a whole load of idio..erm...people asking for "proof of the theory of evoloution". Well Colombians having different physiologies to Caucasions as a result of living at altitude would be an interesting one

I love Science!

Macaloon

ddraver wrote:

Would you have the same opinon if the UCI had opened a passport case against Henao? Correct me if I'm wrong but I suspect if youre honest you'd be pouring hellfire on them for not picking it up in their internal investigations. Sky are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. Maybe think about these things in a wider context and think what other teams do before beating them so harshly?

Nonsense. If the team was doing no more than their peers to monitor riders - the 'wider context' - what business do they have making claims to be cycling clean?