Henao withdrawn from racing
Comments
-
Hi Rayjay. What should Sky have done differently here?
They've highlighted their concerns to the UCI and withdrawn a rider from racing until the matter is resolved.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
rayjay wrote:obvious Sky fans.
Are you in the closet, rayjay? People are often phobic about secret attractions.
And a very good post from Coach. Textbook response from a team.
One good reason I've come up with (apologies if its obvious) for teams not to do internal testing is that an internal positive is really no better than a failed test. So if internal testing doesn't increase the deterrent, it serves no purpose....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
Macaloon wrote:rayjay wrote:obvious Sky fans.
Are you in the closet, rayjay? People are often phobic about secret attractions.
And a very good post from Coach. Textbook response from a team.
One good reason I've come up with (apologies if its obvious) for teams not to do internal testing is that an internal positive is really no better than a failed test. So if internal testing doesn't increase the deterrent, it serves no purpose.
Oooh, just like the Chris Cooper character in American Beauty0 -
That's not an insult. That is a FACT.0
-
-
TailWindHome wrote:Hi Rayjay. What should Sky have done differently here?
They've highlighted their concerns to the UCI and withdrawn a rider from racing until the matter is resolved.
Yes, but what if the UCI say they don't view the data as meriting opening a doping case against Henao?
I think a wiser course of action would have been to make the uci aware of their concerns and then allow Henao to race unless they are just preempting action that will be taken by the uci shortly once the data has been looked at.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
I think this is pretty interesting, I am very much pro Sky but this raises a lot of questions.
As we stand now we have 2 current and 1 former rider suspended from racing for irregularities in blood values, and one for a weight loss drug. For any team this would look terrible and it does for Sky. I suppose we need to wait and see.
What is interesting for me is that after Sky sacked (or made many quit) so many staff after the Lance confession, they made all riders and staff sign a legal document stating that they hadn't in the past and currently weren't involved in doping. I'd be interesting to see the legal ramifications of this if both are found to have been involved in doping.0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Hi Rayjay. What should Sky have done differently here?
They've highlighted their concerns to the UCI and withdrawn a rider from racing until the matter is resolved.
Yes, but what if the UCI say they don't view the data as meriting opening a doping case against Henao?
I think a wiser course of action would have been to make the uci aware of their concerns and then allow Henao to race unless they are just preempting action that will be taken by the uci shortly once the data has been looked at.
But the way it has been handled means that hopefully everyone can discover if returning to altitude can result in some minor? anomalies occurring which has to be good for everyone in the future surely? I'm really not sure how even the usual Sky haters can find anything negative in this story, to me it is being handled extremely well and will hopefully improve the data for those undertaking future testing to establish what can be considered normal. It could prevent other riders being flagged as 'dodgy' due to their ethnicity and / or geographical roots.0 -
sjmclean wrote:I think this is pretty interesting, I am very much pro Sky but this raises a lot of questions.
As we stand now we have 2 current and 1 former rider suspended from racing for irregularities in blood values, and one for a weight loss drug. For any team this would look terrible and it does for Sky. I suppose we need to wait and see.
What is interesting for me is that after Sky sacked (or made many quit) so many staff after the Lance confession, they made all riders and staff sign a legal document stating that they hadn't in the past and currently weren't involved in doping. I'd be interesting to see the legal ramifications of this if both are found to have been involved in doping.
Umm...made so many staff quit...twas Julich, De Jongh and Yates. That was it.
As for the doco...it amounted to 'you're out on your ear immediately, salary cut with immediate effect if it comes to light that you've lied'
If you're wondering whether it was 'you have to deliver us your children to be sold into slavery...or....we have the right to sue the arse of you'....no.
Still dont see how Rogers being done for clen after winning a race for Master Oleg and having ridden for his team for 10 months, can rationally be held against the team who he left 12 months previously .But maybe that's just me.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:sjmclean wrote:I think this is pretty interesting, I am very much pro Sky but this raises a lot of questions.
As we stand now we have 2 current and 1 former rider suspended from racing for irregularities in blood values, and one for a weight loss drug. For any team this would look terrible and it does for Sky. I suppose we need to wait and see.
What is interesting for me is that after Sky sacked (or made many quit) so many staff after the Lance confession, they made all riders and staff sign a legal document stating that they hadn't in the past and currently weren't involved in doping. I'd be interesting to see the legal ramifications of this if both are found to have been involved in doping.
Umm...made so many staff quit...twas Julich, De Jongh and Yates. That was it.
As for the doco...it amounted to 'you're out on your ear immediately, salary cut with immediate effect if it comes to light that you've lied'
If you're wondering whether it was 'you have to deliver us your children to be sold into slavery...or....we have the right to sue the ars* of you'....no.
Still dont see how Rogers being done for clen after winning a race for Master Oleg and having ridden for his team for 10 months, can rationally be held against the team who he left 12 months previously .But maybe that's just me.
Maybe I should have said key staff.
I don't think you're right in terms of the document, I personally think it will have had a clause in relation to damage to the team. I don't think Sky will have much concern cutting a rider loose (not a top named on anyway) but I think their concern will be the damage to the reputation, not just that of Team Sky but to GB cycling. That is the issue.
Didn't quite a few of Armstrong's henchmen get busted pretty quickly after leaving his team?0 -
That's not the issue. The issue will be the besmirching of the good name of "Sky" as a brand. If it is found that any of their team have been doping, I think Sky have the right to pull the plug pretty much immediately. Sky did an immense amount of research into which sport to get into before getting into cycling. Their reasons for doing so have been detailed elsewhere, but a "clean" team is a requisite. This isn't Brailsford or Yates, or Fran Millar driving this, this is the requirement of the key sponsor. And it is an absolute (from what I understand).sjmclean wrote:I don't think Sky will have much concern cutting a rider loose (not a top named on anyway) but I think their concern will be the damage to the reputation, not just that of Team Sky but to GB cycling. That is the issue.
Of the 3 riders linked with Sky -
1) JTL in trouble for irregularities before joining Sky (looks bad for him, but he had some high profile well respected backers in UK (Herety/Smith) who vouched for him and a "clean bill of health" from Garmin.
2) Rogers - chequered past, but no indication he was up to no good at Sky. Clen positive came well into his time with Saxo
3) Henao - not guilty of anything, but blood values concern Sky team to extent they have pulled him to investigate further.
You can call it PR/fluff, what you will, but I reckon Brailsford has got his hands full speaking to his lords and masters who sign the cheques at Sky right now....http://www.georgesfoundation.org
http://100hillsforgeorge.blogspot.com/
http://www.12on12in12.blogspot.co.uk/0 -
Pross wrote:DeVlaeminck wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Hi Rayjay. What should Sky have done differently here?
They've highlighted their concerns to the UCI and withdrawn a rider from racing until the matter is resolved.
Yes, but what if the UCI say they don't view the data as meriting opening a doping case against Henao?
I think a wiser course of action would have been to make the uci aware of their concerns and then allow Henao to race unless they are just preempting action that will be taken by the uci shortly once the data has been looked at.
But the way it has been handled means that hopefully everyone can discover if returning to altitude can result in some minor? anomalies occurring which has to be good for everyone in the future surely? I'm really not sure how even the usual Sky haters can find anything negative in this story, to me it is being handled extremely well and will hopefully improve the data for those undertaking future testing to establish what can be considered normal. It could prevent other riders being flagged as 'dodgy' due to their ethnicity and / or geographical roots.
But Henao is not the first rider from altitude and surely he's been back there before, maybe even while at Sky? On the face of it isn't it at least reasonably likely that they wont find an answer to this anomaly in 8 weeks, and if that happens what do they do then?
If you take the Sky press release at face value, that they are just sending him back so they can research the cause, aren't they potentially painting themselves into a corner if their research doesn't come up with an answer and one that clears Henao?[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:Pross wrote:DeVlaeminck wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Hi Rayjay. What should Sky have done differently here?
They've highlighted their concerns to the UCI and withdrawn a rider from racing until the matter is resolved.
Yes, but what if the UCI say they don't view the data as meriting opening a doping case against Henao?
I think a wiser course of action would have been to make the uci aware of their concerns and then allow Henao to race unless they are just preempting action that will be taken by the uci shortly once the data has been looked at.
But the way it has been handled means that hopefully everyone can discover if returning to altitude can result in some minor? anomalies occurring which has to be good for everyone in the future surely? I'm really not sure how even the usual Sky haters can find anything negative in this story, to me it is being handled extremely well and will hopefully improve the data for those undertaking future testing to establish what can be considered normal. It could prevent other riders being flagged as 'dodgy' due to their ethnicity and / or geographical roots.
But Henao is not the first rider from altitude and surely he's been back there before, maybe even while at Sky? On the face of it isn't it at least reasonably likely that they wont find an answer to this anomaly in 8 weeks, and if that happens what do they do then?
If you take the Sky press release at face value, that they are just sending him back so they can research the cause, aren't they potentially painting themselves into a corner if their research doesn't come up with an answer and one that clears Henao?
Then he's cleared and rejoins the race programme. What's the problem with that?
Slightly different circumstances in that he was fired, which Henao hasn't been. But Gustev still has a cycling career, albeit at a different team.0 -
Just to float up a theory here, is it possible that Sky saw the OOC test results from Colombia and saw that they were seemingly incompatible with their own internal testing done during training camps? Might this explain why they picked up on something that WADA apparently didn't? In that scenario, Sky's internal controls may well be tighter than they're being given credit for.
Even if this isn't the case, I'm actually pleasantly surprised to discover at least one team is looking critically at the passport data rather than waiting for someone else to point a finger.0 -
Pross wrote:DeVlaeminck wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Hi Rayjay. What should Sky have done differently here?
They've highlighted their concerns to the UCI and withdrawn a rider from racing until the matter is resolved.
Yes, but what if the UCI say they don't view the data as meriting opening a doping case against Henao?
I think a wiser course of action would have been to make the uci aware of their concerns and then allow Henao to race unless they are just preempting action that will be taken by the uci shortly once the data has been looked at.
But the way it has been handled means that hopefully everyone can discover if returning to altitude can result in some minor? anomalies occurring which has to be good for everyone in the future surely? I'm really not sure how even the usual Sky haters can find anything negative in this story, to me it is being handled extremely well and will hopefully improve the data for those undertaking future testing to establish what can be considered normal. It could prevent other riders being flagged as 'dodgy' due to their ethnicity and / or geographical roots.
You underestimate the ingenuity of the Sky hater's guild when it comes to extracting sh*t from champagne.
Kit launch on Saturday, then. Becks is home.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
underlayunderlay wrote:Just to float up a theory here, is it possible that Sky saw the OOC test results from Colombia and saw that they were seemingly incompatible with their own internal testing done during training camps? Might this explain why they picked up on something that WADA apparently didn't? In that scenario, Sky's internal controls may well be tighter than they're being given credit for.
Even if this isn't the case, I'm actually pleasantly surprised to discover at least one team is looking critically at the passport data rather than waiting for someone else to point a finger.
From what I can see, there are no references to internal team controls. Reviews yes. The press release is, no doubt accidentally, ambiguous on this precise point....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
The press release does sound like some of it has been run through Google translate:Colombian to conduct altitude research programme
makes it sound like Henao is a scientist - maybe he is!0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:sjmclean wrote:I think this is pretty interesting, I am very much pro Sky but this raises a lot of questions.
As we stand now we have 2 current and 1 former rider suspended from racing for irregularities in blood values, and one for a weight loss drug. For any team this would look terrible and it does for Sky. I suppose we need to wait and see.
What is interesting for me is that after Sky sacked (or made many quit) so many staff after the Lance confession, they made all riders and staff sign a legal document stating that they hadn't in the past and currently weren't involved in doping. I'd be interesting to see the legal ramifications of this if both are found to have been involved in doping.
Umm...made so many staff quit...twas Julich, De Jongh and Yates. That was it.
As for the doco...it amounted to 'you're out on your ear immediately, salary cut with immediate effect if it comes to light that you've lied'
If you're wondering whether it was 'you have to deliver us your children to be sold into slavery...or....we have the right to sue the ars* of you'....no.
Still dont see how Rogers being done for clen after winning a race for Master Oleg and having ridden for his team for 10 months, can rationally be held against the team who he left 12 months previously .But maybe that's just me.
RR ... Interested to know if you have some sort of vested interest in SKY ... You seem to be 'overly' knowledgable on a lot of issues that the man (or woman in your case) on the internet wouldn't be able to confirm one way or another ... Many of your responses are somewhat defensive for merely a 'fan' ...
If I'm being too nosey just tell me ... your life/internet is your own business but just interested to know ...0 -
ukcyclingexpert 7:18pm via Twitter for iPhone
OMG! Team Sky Procycling Team have discovered they have a rider from HTC-Columbia in their ranks and are sending him home for tests! Weird!...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
dish_dash wrote:DeVlaeminck wrote:Pross wrote:DeVlaeminck wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Hi Rayjay. What should Sky have done differently here?
They've highlighted their concerns to the UCI and withdrawn a rider from racing until the matter is resolved.
Yes, but what if the UCI say they don't view the data as meriting opening a doping case against Henao?
I think a wiser course of action would have been to make the uci aware of their concerns and then allow Henao to race unless they are just preempting action that will be taken by the uci shortly once the data has been looked at.
But the way it has been handled means that hopefully everyone can discover if returning to altitude can result in some minor? anomalies occurring which has to be good for everyone in the future surely? I'm really not sure how even the usual Sky haters can find anything negative in this story, to me it is being handled extremely well and will hopefully improve the data for those undertaking future testing to establish what can be considered normal. It could prevent other riders being flagged as 'dodgy' due to their ethnicity and / or geographical roots.
But Henao is not the first rider from altitude and surely he's been back there before, maybe even while at Sky? On the face of it isn't it at least reasonably likely that they wont find an answer to this anomaly in 8 weeks, and if that happens what do they do then?
If you take the Sky press release at face value, that they are just sending him back so they can research the cause, aren't they potentially painting themselves into a corner if their research doesn't come up with an answer and one that clears Henao?
Then he's cleared and rejoins the race programme. What's the problem with that?
.
So if the "research" can't find an answer for the anomaly he is cleared - in which case why suspend him in the first place ? It's clear that Sky think there is a fairly serious anomaly that needs explaining - serious enough to suspend a top rider - if they can't find an explanation can he really just go back to riding for the team as if nothing happened.
Sorry if some people see this as being a Sky hater - I just think that if you take their statement at face value their strategy is a poor one. Surely the proper course of action is to provide the relevant evidence to the relevant authorities and then support the rider in question until such time as they are cleared or found guilty ?[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:dish_dash wrote:DeVlaeminck wrote:Pross wrote:DeVlaeminck wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Hi Rayjay. What should Sky have done differently here?
They've highlighted their concerns to the UCI and withdrawn a rider from racing until the matter is resolved.
Yes, but what if the UCI say they don't view the data as meriting opening a doping case against Henao?
I think a wiser course of action would have been to make the uci aware of their concerns and then allow Henao to race unless they are just preempting action that will be taken by the uci shortly once the data has been looked at.
But the way it has been handled means that hopefully everyone can discover if returning to altitude can result in some minor? anomalies occurring which has to be good for everyone in the future surely? I'm really not sure how even the usual Sky haters can find anything negative in this story, to me it is being handled extremely well and will hopefully improve the data for those undertaking future testing to establish what can be considered normal. It could prevent other riders being flagged as 'dodgy' due to their ethnicity and / or geographical roots.
But Henao is not the first rider from altitude and surely he's been back there before, maybe even while at Sky? On the face of it isn't it at least reasonably likely that they wont find an answer to this anomaly in 8 weeks, and if that happens what do they do then?
If you take the Sky press release at face value, that they are just sending him back so they can research the cause, aren't they potentially painting themselves into a corner if their research doesn't come up with an answer and one that clears Henao?
Then he's cleared and rejoins the race programme. What's the problem with that?
.
So if the "research" can't find an answer for the anomaly he is cleared - in which case why suspend him in the first place ? It's clear that Sky think there is a fairly serious anomaly that needs explaining - serious enough to suspend a top rider - if they can't find an explanation can he really just go back to riding for the team as if nothing happened.
Sorry if some people see this as being a Sky hater - I just think that if you take their statement at face value their strategy is a poor one. Surely the proper course of action is to provide the relevant evidence to the relevant authorities and then support the rider in question until such time as they are cleared or found guilty ?
But say they continue to support him, he rides, wins a couple of races, a Gt even then is found guilty, we have to strip him of the results and then have meaningless races with empty winners. Look at Schleck with Contador.
Imo I think when something is raised the rider should be automatically suspended from the UCI.0 -
I suspect that Sergio is paying the price for Sky PR. When a team is constantly and uniquely slandered, criticised and hated for reasons that could equally apply to any other team in the Pro Peloton, they have to be super aggressive and the only people that genuinely suffer are the riders.
(well I suppose they could just feck us all off as an alternative)We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
But the relevant authorities haven't started a case for him to be cleared from or found guilty of. It's just an internal enquiry.DeVlaeminck wrote:Sorry if some people see this as being a Sky hater - I just think that if you take their statement at face value their strategy is a poor one. Surely the proper course of action is to provide the relevant evidence to the relevant authorities and then support the rider in question until such time as they are cleared or found guilty ?sjmclean wrote:
But say they continue to support him, he rides, wins a couple of races, a Gt even then is found guilty, we have to strip him of the results and then have meaningless races with empty winners. Look at Schleck with Contador.
Imo I think when something is raised the rider should be automatically suspended from the UCI.
There is no case against him to be found guilty of. It's just Sky looking for more information.
What is it about this that people find so difficult to understand?Twitter: @RichN950 -
The usual interesting perspective:
http://inrng.com/2014/03/sergio-henao-s ... more-19040"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:Sorry if some people see this as being a Sky hater - I just think that if you take their statement at face value their strategy is a poor one. Surely the proper course of action is to provide the relevant evidence to the relevant authorities and then support the rider in question until such time as they are cleared or found guilty ?
Sky probably believe this strategy to be the "least poor" of the options open to them.0
