Sergio Henao back racing after tests - can he make Sky's Tour de France team?

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

The point about the Sky team is that they are supposed to be the team you can trust, the whiter than white team. So all this releasing of information that they want you to know is to strengthen our belief in that and support them, buy their merchandise and watch them on telly....so it's a commercial thing. Why do you think they do it?

I didn't think I was going to have to teach you to suck eggs on that one....anyway you seem to want to believe in the PR so fine. I don't think you are going to change our opinions and we are not going to change yours.

You don't have to teach me to suck eggs. I'm not taken in by anything that would effect my purchasing or viewing preferences - as i've already said on here - nor do I believe they are perfectly clean - which i've also mentioned. I've also had previous commercial contact with parts of the Murdoch empire before and am well aware of some of the things they are capable of...

Also my opinions will change based on the evidence I see so no, nothing is set in stone. You seem to be deliberately ignoring that.. as you have also ignored all the times i've asked you what you would do in various stituations, including the one in which the initial result and subsequent research were valid.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

My view point is that it's easy to suck up these messages and not question them: why does a successful bike team want to/need to show us this information?

Really ? Really ? FFS - OK, again I ask, what would you have them do if the anomalous result actually occured ? If you think it didn't, please enlighten as to what the plan was, and what the risk-benefit analysis might have been ? (don't forget to include the fact that Sky have been without a tidy rider for nearly 3 months). Of course they want to make the most of a (potentially) bad thing, no-one here appears to be saying otherwise, but that doesn't mean the whole thing is made-up and it doesn't mean everyone is suddenly going to think of Sky as angels... however, as someone quite nicely put on here, some folk will find evidence of doping in their own shadow.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

If this has happened to Henao why not Nairo Quitana? Or Uran Uran?

Good question and - who knows ? Henao and Uran are from relatively nearby areas of Colombia I believe, I think Quintana is from a higher and more southern area - plus they are individuals and follow different off season training (location and type)... be interesting to see their data.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Do you suspect them any more or less than Sky's Henao?

Not particularly, no. You ?

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

If they are competing on a level playing field what does that mean if one of them is caught doping?

What does that mean ?

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Why has this ground breaking research only just been done now when it has such positive ramifications for Columbian athletes.

Altitude adaptation research has been done before - there is a fair bit of it about. This seems to be a much more specific analysis (from what has been released in the media and some reading between the lines) - we'll hopefully know more when it's published.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Why has this not formed a more serious part of a more serious paper?

Eh ? It was a particular piece of research which is begin put forward for publication, as far as we know. I'm not sure what you think is not 'serious' about it, care to expand on that ?

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

It sounds as if they are trying to use the veil of authority to avert our gaze.

From what ?

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Lots of questions, but no real answers. I just know that just because you can't see a crime happening doesn't mean it hasn't happened. And that you should he wary of anything processed by a PR team.

I am wary, i'm just not so obsessed with some opinion on the degree of doping in the pro-peloton that I won't consider all aspects of the case - yes, even ones that imply that Skys every single move may not actually have been hatched in from the deepest depths of Hell itself.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

I wonder why you want to believe it all so much.

I don't - however the scenario on the face of it seems reasonable, far more so than the most of the lurid alternatives that seem to be bandied around, and that's what we were discussing. I am, however, waiting for the data to be released before drawing much more from the episode than that. I've said this over and over here, i'm not sure what you're reading but either it's not what I wrote or (beginning to sound more likely) you just want to persist with some straw man about Sky not doping rather than what we were originally talking about.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Why exactly do you want to believe what their well run PR machine are pumping out?

Unless it's an incredibly complicated stunt, i'd reckon their response to an anomalous result found during internal testing is spot-on. So, was there such a result or not ? If there was, what would you have done in the circumstances ?

Given that scenario, I thought the follow on also sensible - again, what would you have done ?

Assuming the foregoing is still not all some weird ploy by them to garner favour, the reaction to the conclusion of the testing also seemed reasonable - did it not to you ?

None of this makes me rush out and buy boat loads of expensive blue-flashed coal sack riding kit or get Froomes face tattooed on my arse - nor does it make me think Sky are the Devil incarnate. A quick question - if all this was an elaborate PR gag, what do you reckon the thinking was behind it ? What exactly were the risks and benefits ? I'm interested...

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

This story is basically created by them from start to finish. Why do we even need to know all this I wonder?

One reason, perhaps, is because people keep calling for greater transparency ?

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

It's hardly science if it relates to one person and PhD students are queuing up for funding on papers. Sadly academic whores are hardly a new thing.

Stop with the silly PhD student slur daddyELVIS started please - that's not what this is about. As for the single data point issue, i've already mentioned what I think about that earlier in this thread - go look it up if you're interested.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

You don't have to be as cynical as Daddy Elvis or I, but there are simple truths which ring true. One is that you have to understand why people feel they need to sell you something, whether that be a story or a bicycle. Secondly, no one has stopped the doping arms race to date. Doping agencies will willingly admit they don't have the funds to deal with professional doping. So if you believe it has stopped I would do a bit more home work. So being sold the 'we're a clean team' story is terrifically old hat and becomes harder to hold the longer a team goes on.

I don't believe it's stopped - that would run counter to my suspicions and (more importantly) the extant evidence - nor have I suggested it has in Sky or anywhere else.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

If you think the blood passport stops doping think again. There's no one in the doping agencies that think this. This isn't a Team Sky thing, but it just seems a bigger pile of BS that they write the script from start to finish.

It doesn't stop it, but it's another (partial) barrier to doping abuse - you want to get rid of it ? What would have in it's place - anything ?

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Personally I think they should release both the dates of testing and the results (and I mean the ADAs of this world - not the in-house Sky stuff). Then we could see the real world picture of a) what testing is being undertaken, b) what the results are. That would shut me up a bit.

The cynic in me says "I doubt it would" but it's only fair to give you the benefit I'd like to see the data too, as the authorities already have, but if or as-and-when the data comes out in the research paper we'll be in a better place to make informed comments.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Watch the Armstrong Lie and see how confident you feel about anti-doping procedure.

Please stop the straw-manning, it's getting dull.

notfastenough wrote:

Jeez guys, talk about foregone conclusions....

Can you quote the 'foregone conclusion' I've supposedly stated?

daddyELVIS wrote:

notfastenough wrote:

Jeez guys, talk about foregone conclusions....

Can you quote the 'foregone conclusion' I've supposedly stated?

..perhaps one would be that what Sky are saying is bullshit ?

daddyELVIS wrote:

But, I do know BS when I smell it!

fukawitribe wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

notfastenough wrote:

Jeez guys, talk about foregone conclusions....

Can you quote the 'foregone conclusion' I've supposedly stated?

..perhaps one would be that what Sky are saying is bullshit ?

daddyELVIS wrote:

But, I do know BS when I smell it!

not really a conclusion, more an assessment of my ability to identify BS

daddyELVIS wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

notfastenough wrote:

Jeez guys, talk about foregone conclusions....

Can you quote the 'foregone conclusion' I've supposedly stated?

..perhaps one would be that what Sky are saying is bullshit ?

daddyELVIS wrote:

But, I do know BS when I smell it!

not really a conclusion, more an assessment of my ability to identify BS

Mea culpa - you're right. One pertinent definition of 'conclusion' is "a reasoned deduction or inference" - whereas you actually know its bollocks, based on ... what, magic ?

fukawitribe wrote:

Mea culpa - you're right. One pertinent definition of 'conclusion' is "a reasoned deduction or inference" - whereas you actually know its bollocks, based on ... what, magic ?

based on the fact I'm not gullible - or magic, if you like!

daddyELVIS wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

Mea culpa - you're right. One pertinent definition of 'conclusion' is "a reasoned deduction or inference" - whereas you actually know its bollocks, based on ... what, magic ?

based on the fact I'm not gullible - or magic, if you like!

I'm not gullible but I actually don't know that all of this is bollocks because I don't have all the data - tell me your secret that gives you that omnipotence ? I could guess, or have an opinion, but I fear I will never reach the level of certainty you have about this.

fukawitribe wrote:

I could...have an opinion....

Hurrah - you've, hit the nail on the head - I'm sharing my OPINION (that something smells fishy about this).

I suppose that in time we'll find out if I was right or wrong to hold this opinion.

daddyELVIS wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

I could...have an opinion....

Hurrah - you've, hit the nail on the head - I'm sharing my OPINION (that something smells fishy about this).

I suppose that in time we'll find out if I was right or wrong to hold this opinion.

Yeah - opinion, not a fact as you tried to make out.

fukawitribe wrote:

Yeah - opinion, not a fact as you tried to make out.

Not sure what your point is!? My opinion is that Sky's official story stinks of BS. I'm not claiming any facts. What is your point exactly?

daddyELVIS wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

Yeah - opinion, not a fact as you tried to make out.

Not sure what your point is!? My opinion is that Sky's official story stinks of BS. I'm not claiming any facts. What is your point exactly?

My point is you said you knew it was bullshit.... perhaps you meant 'I think' or 'it seems' even ''stinks of' (which I personally disagree with, not important but would be interested to know why you think that and what they'd have to do to make it less 'stinky').

Next time you mean it's your opinion why not just say so, there's no be issue there, and maybe you won't have people taking you to task for stating it as fact ("But, I do know BS when I smell it!").

fukawitribe wrote:

Next time you mean it's your opinion why not just say so, there's no be issue there, and maybe you won't have people taking you to task for stating it as fact ("But, I do know BS when I smell it!").

Blimey, it's a saying, a turn of phrase - hardly a scientific statement of hard facts! Plus, I was taken to task before I stated that, being told I'd jumped to forgone conclusions. Oh well, let's chill.

daddyELVIS wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

Next time you mean it's your opinion why not just say so, there's no be issue there, and maybe you won't have people taking you to task for stating it as fact ("But, I do know BS when I smell it!").

Blimey, it's a saying, a turn of phrase - hardly a scientific statement of hard facts! Plus, I was taken to task before I stated that, being told I'd jumped to forgone conclusions. Oh well, let's chill.

Yeah, I think 'fukawitribe' is being picky there. It seems he is actively and wilfully suspending his disbelief, because on one had he understands what a PR release is, but on the other chooses to believe what he is told…..and that is the difference between us. A hairs breadth between us.

It's interesting that he chooses to quote so much, and that he so passionately wants to decry anyone who posits an opposing opinion to Sky's PR machine. You don't have to agree with us, but trying to wear us down is equally pointless - our opinions are as valid as yours. The quality of the paper will determine who is right and who is wrong…..or it may just tell us nothing at all - which I think is most likely. Part of the point we are making is that it is easy for people to make proclamations which are reported verbatim, like Armstrong's 'never taken drugs, never failed a test', but when you break it down it is rubbish. Without David Walsh saying 'Woah, there, that's a fat hill of lies' you'd still be lapping him up. Same with Tony Blair and his dossier - another example of using the authority of academics to make a lie stand…..so sorry if I'm cynical of this output.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

Next time you mean it's your opinion why not just say so, there's no be issue there, and maybe you won't have people taking you to task for stating it as fact ("But, I do know BS when I smell it!").

Blimey, it's a saying, a turn of phrase - hardly a scientific statement of hard facts! Plus, I was taken to task before I stated that, being told I'd jumped to forgone conclusions. Oh well, let's chill.

Yeah, I think 'fukawitribe' is being picky there.

Perhaps - it was the "I am right" attitude that seemed to me to come across in combination with the "I know" comment that rankled me. Anyway, now it's couched as an opinion daddyELVIS and I can just choose to agree to disagree and, as he said, just chill.

I'll ignore the rest of your rambling if you don't mind Colin, you're highly imaginative - especially with attributing beliefs and opinions to the others - but even I eventually stopped reading the drivel when I got to the Blair bit.

It's a beautiful day - i'm off for a ride.

Sam1 wrote:

oh, daddyELVIS doesnt seem the sort to rush to his already-formed conclusions. Not at all. No.

That's right - not rushed to any conclusion at all - I don't know what the conclusion is, afterall Sky haven't really told us anything.

But, I do know BS when I smell it!

If Sky are confident that the results of the 'independent research programme' proves that Henao's original test results are in order (BTW, I'm guessing they are talking about blood values with regards to his data that caused concerns), then why not just come out and tell us in greater detail what their concerns were and why they now believe everything to be in order? Why do we have to wait for a 'research paper' from Sheffield Uni?

The team that was supposed to be built on integrity, transparency and zero-tolerance seems to be built on PR and spin!

daddyELVIS wrote:

Sam1 wrote:

oh, daddyELVIS doesnt seem the sort to rush to his already-formed conclusions. Not at all. No.

That's right - not rushed to any conclusion at all - I don't know what the conclusion is, afterall Sky haven't really told us anything.

But, I do know BS when I smell it!

If Sky are confident that the results of the 'independent research programme' proves that Henao's original test results are in order (BTW, I'm guessing they are talking about blood values with regards to his data that caused concerns), then why not just come out and tell us in greater detail what their concerns were and why they now believe everything to be in order? Why do we have to wait for a 'research paper' from Sheffield Uni?

The team that was supposed to be built on integrity, transparency and zero-tolerance seems to be built on PR and spin!

You've obviously already formed the conclusion that Sky are full of BS and are therefore riddled with doping...

No-one is saying they are definitely clean, we can't know that. The argument is that they are acting reasonably and these events do not include evidence of the conspiracy theories you seem to think it does. The very reason we have to wait for a research paper from Sheffield uni is the number of armchair experts on intertelly forums who could 'find' evidence of doping in their own shadows. You want to see the results now, but what would satisfy you? A one-pager? Hardly, you'd pick that to pieces as lacking in detail (and therefore was a Sky whitewash). Just the data? I daresay that'd suit you, because you could form your own conclusions without the constraints of such unnessecary details as context, background, stated assumptions, test methodology, limitations, rationale, the authors credentials...

See why a research paper is a good idea yet?

notfastenough wrote:

You've obviously already formed the conclusion that Sky are full of BS and are therefore riddled with doping...

I don't remember saying that Sky are riddled with doping - that wasn't my conclusion at all. As I said, I haven't formed a conclusion on this situation because I can't, the info isn't there.

....and yes, I definitely can see why a 'research paper' is a good idea! I wonder if it will be peer-reviewed and published?

daddyELVIS wrote:

Oh, ok, you're taking 'anomalous result' as a full explanation then? I assume then he's back on the roster because Sheffield Uni have proved the result was not anomalous after all, but in fact expected due to the new insight into Colombian climbers uncovered by a 10 week observational experiment on the same Colombian climber who had the anomalous result in the first place. Sounds like a full explanation to me - nothing to see here!

At the time from Sky..

"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. We need to understand these readings better,"

The 'anomalous result' (my phrase, not Skys) was not detailed to the public, but the result were pointed out to the UCI and CADF and were available to WADA. The exact values we don't have, but has been available to the relevant authorities for some time now - and have not prompted any action or statement from them. The decision to suspend on any potential issue effecting a riders biological passport would seem to be eminently sensible and, for me at least, hardly needing further explanation at the moment - especially as there is the expectation of data being released as part of the research. Clearly you want more data now before being prepared to not vilify them - I think that is excessive given the situation and far from being objective.

As for the point about the single sample research, they clearly haven't given us the complete research data and conclusions yet - although again that is already available to the relevant authorities who seem content with it so far - but i'm don't consider that as something that makes their decision to reinstate less than fully explicable.... the precise data behind that decision is still not in the public domain but the reason for is surely clear.

You might say i'm nit picking in that i'm saying, given the situation as known publicly I find the decisions fully explicable - whereas you seem to want to know every detail behind the situation... fair enough, your prerogative. Personally I find the train of events

- Slightly unexpected result -> suspension
- Research seems to show result is expected and in line with previous results -> return to service

pretty explicable.... I'd also like to know the nitty-gritty of what peeked their interest in the first place, and all the data from the research, but fortunately that seems odds-on to mostly be forthcoming. In light of that, i'm not too fussed about arguing the toss with folk based on ignorance from both sides. Why don't we discuss that part of things further when the data is available - unless you're desperate to condemn people before.

daddyELVIS wrote:

Team Sky suspend rider for reasons that can't be fully explained, then reinstate him for reasons that can't be fully explained, and at some point in the near future (don't hold your breath), a dissertation from a Sheffield Uni phd student might provide some clues! Priceless!!! What next from this team?

You will believe what you want to believe clearly - snide PhD comment aside, I doubt anything in the published research as and when it comes out will change that, nor any of the pertinent details of what led up to this and how it was handled. The reason for the suspension was explained, the reason for the result is what they were investigating, the reason for the return is because all concerned believed there wasn't any legitimate reason to keep him away (whatever you may feel about those who made that judgement). What bit of that is deeply mysterious and - wooooo, spooky - "can't be fully explained" ?

The public side of the affair is either a PR stunt or a team trying to do the right thing depending on who you talk to. As for the science, i'll wait until I can see the results until commenting further - perhaps you could give it a go too. I'm not a fan of Sky - cycling team or company - but I highly doubt every single thing they do is part of some vast Machiavellian plot either.

fukawitribe wrote:

The reason for the suspension was explained, the reason for the result is what they were investigating, the reason for the return is because all concerned believed there wasn't any legitimate reason to keep him away (whatever you may feel about those who made that judgement). What bit of that is deeply mysterious and - wooooo, spooky - "can't be fully explained" ?

.......As for the science, i'll wait until I can see the results until commenting further - perhaps you could give it a go too.

So what was the full explanation for his suspension and reinstatement then? Perhaps you've seen some info that Sky haven't released to any of the media?

As for the science - Sky PR are talking about a research paper into the effects of altitude training on 'altitude natives' - a research paper on a population sample size of, err.... 1. Their spin machine (pardon the pun) is in full flow!

daddyELVIS wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

The reason for the suspension was explained, the reason for the result is what they were investigating, the reason for the return is because all concerned believed there wasn't any legitimate reason to keep him away (whatever you may feel about those who made that judgement). What bit of that is deeply mysterious and - wooooo, spooky - "can't be fully explained" ?

.......As for the science, i'll wait until I can see the results until commenting further - perhaps you could give it a go too.

So what was the full explanation for his suspension and reinstatement then? Perhaps you've seen some info that Sky haven't released to any of the media?

No - nothing unusual, I just read the stuff everyone else did. The reason for the suspension was an anomalous result - what is tricky about that ? Did you actually read any of the reports at the time ? The reinstatement was based on the results of the investigation of the anomalous result instigated Sky. From their website

Sergio Henao will return to racing at the Tour de Suisse, following the findings of scientific experts at the conclusion of the independent research programme.
The 10-week programme has given the highest level of confidence in Sergio’s previous data and profiles, and offers valuable new insights into the physiology of ‘altitude natives’ such as Colombian climbers.

What is difficult to understand about why they have decided to reinstate him gvien they were happy with him riding before ? I really not sure what is missing..

daddyELVIS wrote:

As for the science - Sky PR are talking about a research paper into the effects of altitude training on 'altitude natives' - a research paper on a population sample size of, err.... 1. Their spin machine (pardon the pun) is in full flow!

Of course they are trying to puff it up as much as possible, what team or organisation wouldn't ? However, without having read the research I don't know whether that is merely puffery or whether the correlations to the wider population types are (a) actually being made or (b) plausible. It is possible to gain knowledge of physiological effects using an individual if you can correlate it to other, common factors of a group - as has been done before with altitude adaptation. We will hopefully see in the fullness of time.