Another chapter begins...

Image 1 of 3

American Bob Stapleton talks about his team's new anti-doping programme(Image credit: Bettini Photo)

Latest Videos From

After Lance Armstrong's announcement earlier in the autumn that Catlin will be his personal anti-doping policeman in the 2009 season, on Monday it was the Colombia and Garmin teams' turn to officially unveil Catlin as the man behind their new independent testing programme. The news comes after the company that previously fulfilled the same role for both US-based teams, the Agency for Cycling Ethics (ACE), ceased its operations.

Bob Stapleton: I started talking to Don over a year ago, before we started with ACE. When you talk about anti-doping in North America, Don Catlin's pretty much the guy. He's the godfather. You only have to look at the number of times he's been the chief witness for the prosecution in cases brought by USADA (United States Antidoping Agency) and how many times they won. I think USADA's record's something like 34 -0.

Don's actually the first guy I talked to about an independent testing programme, but he wasn't in a position to take that on back then. When we sat down and started talking this time, my main questions were about whether Don and his people could handle the workload, and whether we had common goals. It was also important to me that we didn't just start something totally new, without building on what we've already done with ACE and the biological passport.

BS: Yes. He'll be doing the urine tests in his lab in California, which is a very high-quality facility, and has the advantage of being within easy reach of the team's offices. As I understand it, he has the capacity to detect all different kinds of EPO – all of these Mexican, or Chinese or Russian or other biosimilars we keep hearing about. Urine is a lot easier to store and handle than blood, so it's no problem for him to have the samples collected in Europe and transported back to his lab for analysis.

Blood presents more logistical challenges, and there's a very strict transport protocol in place. Don will comply with the same rules as UCI, WADA or any other testing agency on that score. It's an independent programme, so we won't dictate which labs in Europe can or can't test the blood, and how Don manages that, but I know that he's well ahead with organizing his strategy. It's up to him whether he uses the money we pay him to hire a sample collection company, as the UCI does, or whether he hires his own contractors for that job.

BS: I think we're doing everything we can to maintain independence and build confidence in the sport. We don't have to do this, but we choose to have an independent programme because it feels right to me. I don't think you can ever do too much on anti-doping. Other people might disagree, but I really believe that this sport would be in a much better place now if people like Don Catlin could have been involved and had the kind of access we're giving him much earlier.

Again, people might not like it, but it's a big part of what our team's about, to have an independent testing programme and transparency. We're not trying to set ourselves on a pedestal –and we are not telling others what to do. We're also very positive about what the UCI's been doing over the past year or so, with the biological passport. I think we're moving towards a point where we're going to see athletes sanctioned on the basis of the biological passport very soon. We're also going to see any rider who's not adhering to the biological passport kept out of big races. In my view, those are really positive things.

BS: Again, personally I think an independent testing programme makes sense. It certainly did in the past, when the testing just wasn't there – and it still makes sense now that testing's improved significantly and the passport is up and running. You can think of it as insurance, as a positive pressure, as a deterrent – it works on various different levels. Another aspect of it is that it brings the riders together and makes them feel as though they're working together on this... Again, I think that getting someone like Catlin involved in the sport, with his exemplary record, can only help cycling. The holes in the net are shrinking all the time and someone like Don will only help to make those holes even smaller.

The UCI did something like 7500 tests last year, there are now something like 800 riders in their testing pool, and they've set up a nine-strong review committee for the biological passport. I think their next challenge is how they can sanction on the basis of the biological passport in a fair, accurate and impartial way. As I said before, though, I think we'll see some developments on that quite soon and by all the objective measures the passport is making real progress.

BS: I do think that the AFLD were very good at the Tour. They were easy to work with, their work was clearly high quality, plus they did some very innovative things, like come to do the tests at odd hours. They clearly had ideal circumstances -it's much easier when you know exactly where the riders are going to be for a month and you can put your hands on them easily 24/7. The UCI don't have that advantage. They have to operate on a global level, which is much harder. You also have to acknowledge that the AFLD were quite fortunate in the sense that the test for CERA was ready at just the right time for them. If the AFLD and the UCI can co-operate in the future, I think that's the best solution for the sport.

BS: I think we'll see how the sport evolves this year, and then make a decision. We're keeping an open mind. The great thing about providing that extra guarantee on top of the biological passport is that people can embrace these great young talents like Edvald Boasson Hagen, Tony Martin, and Mark Cavendish, and exciting riders like Kim Kirchen, and have confidence in them. That's the long term benefit of doing more dope-testing now: its tangible and it alters people's perception of the sport and its personalities.

It sends the message to other young riders that if they take advantage of all of the legal tools on offer to them, they can compete with anybody. I think education is important in making sure that young riders never step over that line and decide to cheat, but it's also really important that they have positive role models. It's very powerful if a kid can look at a rider like Cavendish and believe that he's competing and winning clean, just by exploiting his own talent and all of the legal tools available to him.

Procycling: Finally, I'm sure you're aware of reports which predominantly appeared in the Belgian press prior to the Worlds, according to which at least two of your riders were among those whose blood samples had been deemed "suspicious" at the Tour and were being retested for CERA. Could you tell me whether those reports were accurate and, if not whether you've found out where the misinformation came from?

BS: As far as I understand, the criteria for the CERA re-tests was performance-based. In other words, they tested riders who won stages or generally had a successful Tour. My belief is that the same approach for CERA and human growth hormone was used: they tested for them based on sporting results at the Tour, then when the blood test methods were confirmed after the Tour, they tested the samples again. It was incorrect to say that all these athletes or their samples had been "suspicious". I think a very large number of riders' samples were re-tested – I've heard as many as 40.