A public hearing for the case between the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) and the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) took place on Wednesday at the Markets Court in Brussels.
It marks the latest phase in the ongoing argument between the sides, which was initially put forward by SRAM against the UCI’s proposed gear restriction trial – known officially as the Maximum Gear Ratio Protocol – which was set to be introduced at the 2025 Tour of Guangxi.
Article continues below
Prior to this, at the Science and Cycling Conference ahead of the Tour de France, Red Bull-Bora-Hansgrohe’s Head of Engineering, Dan Bigham, had presented evidence that the gear restriction would have no material impact on rider safety.
In the months since that October decision, the UCI and the BCA have been arguing their cases via an exchange of writs. This included an initial 70-page appeal document from the UCI, a first response from the BCA, a follow-up from the UCI and then a final word from the BCA.
The public hearing then took place on April 15. And in its wake, SRAM’s CEO Ken Lousberg issued a statement.
“Today, we asked the Brussels Markets Court to uphold the Belgian Competition Authority’s decision suspending the UCI’s Maximum Gear Ratio Protocol. We believe the BCA got it right the first time and agree with their conclusion that the UCI’s rule-making process is not transparent, objective, or non-discriminatory.
“Rider safety is very important to us; we build components that get pushed to their limits by the best cyclists in the world. What we want is simple and has not changed. The cycling industry, represented by the World Federation of the Sporting Goods Industry (WFSGI), deserves a seat at the table with the riders, teams, and race organizers. Our sport deserves this level of professionalism and collaboration. SRAM remains eager to work with the UCI to build a better future for the sport we love.”
What’s next?
The primary outcome from the hearing is that a decision will be made by May 20. However, whether the decision lands in favour of the BCA or the UCI, a precedent has already been set.
If the Markets Court upholds the BCA ruling, the UCI will not be able to introduce a gear restriction rule without proper consultation, and more broadly, there will be a legal obligation for the UCI to overhaul the way in which it sets new equipment rules and standards. This will likely mean teams, and perhaps more importantly, brand representatives themselves, are consulted on proposed rule changes, allowing them to challenge the veracity of proposals, and work with the UCI to introduce rules that will improve rider safety without negatively impacting the sport.
If the ruling is overturned, however, the BCA’s work will continue, and its demand – along with SRAM’s demand – for a “seat at the table” won’t go away.
Either way, this case could send echoes around the world of sport as a whole. A national authority has proven it’s possible to issue injunctions against an international governing body, and that could be transformative.