SRAM doubles down on its argument against the UCI's gear restriction test as case is heard in the Court of Appeal

SRAM has intensified its opposition to the Union Cycliste Internationale’s (UCI) proposed gear restriction trial, known as the Maximum Gear Ratio Protocol, as the dispute reached a public hearing at the Markets Court in Brussels. The case, brought by the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA), challenges the UCI’s plan to limit riders to a maximum gear ratio equivalent to a 54-tooth chainring paired with an 11-tooth cassette cog, a rule initially set to debut at the 2025 Tour of Guangxi. The BCA suspended the trial in October, citing concerns over the UCI’s lack of transparency, absence of an objective basis, and discriminatory nature of the rule-making process. The controversy has unfolded amid a series of legal exchanges between the UCI and the BCA, with both sides submitting detailed appeals and responses. Notably, evidence presented by Dan Bigham, Head of Engineering at Red Bull-Bora-Hansgrohe, argued that the gear restriction would not materially improve rider safety, a key justification for the UCI’s proposal. SRAM’s CEO Ken Lousberg reaffirmed the company’s support for the BCA’s suspension, emphasising the need for greater industry involvement in rule-making. He called for the inclusion of manufacturers, riders, teams, and race organisers in discussions to ensure that equipment regulations are developed collaboratively and professionally. The court’s decision, expected by 20 May, carries significant implications for the governance of cycling equipment standards. Should the BCA’s ruling be upheld, the UCI would face legal obligations to overhaul its consultation process, potentially mandating input from teams and industry stakeholders before introducing new rules. This could lead to more transparent and balanced regulations that safeguard rider safety without compromising competitive fairness. Conversely, if the UCI prevails, the BCA and SRAM’s push for greater stakeholder participation will likely continue, signalling ongoing tension between regulatory authority and industry interests. Beyond cycling, the case may set a precedent for how national regulatory bodies can challenge international sports federations, potentially reshaping governance dynamics across various disciplines. The BCA’s ability to issue injunctions against the UCI underscores the growing influence of competition authorities in sports regulation. As the legal battle unfolds, the outcome will be closely watched for its wider impact on the relationship between governing bodies, manufacturers, and athletes in the evolving landscape of professional sport.