The case revolves around a dispute between Riis Cycling A/S and the Licence Commission of the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) concerning the Neutralisation Rule, which was adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The rule in question stipulates that points, placings, or wins of a rider sanctioned for an anti-doping violation with at least a two-year suspension would not be considered for two years after the suspension ends. While the rule ostensibly targets teams, it effectively extends punitive consequences for riders beyond their original sanctions, discouraging teams from hiring riders with a doping history. The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Ulrich Haas, Michele Bernasconi, and Georg von Segesser, examined the rule's compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC).
The panel determined that the Neutralisation Rule constitutes a disciplinary sanction rather than an administrative measure, as it is automatically triggered by a doping violation and has punitive effects on both riders and teams. By extending the consequences of a doping sanction by an additional two years, the rule impacts a team's sporting value and its qualification for the WorldTour licence. The panel found that this rule effectively imposes a second sanction for the same misconduct, which violates Article 10 of the WADC, prohibiting duplicate sanctions for the same offense. The panel distinguished between disqualification (forfeiture of results), disciplinary sanctions (periods of ineligibility), and administrative measures (participation conditions), concluding that the Neutralisation Rule, despite being framed as an eligibility condition, was disciplinary due to its punitive nature and direct link to prior doping violations.
The case also highlighted the broader implications of the rule. For riders, it effectively extended their sanctions by making it difficult to secure contracts, as their points did not contribute to a team's sporting value. This disproportionately affected lesser-known riders, while high-profile athletes might still find opportunities. Teams faced strategic and financial challenges, as they had to adjust rosters to compensate for neutralized points, potentially affecting sponsorship deals and their ability to compete in prestigious events. The UCI defended the rule as a licensing requirement aimed at promoting balanced teams, but the panel found it punitive, lacking an appeals process, and disproportionately affecting both riders and teams.
The panel concluded that the Neutralisation Rule conflicted with the WADC, as it extended sanctions beyond those prescribed by the code and restricted teams' freedom in rider selection. The WADC, as a contractual framework, binds the UCI to its provisions, and the Neutralisation Rule's punitive effects undermined the code's harmonized approach to anti-doping policies. The panel also raised concerns about the rule's retroactive application, noting potential violations of Swiss law and general principles of sports law, which prohibit applying new regulations to past conduct. However, since the panel had already determined the rule's invalidity on other grounds, it did not delve deeply into this issue.
Ultimately, the CAS panel invalidated the Neutralisation Rule, reinforcing the principle that disciplinary measures must align with the globally accepted standards of the WADC. The decision underscored the importance of proportionality and fairness in anti-doping regulations, ensuring that sanctions are not duplicated or extended beyond what is stipulated in the WADC. The ruling also highlighted the broader erga omnes effects of CAS awards, influencing regulatory practices beyond the immediate parties involved. The case exemplifies the tension between regulatory measures to combat doping and their unintended consequences on teams and riders, emphasizing the need for clarity and compliance with established anti-doping frameworks.