The case involves a disciplinary dispute concerning Belgian professional cyclist V., who was found in possession of prohibited substances, including erythropoietin (EPO), morphine, and clenbuterol, during a search of his home in Flanders, Belgium, on February 27, 2002. Following the discovery, V. was briefly detained and later released under conditions. The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) requested the Royale Ligue Vélocipédique Belge (RLVB) to initiate disciplinary proceedings against V. under its anti-doping regulations. V. acknowledged the presence of the substances but cited restrictions imposed by the investigating judge. The RLVB’s disciplinary commission suspended V. for six months, imposed a fine, and ordered him to cover legal costs.
V. appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the RLVB lacked jurisdiction because the incident occurred in Flanders, where a 1991 decree of the Flemish Community granted exclusive disciplinary authority to the Flemish disciplinary commission unless a federation’s regulations were officially recognized by the Flemish executive. Since the RLVB had not sought such recognition, V. contended that only the Flemish commission had sanctioning authority. The RLVB and UCI countered that the decree did not grant exclusive jurisdiction to the Flemish commission and that federations retained disciplinary powers regardless of recognition. They also argued that the decree only applied to doping violations during organized sporting events or preparatory activities, which were not at issue here.
The CAS examined the legal arguments, including the interpretation of the Flemish decree and preparatory legislative documents. It noted that the decree aimed to empower federations in anti-doping efforts but required them to meet certain standards through a recognition process. The RLVB maintained that its disciplinary procedures coexisted with those of the Flemish commission, while the UCI emphasized that V., by obtaining a license, had agreed to abide by RLVB and UCI regulations.
The CAS ruled on the admissibility of the appeals, confirming its jurisdiction under UCI anti-doping regulations and the CAS Code. It addressed procedural validity and the substantive dispute over jurisdiction, leaving the final resolution to be determined based on legal interpretations. The case highlighted tensions between regional regulatory authority and the disciplinary powers of international and national sports federations.
The court ultimately agreed with V., stating that the Flemish decree’s provisions were clear and unambiguous, granting the Flemish commission sole disciplinary power in the absence of recognized federation regulations. It dismissed arguments based on preparatory legislative work, emphasizing that the decree’s purpose was to ensure minimal guarantees for athletes through a recognition process. The ruling reinforced the need for sports federations to formalize their disciplinary frameworks through official recognition, prioritizing clear, legally compliant procedures over unverified claims to authority. The CAS annulled the RLVB’s decision due to lack of jurisdiction and dismissed the UCI’s appeal as moot, underscoring the importance of regulatory alignment and procedural safeguards in doping cases.