The case involves a disciplinary dispute concerning Belgian cyclist V., who was found in possession of prohibited substances, including EPO, morphine, and clenbuterol, during a search of his home in February 2002. The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) requested the Royal Belgian Cycling Federation (RLVB) to initiate disciplinary proceedings against V. under its anti-doping regulations. V. acknowledged the presence of the substances but cited legal restrictions preventing further disclosure. The RLVB's disciplinary commission suspended V. for six months, fined him CHF 10,000, and ordered him to cover procedural costs. V. appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking provisional measures, while the UCI intervened to demand harsher penalties. The CAS consolidated the appeals, with V.'s legal team arguing that the RLVB lacked jurisdiction because the alleged offenses occurred in Flanders, where a 1991 decree 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 could impose sanctions.
The RLVB countered that the decree did not grant exclusive jurisdiction to the Flemish commission and that sports federations retained disciplinary powers over doping violations. It argued that the decree's preparatory works showed no intent to strip federations of authority and that the recognition requirement merely allowed federations to assume exclusive jurisdiction if their regulations met certain standards. The RLVB also claimed the decree did not apply to V.'s case, as it covered doping offenses only during organized sporting events or preparatory activities, which were not at issue. The UCI supported the RLVB, emphasizing that V., by obtaining a license, had agreed to abide by RLVB and UCI regulations, including their disciplinary procedures.
The CAS ruled on the jurisdictional dispute, addressing whether the RLVB or the Flemish commission had authority. The decision hinged on interpreting the decree's provisions and their implications for sports federations' autonomy in disciplinary matters. The UCI and RLVB argued that the UCI's global authority ensured uniform treatment of athletes, while V. maintained that the Flemish commission had exclusive jurisdiction due to the RLVB's lack of recognition. The CAS clarified that the decree's unambiguous language granted the Flemish commission exclusive authority unless a federation's regulations were recognized, which the RLVB had not secured. The ruling emphasized legal clarity and avoiding overlapping authorities, dismissing arguments about residual competence for unrecognized associations. The CAS annulled the RLVB's decision due to lack of jurisdiction, declared the UCI's appeal moot, and finalized its decision on June 24, 2002. The case highlights the tension between public authority regulations and private sports governance in anti-doping enforcement.