The case involves an appeal by ARcycling AG, representing the Phonak cycling team, against the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) regarding the denial of a UCI ProTour Licence. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) reviewed the decision, focusing on whether procedural violations by the UCI Licence Commission materially affected the outcome. The CAS panel, comprising Prof. Massimo Coccia, Mr. Beat Hodler, and Mr. Baard Racin Meltvedt, emphasized that while procedural violations alone are insufficient to annul a decision, they can justify annulment if they critically impact the result. In this case, the procedural defects were deemed significant because ARcycling AG was denied a fair hearing to demonstrate its efforts to combat doping, which could have altered the negative preliminary opinion.
ARcycling AG applied for a UCI ProTour Licence in 2004. The UCI Licence Commission initially granted a provisional licence but later issued a negative preliminary opinion, leading to the final denial. The decision was influenced by doping-related incidents involving riders like Oscar Camenzind, Tyler Hamilton, and Santiago Perez. Camenzind admitted to using EPO, while Hamilton and Perez faced allegations of homologous blood transfusion, though Hamilton’s Olympic case was later dismissed due to inconclusive evidence. ARcycling AG contested the validity of the testing methods and terminated the contracts of the implicated riders. The team also drafted a "Medical Control Project" to improve anti-doping measures.
Another contentious issue was compliance with UCI regulations on image contracts, which limit remuneration to 15% of total rider payments. ARcycling AG initially extended contracts exceeding this limit but amended them after the negative preliminary opinion. The CAS found that the UCI Licence Commission’s procedural violations, including the lack of prior warning and failure to respect ARcycling AG’s right to be heard, materially impacted the decision. The panel concluded that the denial of the licence was unjustified, particularly given ARcycling AG’s corrective measures and the opportunity to demonstrate improved anti-doping efforts.
The CAS annulled the UCI’s decision and ruled that granting a two-year ProTour licence was proportionate. This period would allow ARcycling AG to prove its commitment to combating doping and achieving the required level of excellence. The panel acknowledged that while the Phonak team’s 2004 season was marred by doping controversies, the team had taken steps to address these issues, including staff changes and improved anti-doping measures. The panel also noted that the team’s blood values had aligned with other teams, except for the two riders with adverse findings.
The CAS decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the need for decisions to be grounded in substantive evidence rather than procedural shortcomings. The panel found no evidence of unethical behavior by ARcycling AG and concluded that the team met all necessary conditions for the licence. The case highlights the balance between enforcing anti-doping regulations and ensuring fair treatment of teams in the licensing process. Ultimately, the CAS upheld the appeal, overturned the UCI’s decision, and granted ARcycling AG a two-year ProTour Licence for the 2005 and 2006 seasons.