A fresh statement from the governing body defends gearing limit trial as the court battle escalates.
Escape staff
The UCI has issued a second statement addressing the growing controversy around its proposed maximum gearing limit trial. In the new statement, issued September 20 just after its first communication on the news that SRAM was pursuing legal action over the issue, cycling’s governing body reiterated its safety rationale and questioned SRAM’s opposition to the trial. The press release accused the American component manufacturer of “undermining the necessary unity among cycling stakeholders, which is essential for progress toward a safer sport.”
SRAM takes UCI to court in battle over gear restrictions
SRAM’s complaint is a rare legal showdown that could reshape how cycling’s rules are made.
The new statement comes in response to SRAM’s legal complaint to the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) after the BCA confirmed it had opened a formal investigation. While the UCI initially expressed surprise at the timing of the announcement, claiming it had not yet been served the complaint, it has now doubled down on its defence of the upcoming gearing trial. The federation insists that the trial, scheduled for October’s Tour of Guangxi, is justified, procedurally sound and has rider support.
This latest statement marks a notable shift in tone. Where the UCI’s initial response expressed surprise at the BCA’s announcement, this follow-up is a direct response to SRAM’s statement on the matter and moves into more defensive territory, emphasising the rule’s development in “good faith,” asserting broad stakeholder involvement, and questioning SRAM’s motives.
In the statement, the UCI insists the protocol was developed following consultation with stakeholders through SafeR – the body comprising representatives from teams, riders, organisers and the UCI itself. According to the UCI, the CPA (Cyclistes Professionnels Associés) “confirmed its desire for this test to be carried out” at a Professional Cycling Council meeting on 10 September, and claims a majority of riders backed the idea in a questionnaire conducted before the protocol was finalised. CPA president Adam Hansen did not immediately respond to Escape Collective’s request for comment, but riders Escape has spoken with in the past have said they question the survey’s methodology.
This post is for paying subscribers only
Subscribe now
Already have an account? Sign in
Did we do a good job with this story?
👍Yep
👎Nope