The International Cycling Union (UCI) has released a statement, which it feels clarifies the situation concerning Iljo Keisse (Quick Step). The Belgian track specialist is currently riding in the Rotterdam Six Days, against the wishes of the UCI. The 28-year-old tested positive for cathine and hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) after his victory in the 2008 Gent Six-Days and has been the subject of a contested suspension ever since.
Yesterday afternoon, after a Netherlands court had ruled in favour of allowing Keisse to race, the UCI released a short, terse statement proclaiming that commissaires at the Rotterdam event would “completely ignore” Keisse and his teammate Kenny De Ketele; today’s statement attempts to set out the UCI’s position, and explains why it feels that he should only be allowed to race in Belgium.
In essence, the UCI statement highlights the difference in jurisdiction of the two courts involved: the Court for Arbitration in Sport (CAS) and the Brussels Court of the First Instance.
Keisse’s case was originally heard by the Belgian Cycling Federation, which ruled in favour of the rider, accepting his explanation for the presence of the two products in his system was entirely accidental. This verdict was not accepted by the UCI or the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and they appealed to the CAS; Keisse was subsequently handed a two-year ban, which will expire in July this year.
The case has since been the subject of various appeals but the latest one, in November last year to the Brussels court, ruled in Keisse’s favour and proclaimed him eligible to race; it also applied a €100,000 penalty to anyone denying him from starting a race.
While the UCI did not like the decision, it has declared that it accepts it but only inside Belgium. The CAS is a Swiss court with international jurisdiction, it says, and so the Brussels court cannot overrule it. It has therefore sought to prevent Keisse from competing outside his home country.
Keisse raced at, and won, the Gent Six-Days and then went on to compete at the Zurich Six-Days the next week. The UCI did not stop him from racing in the Swiss event but a week later it prevented him from riding in the Revolution event in Manchester.
At the end of December, Keisse won the Belgian Derny championships and the Flemish Madison championships (with Gianni Meersman). Only when he was invited to take part in a race outside Belgium once more did the UCI attempt to stop him.
An eleventh hour decision from a Netherlands court allowed Keisse to start in Rotterdam, and he raced the first evening of competition last night. The race organisation remains under pressure from the UCI though, but the major stumbling block appears to be the €100,000 penalty applied by the Brussels court.
“The ultimate that the UCI can do now is to guarantee the penalty of the judge,” said race organiser Frank Boelé to Sporza. “If we have that commitment, we will again consider removing Keisse from the competition.”
With Keisse continuing to race in Rotterdam though, and with invitations to the Bremen Six-Days later this month and the Copenhagen Six-Days in February, as well as his intention to ride the road season with Quick Step, the Keisse case doesn’t look like it will be resolved any time soon.
The UCI statement in full:
Situation concerning the rider Iljo Keisse: clarification by the UCI
The Belgian cyclist Iljo Keisse tested positive during an International Cycling Union (UCI) doping control at the Six Days of Ghent in 2008.
His urine sample contained two prohibited substances: a stimulant (cathine) and masking agents (chlorothiazide and hydrochlorothiazide). The presence of these two substances was confirmed during analysis of the B sample. Consequently, the UCI requested the Belgian Federation to initiate disciplinary proceedings.
According to Mr Keisse, the analyses confirmed only the presence of the stimulant and not its concentration, and the masking agents were present as a result of a food supplement that he had taken.
The Disciplinary Commission of the Belgian Federation cleared Mr Keisse in a ruling issued on 2 November 2009.
The UCI and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) considered this decision to be unacceptable and lodged an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
In its ruling of 6 July 2010, CAS found that the presence and concentration of the stimulant had been properly established and that Mr Keisse was fully responsible for the presence of the masking agents. As a result, and in application of the Anti-Doping Rules, CAS imposed a two-year suspension on Mr Keisse.
Mr Keisse then applied to the Chief Judge of the Brussels Court of the First Instance to overturn CAS's decision on the basis that the latter had breached his rights of defence. This request was directed against the UCI, WADA, the Belgian Federation and the Flemish public authorities.
In application of international law, the Chief Judge ruled that only a Swiss court was competent to rule on a Swiss arbitration decision, such as that made by CAS. However, Mr Keisse has not lodged an appeal with a Swiss court and the deadline within which to do so has elapsed.
Mr Keisse then appealed the decision of the Chief Judge of the Brussels Court of the First Instance with the Brussels Court of Appeal. After the pleadings, which took place in October 2010, the Court reopened, by a ruling of 10 November 2010, proceedings to establish the position of the parties on the question, raised by the court but not by Mr Keisse, of whether the CAS is a genuine court of arbitration. The Court scheduled a further hearing for 11 April 2011 to debate the matter.
Thus the Court has not in any way issued a ruling on the culpability of Mr Keisse, and the latter is not even the subject of the debate. The Court has not even made a pronouncement on its competence. The Court has only ordered, as an interim measure, the provisional suspension of the execution of CAS's decision while awaiting a ruling on Mr Keisse's appeal, which will be issued at the hearing of 11 April 2011.
The UCI and WADA consider that this decision by a Belgian court concerning the execution of a ruling by CAS, a Swiss court of arbitration, is limited in its effects to Belgian territory. Furthermore, the ruling issued yesterday in Amsterdam to which the UCI was not a party, is based solely on the contract between Mr Keisse and the organiser; thus it does not affect the UCI’s position.
It is for this reason that the UCI has prohibited Mr Keisse from competing in events outside Belgium. The UCI has allowed Mr Keisse to participate in events in this country and consequently has respected the ruling of the Brussels Court of Appeal.