Triathlon Rule Changes That Could Come After the SRAM/UCI Legal Drama

Late last year, SRAM took legal action UCI over the UCI’s proposed gear ratio limits, claiming that these rules were both not grounded in safety and effectively anti-competitive. An administrative panel agreed, citing that the rules lacked evidence that a gear ratio limit would, in fact, make for safer riding. The UCI appealed.

Ten days ago, a Belgian administrative authority released its decision in the UCI’s appeal. Top line: SRAM has won, and 10-tooth geared rear cassettes aren’t going anywhere. But that’s just the start of the story. The legal theory the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) advances to base its decision off of could have wide-ranging implications for any sport that legislates advances in technology — and especially triathlon.

As reported in The Athletic, the BCA relies upon a 2023 decision from the European Court of Justice that found that FIFA and UEFA had broken monopoly law when the sporting bodies had deemed the proposed breakaway European Super League illegal.

Sports leagues have generally long had ability to regulate themselves without falling under antitrust, or anti-competition, legal frameworks. This especially holds true for the rules of the sport being played itself; for example, the maximum size of a golf ball or driver is defined by rule. That said, the business side of the sport is not always the same, as we’ve seen with the never-ending NCAA legal battles. And, of course, there are full on anti-trust exemptions for certain professional sports in the United States.

According to this ruling, though, just because the UCI had been acting in its capacity as a sports regulator was not a sufficient justification. The theory is that because there had been material economic impact against the parties involved (in this case, SRAM), the rule could not stand. In other words, the UCI had to ensure that as it developed rules that there was not significant harm to a third-party manufacturer.

In theory, then, it means that manufacturers will need to be part of a consultative process any time new rules are being developed for the sport itself, even if that rule is indicated to be for safety. (As the prior version of this case noted, the UCI could not prove that banning 10-tooth cogs would, in fact, improve safety.) It pretty dramatically shifts power towards manufacturers, who could claim that restrictions would materially impact their economics.

Pushing that theory forward, then, there are many triathlon rules that could theoretically be on the chopping block if a manufacturer decided to bring this before a European court. Here are ones that seem most ripe for challenge.

Wetsuit Temperature and Thickness Rules

Wetsuit rules have been around since the late 1980s, but really only started to firm up into the rulebook that we all know in 2010. In February of that year, IRONMAN instituted specific rules limiting the material and thickness of swimwear and wetsuits, mandating that they could not exceed 5 mm in thickness. Prior to this point, most governing bodies, including USA Triathlon, did not have a limit on wetsuit thickness.

Overnight, it banned a wetsuit that had proven itself to be quite popular with Slowtwitchers: De Soto’s Water Rover wetsuit, which featured panels of either 8 or 10 mm in thickness. In fact, the Water Rover remains one of the few suits still specifically listed as being prohibited for use in IRONMAN races. Had this legal theory been in place at the time, it seems highly unlikely that we’d wind up with a wetsuit thickness rule today.

The other place I could see rules being modified: the wetsuit temperature cutoffs. There’s adequate literature on the safety reasons for the maximum allowable temperature limit. Where there’s a lot of gray area is probably in that so-called “wetsuit optional” range whereby athletes who wear them are ineligible for awards.

Disc Wheels in Kona

Disc wheels have been banned in Kona for decades, banned under the guise of safety. Over time, though, collectively our knowledge of bike handling and safety has changed a fair amount. We understand that front wheel depth plays a far greater part than initially imagined. And, with effectively pseudo-disc products on the market like the HED Jet 180, we’re already skirting the intent of the rule in the first place.

The Hydration Box and Fairings

God, this again? Yeah, this again.

I just don’t see how accessories fitting outside of these seemingly random sized parameters are founded in actual “safety” rules. And, as we’ve seen recently with athletes being forced to take certain components off of their bikes at bike check, there’s definitely some degree of economic impact coming down the pike. In total, it’s a poor attempt to make bikes look “normal.” And, as we’ve already seen with the UCI, that wall of logic appears to be crumbling.

Shoe Stack Heights and Carbon Plate Limits

The maximum stack height limit for running shoes, along with the single carbon-plate span limit, seem to be somewhat arbitrary. They seem to be put in place, much like the maximum spring effect and ball speed limits for golf equipment, to “preserve the integrity” of the sport.

But there’s no real evidentiary tie to safety. And with more and more shoes coming to market that either deliberately exceed the 40-millimeter maximum stack height rule, or those that simply aren’t being submitted for testing and will require additional scrutiny post-race, there is a real case to be made that outright banning shoes could meet the material economic impact testing that this particular case seems to hold up.

Tags: