The Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) has announced the Market Court (Brussels Court of Appeal) has dismissed the UCIs appeal against its interim order suspending the maximum gear ratio technical standard. In a press release, the BCA notes it had ordered the suspension of the standard as it amounted to a prima facie [on the face of it] restriction of competition because it had not been adopted by means of a transparent, objective, and non-discriminatory procedure. The announcement likely means cyclings international governing body will not be able to implement its trial of limiting the gear ratios used in professional road cycling, plans for which were revealed last summer. Responding to the announcement, SRAM CEO, Ken Lousberg, issued a statement in support of the groundbreaking ruling and called for reform of the UCIs rule making processes. Read more: The UCI rule changes for 2026 you need to know about Why the UCI lost its appeal against the BCA The BCA says the Market Court dismissed the UCI's appeal "in its entirety". Simon von Bromley / Our Media Laying out the reasons behind the decision, the BCA notes that the Market Court upheld the notion that the BCA had the jurisdiction in this case because of possible effects of the technical standard on the Belgian territory. The Market Court agreed with the BCAs view that the UCIs standard could restrict competition, and its decision to suspend the trial as a result. Damningly, the BCA says the Market Court ruled that the UCI had failed to justify why the maximum gear ratio standard was necessary and proportionate to achieve the objective of improving rider safety. And that the proposed standard created a risk of serious, imminent and irreparable harm to SRAM and the cycling teams equipped with its drivetrain systems. Concluding its statement, the BCA states sports federations must comply with competition law requirements when they produce economic effects and need, in such a case, to be based on transparent, objective, and non-discriminatory criteria. It also notes its investigation into the case remains in progress". When approached for comment, SRAM sent BikeRadar a statement (shared in full below) from its CEO, Ken Lousberg. He calls the ruling groundbreaking and says the UCIs process for adopting the proposed standard was deeply flawed. Lousberg also called for the UCI to engage with the World Federation of the Sporting Goods Industry (WFSGI) as a neutral voice of the cycling industry, and to make it a full partner in its rule making processes. How did we get here and what next for the UCIs maximum gear ratio standard? SRAM AXS cassettes start with a 10t sprocket, to increase their gearing range without adding weight. Warren Rossiter / Our Media This ruling is undoubtedly another hammer blow for the UCI, which was forced to suspend its proposed maximum gear ratio trial at the Tour of Guangxi last October. As noted when we first reported on this story, the proposed maximum gear development meters was set at 10.46m equivalent to a 54x11 tooth gear combination, as used by many riders on Shimano- and Campagnolo-sponsored teams. Given this, the standard appeared to specifically target SRAM-sponsored teams and their AXS drivetrains, which use cassettes starting with a 10t sprocket. In order to comply with the proposed standard, SRAM-sponsored teams would have been forced to use smaller, less efficient chainrings. Alternatively, SRAM could have supplied teams with cassettes starting with 11t sprockets but this would have upended the gearing philosophy the brand has used since 2019, and the launch of its Red eTap AXS groupset. Opinions on whether limiting gear ratios would make pro racing safer are mixed. Dan Bigham, head of engineering at Red Bull BORA Hansgrohe previously told BikeRadar that restricting gear ratios simply distracts from making meaningful changes to rider safety. Following the reveal of the UCIs plans, Tom Pidcock said limiting gears will only make everything more dangerous, as he believed it would mean riders end up closer together on descents. In contrast, both Wout Van Aert and Chris Froome have voiced their support for the idea of limiting gear ratios. SRAM says its sponsored pro-teams would have been forced to compete on an unequal footing under the UCI's proposed rules. Simon von Bromley / Our Media For its part, SRAM said its concerns about the proposed standard went unheard by the UCI, which led it to file a formal complaint with the BCA in September 2025. SRAMs legal action was taken, Lousberg said, not just to protect SRAM, but to protect the right to compete on equal footing. Although the BCAs investigation into the case is ongoing, it appears likely that the UCI will need to go back to the drawing board with this idea, if it wishes to push forward with plans to limit the maximum gear ratios used in professional cycling. So far, the UCI hasnt commented on the BCAs announcement or the Market Courts decision, but BikeRadar has asked for comment, and will update this article if we receive a response. SRAM statement in full Ken Lousberg, CEO, SRAM: "This case began as a dispute about our 10-tooth cog. This ruling is much bigger than that. "The Brussels Court of Appeal has issued a groundbreaking ruling on how sports federations across Europe must exercise regulatory power. The Court upheld the Belgian Competition Authority's previous findings that open, transparent, objective, and non-discriminatory governance is the legal standard for rule-making in sport. It endorsed that reasoning in full, applying well-established European Court of Justice case law in a way that will guide federation governance well beyond this case, and sharply rebuking the UCI's appeal. "Safety matters deeply to us, and it always has. While the UCI framed its gearing restriction as a safety measure, the science showed it wasn't, and the process used to adopt the rule was deeply flawed. For SRAM, our legal action was always about how the stakeholders of this sport work together to improve every part of it, including rider safety, in a clear, transparent, and fair way. The Court rejected the UCI's arguments on every ground, including the claim that safety justified the closed process it followed. "What comes next is the work this sport has needed for a long time: building that process together, with the common goal of improving our sport. The WFSGI, as the neutral voice of the cycling industry, is the natural partner in that work alongside the teams, athletes, race organizers, and the UCI. The door is now open, and there should be a seat for everyone willing to help build the future the sport deserves through collaboration, not exclusion. The first step is straightforward: the UCI should bring the WFSGI into rule-making as a full partner and start this reform now. SRAM is excited to get to work."