'What is happening is not legal'

Image 1 of 4

Will Unibet miss the bus to the Tour de France?(Image credit: Gregor Brown)

News feature: April 27, 2007

The ProTour battle heated up this week with two court rulings in Belgium. While one said that the March 5 deal between the UCI and the Grand Tour organisers was not legally binding, another case examined in Liège concluded that ASO was acting contrary to European law in blocking the Unibet team from its races. In a bid to find out more about the legal standpoint, Cyclingnews’ Shane Stokes spoke with the European Commission office responsible for such matters.

"They have been sending us letters," he stated. "We have received a correspondence from Green Cycle Associates AB on April 11, 2007 in which they wrote to us to say that the Federation Française de Cyclisme (FFC) was relying on the relevant provision of French legislation prohibiting the aiding and abetting of publicity for gaming services, and supported by written statements from French ministers. That is the situation where the event organisers and France were encouraged to deny teams sponsored by sports betting services providers from participating in events held in France.

He said that he was highly concerned about the situation in France. With regard to the French legislation under which a cycling race organiser may be held criminally liable for allowing the team to ride and thus to generate publicity for the sponsor, he referred to the recent Placanica ruling (Case C-338/04), which held that Community law was breached by Italian legislation. This national legislation had sought to impose criminal sanctions for failure to possess a gambling operators licence, where such a licence was in practice unobtainable.

A further concern outlined by McCreevy relates to the Tour de France, which will begin in London in July and travel to France via Belgium. He indicated that he was very concerned that refusing the team's participation to the race on the grounds of French law is, essentially, imposing French legislation in other Member States' jurisdictions. It is understood that he has informed Green Cycle Associates AB's lawyers that he found it difficult to see how French national laws may exclude a cycling team from a Pan European tour which is run through the UK and Belgium, and broadcast throughout Europe and indeed the world.

McCreevy said that the French approach was inconsistent and highly questionable due to the presence of other teams sponsored by gaming operators, and because another gaming operator, PMU, is one of the main sponsors of the event. In addition, because French authorities permit the screening of overseas races without blocking images of the Unibet jersey or other such advertising, they are taking an inconsistent approach.

The team are likely to try to compete in Liège-Bastogne-Liège on Sunday. If they are refused once more, the Liège court ruling would seem to dictate that ASO are liable for a further €5 million in damages. While a court case competed elsewhere in Belgium this week ruled that the UCI-ASO deal signed on March 5 in Brussels is not legally binding, the Unibet team has insisted that this does not invalidate its own judgement.

The timescale for this means that a final judgement will come after the Tour de France. It remains to be seen whether or not the Commission can or will specifically address the Unibet.com situation before then. When asked what the chances were that the team could be included in the Tour, Drewes declined to make a call on the question. However, he suggested that a decision to exclude the team on the grounds of French law could have repercussions down the line.