The Latvian Cycling Federation has protested to the UCI about the non-disqualification of Mathieu van der Poel from the World Championships elite men's road race after the Dutchman rode on a pavement and "endangered spectators".
Van der Poel was spotted bunnyhopping on and off of the pavement with 58.4km to go in the men's race, an action that is against the rules and has previously seen riders disqualified - notably Marlen Reusser at Gent Wevelgem earlier this season and Luke Rowe in the 2018 Tour of Flanders.
However, the Dutchman received no punishment, prompting the Latvian Federation to write an open letter to the UCI, questioning the consistency and equality of the rule application by cycling's governing body.
Latvia's Toms Skujiņš finished fourth in the road race behind Van der Poel, who outsprinted him into Zürich to take the final spot on the podium behind solo winner Tadej Pogačar and Ben O'Connor.
"According to the rules, a rider jumping onto a walkway and endangering the public or other riders must be disqualified immediately," read the open letter from Sandis Akis, the federation's president.
"The issue isn't merely that he was riding on the pavement, which would typically result in a fine of 200 to 1000 CHF; in this case, Van der Poel wasn't even given a fine."
"The real problem is that he endangered spectators, a violation that has consistently been penalized with disqualification this year. Van der Poel almost rode into a spectator while overtaking three riders on a footpath with no other particular reason, as he was not avoiding a crash."
The rule Akis references states that a fine of up to 1000 CHF, 25 UCI point deduction and/or a yellow card are the punishments for breaking UCI Cycling Regulations 2.12.007: Race Incidents Relating to Road Events Rule 7.6.
Any disqualification or relegation comes at the commisaires' discretion "in serious cases of advantage, endangerment".
The open letter comes after a Latvian representative tried to protest about Van der Poel's action after the finish of the race in Zürich, to which they were reportedly told "it wouldn't be good for the sport" to disqualify the Dutchman.
"After the race, a representative of the Latvian Federation tried to discuss this race situation with UCI commisaires. One of the race commissaires stated that all of the commissaires had seen the situation, deemed it not dangerous and something to be penalized," continued Akis.
"The Latvian representative insisted that the rules apply to everyone, but the commissaire argued that it wouldn't be good for the sport, interpreting the rules as they saw fit. The Latvian representative was subsequently sent away.
"It seems that some are more equal than others, especially when it comes to unpopular decisions to be made."
Akis went on to call for a response from the governing body, expressing his concerns about both the safety aspect of the incident and the lack of consistency in rulings by the UCI.
"As a relatively small Federation, we are deeply concerned about this decision. We urge the UCI to apply its rules consistently to ensure the safety and integrity of cycling and not leave it to this kind of potential accident without response, just because it would be so-called damage of reputation," he said.
"We, as a part of the cycling world, expect the UCI to publicly explain the decision of commissaires to avoid a similar situation, as paying no attention to this situation creates a ground for greater risk to racing in the future which is something no one wants."
In a statement issued to Cyclingnews, the UCI acknowledged the open letter but defended the decision made, stating that Van der Poel's actions did not require any sanctions to be imposed.
"The UCI Commissaires Panel are responsible for the sporting oversight of events and, in the present situation, determined that it did not warrant the application of the sanctions under point 7.6 of article 2.12.007 of the UCI Regulations," said a UCI spokesperson.
"In regards to such rule, it shall be underlined that disqualification is not the ordinary sanction – which is the imposition of a fine and a points deduction - and only applies in “serious cases of advantage, endangerment, repeated infringements or aggravating circumstances”.
"The situation in question not deemed as such a case, the UCI Commissaires Panel’s decision was to not issue any sanction."
