Andre Kashechkin’s suit challenging the authority of the UCI and WADA to conduct doping tests hit a hurdle Wednesday when the court in which he filed the case declared it had no jurisdiction in the matter.

Kashechkin tested positive for homologous blood doping in August after submitting a sample in an out-of-competition test while on vacation with his family in the resort community of Belek, Turkey. His Astana team fired him later that month.

Kashechkin has insisted on his innocence and filed suit seeking to bar the result on the grounds that the UCI, as a private organization, did not have the right to demand blood and urine samples from him. Kashechkin argued that under European human-rights law, the only entities legally entitled to intrude on his privacy in such a fashion were government agencies.

Kashechkin hired attorney Luc Misson, who had once successfully challenged rules limiting the number of foreign players on soccer teams in Europe.

Misson cited articles 6, 8 and 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights as justification for the argument, denouncing “the fact that these procedures (dope testing) and sanctions can be carried out by privately run bodies. To proceed to harm the fundamental rights of any individual is a right held exclusively by public bodies, and within the strict framework of the law."

Several organizations, including WADA, the AIGCP (riders' association) and the IPCT (teams' association) followed the case with interest. When the case was orginally filed, attorney Jean-Louis Dupont, representing the IPCT, said it had the potential to ruin anti-doping efforts throughout all sport.

"If Kashechkin wins on the principle that only states (as opposed to private bodies) are legally allowed to carry out doping controls and hand down sanctions, then we might as well all walk away from professional sport," he said.

However, the European Court of First Instance in Liége, Belgium, ruled Thursday that it did not have jurisdiction in the matter, noting that the case should have been filed in Switzerland, where the UCI is based. Switzerland is not a member of the European Union but is a signator to the human-rights treaty.

While the court declined to hear the case on jurisdictional grounds, it did offer some hope to those who feared the imapact Kashechkin's challenge might have on anti-doping efforts. The court noted that Kashechkin is probably contractually bound to comply with UCI and WADA doping rules, since the requirement to do so is an integral part of the agreement riders sign when taking out a license to race.

While Kashechkin and his legal team repeatedly pointed to the 1995 soccer ruling as being applicable in his case, legal observers have suggested that an unsuccessful 2004 suit may carry more weight with courts reviewing the matter.

In that case, Spain's David Meca-Medina and Slovenia's Igor Majcen, two professional long-distance swimmers, challenged anti-doping rules as an unfair infringement on their right to work in their chosen field. The court not only dismissed the claim, but also ordered the two swimmers to pay court costs for both sides, ruling that the challenge was "frivolous" in nature.

"Our client will probably appeal," Kashechkin attorney Gregory Ernes told AFP. "The Liége judge didn't want to take her responsibilities on a dossier that didn't really interest her deep down."
Agence France Presse contributed to this report