The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on a doping case involving cyclist Barry Forde and the Barbados Cycling Union (BCU) following an appeal by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI). The case stemmed from Forde's positive test for exogenous testosterone during the "6 Jours de Grenoble" event in October 2005. The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators Conny Jörneklint, Beat Hodler, and Christian Krähe, addressed several key issues, including procedural fairness, the burden of proof, and the appropriate sanctions.
The panel dismissed Forde's objections regarding the independence of CAS arbitrators and the lack of English translations for laboratory documents, noting that the respondents had not previously requested translations and that much of the documentation consisted of scientific data. The panel emphasized that the UCI bore the burden of proving the doping violation to a comfortable satisfaction standard, while the presence of exogenous testosterone shifted the burden to Forde to provide exculpatory evidence. Forde failed to substantiate his claims, leaving the test results unchallenged.
The case revealed that Forde had a prior doping offense in 2003 involving ephedrine, which the panel considered when determining the sanction for his second violation. Under anti-doping rules, a first-time offense typically results in a two-year suspension, while a second violation warrants a minimum of two years and a maximum of three. The panel found no exceptional mitigating circumstances to justify a reduction, as Forde could not explain how the prohibited substance entered his system. However, considering the time elapsed since his first offense and his testimony, the panel imposed a slightly longer suspension of two years and two months, retroactively starting from December 31, 2005, with credit for the six days of the Grenoble event.
The panel upheld the UCI's appeal, overturning the BCU's decision to exonerate Forde. It disqualified Forde from the Grenoble event and subsequent races, forfeiting his results and prizes. The ruling reinforced the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, underscoring athletes' responsibility for prohibited substances in their systems and the authority of WADA-accredited laboratories. The decision highlighted the importance of procedural fairness while maintaining consistency in enforcing anti-doping measures. The CAS's final ruling dismissed all other requests for relief, concluding the case with a clear affirmation of the anti-doping framework's integrity.