Bruce Bird appealed a decision by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) disqualifying his results from the 2018 UCI Gran Fondo World Championships and reallocating his prizes. The case centered on UCI Regulation 15.5.001(c), which prohibits riders who have scored UCI points in the same year from competing in the event. Bird had earned one point earlier that year at the Canadian Road Championship, making him ineligible. The UCI argued that the regulation was clear and applied regardless of the number of points, while Bird contended the rule was ambiguous and his single point should not disqualify him. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel, consisting of Michael J. Beloff, Prof. Richard H. McLaren, and Olivier Carrard, heard the case on 3 May 2019 in Lausanne, Switzerland. The panel emphasized the distinction between disciplinary rules, which address misconduct, and eligibility rules, which set participation criteria. Bird's disqualification was deemed an administrative consequence of ineligibility, not a disciplinary sanction. The panel ruled that the regulation's wording—"UCI points"—encompassed any points, singular or plural, and that Bird's ineligibility was a constant condition, existing before, during, and after the event. Bird argued procedural issues, including late awareness of the regulation and delayed enforcement, but the panel found these irrelevant to the validity of the disqualification. The panel also rejected Bird's claim that the disqualification should have occurred before or during the race, citing precedent where post-event disqualifications were upheld. The UCI maintained that the disqualification was an administrative action, not requiring a disciplinary hearing, and that the CAS proceedings provided a full review. The panel confirmed its jurisdiction under Article 71 of the UCI Constitution and Article R47 of the CAS Code, conducting a de novo review to ensure fairness. Bird sought reinstatement of his results or shared first-place finishes, but the panel found no regulatory basis for such remedies. The CAS ultimately dismissed Bird's appeal, upholding the UCI's decision to disqualify him and reallocate prizes, emphasizing the importance of adhering to eligibility rules to maintain fair competition. The ruling clarified that the disqualification was not a judgment on Bird's integrity, as there were no allegations of misconduct, but a necessary enforcement of the regulations to ensure fairness for other competitors.