CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11722 — Edgar Carballo González v. Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI)

"Carballo" · CAS upheld a one-year cycling ban on a Spanish enduro rider for sexual harassment at a UCI MTB World Cup event.

What happened in Carballo

Edgar Carballo González, a professional Spanish enduro rider, was sanctioned by the UCI Ethics Commission following an incident on the night of 16–17 June 2023 at the UCI MTB World Cup in Leogang-Salzburgerland, Austria. While the complainant, [D.], was asleep in her van in the race paddock, Carballo entered, partially undressed, and made repeated unwanted sexual advances despite her explicit refusal. He also used the word 'rape' during the incident. The UCI Ethics Commission, after a full investigation including interviews and review of contemporaneous WhatsApp exchanges, found Carballo in breach of Article 6.4 of the UCI Ethics Code (protection of physical and mental integrity), as supplemented by Article 2.3 of Appendix 1 (sexual harassment), and imposed a one-year ban from all cycling-related activities plus CHF 1,000 in procedural costs. Carballo appealed to CAS, challenging the procedural fairness of the UCI proceedings, the evidentiary assessment, and the proportionality of the sanction. He also initially sought EUR 161,319 in damages, which he later withdrew. The CAS Panel, exercising de novo review, confirmed the Appealed Decision in its entirety. The case is significant for affirming that the 'comfortable satisfaction' standard applies in UCI disciplinary proceedings, that Spanish law and criminal-law presumptions do not displace the UCI regulatory framework, and that CAS de novo review cures any first-instance procedural deficiencies.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11722

On 6 November 2024, [D.] filed a complaint via the UCI SpeakUP platform regarding the June 2023 incident. On 17 December 2024, the UCI filed a Report for potential breach of the UCI Code of Ethics with the UCI Ethics Commission. Following investigation — including videoconference interviews with both parties, collection of WhatsApp exchanges, witness statements from [E.], [H.], [G.], and [K.], and written submissions from Carballo — the UCI Ethics Commission issued its decision on 11 August 2025, imposing a one-year ban from cycling-related activities and CHF 1,000 in procedural costs for breach of Article 6.4 of the UCI Ethics Code as supplemented by Article 2.3 of Appendix 1. Carballo filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS on 29 August 2025, within the 21-day deadline under Article R49 of the CAS Code. He sought annulment of the decision, reduction of the sanction to a warning or educational measures, and initially claimed EUR 161,319 in damages (later withdrawn). The Respondent sought full confirmation of the Appealed Decision. The Panel decided the matter on written submissions without a hearing.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11722

• Mr Carballo violated Article 6.4 of the UCI Ethics Code, as supplemented by Article 2.3 of Appendix 1, by making unwanted sexual advances, persisting after explicit refusal, and using the word 'rape' during the incident at the UCI MTB World Cup paddock.
• Spanish law and criminal-law instruments such as the presumption of innocence do not displace the UCI Ethics Code as the applicable regulatory framework in UCI disciplinary proceedings; the applicable standard of proof is 'comfortable satisfaction' under Article 30.2 of the UCI Ethics Code.
• The UCI Ethics Commission's assessment of evidence was neither biased nor discriminatory; it was entitled under Article 30.2 to weigh all evidence holistically, and its reliance on contemporaneous WhatsApp exchanges as primary corroborating evidence was appropriate.
• CAS de novo review under Article R57.1 of the CAS Code cures any procedural deficiencies from first-instance proceedings, rendering allegations of procedural unfairness before the UCI Ethics Commission moot.
• The one-year ban and CHF 1,000 procedural costs imposed by the UCI Ethics Commission are appropriate and proportionate, and CAS will only intervene where a sanction is 'evidently and grossly disproportionate'.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel conducted a full de novo review under Article R57.1 of the CAS Code. On procedural challenges, it found that Spanish law had no applicable nexus beyond shared nationality and that international instruments could inform general due process principles but did not displace the UCI Ethics Code. The UCI Ethics Commission had afforded Carballo multiple opportunities to respond, rescheduled interviews, and shared all evidence — no procedural irregularity was established. On the merits, the Panel applied the 'comfortable satisfaction' standard under Article 30.2 of the UCI Ethics Code. It accorded primary evidentiary weight to the contemporaneous WhatsApp exchanges sent hours after the incident, in which Carballo apologised, admitted he 'insisted', and did not deny using the word 'rape'. These messages were irreconcilable with his later claim that the encounter was innocuous. [D.]'s account was consistent across multiple statements and corroborated by third-party disclosures. The Panel rejected Carballo's evolving and internally inconsistent explanations. On sanction, the Panel deferred to the UCI Ethics Commission's expertise, finding no mitigating circumstances advanced by Carballo and no basis to find the one-year ban evidently and grossly disproportionate given the seriousness of non-consensual sexual conduct with threatening language in a confined, private setting.

Why Carballo matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award confirms that the 'comfortable satisfaction' standard governs UCI Ethics Code proceedings and that CAS de novo review cures first-instance procedural defects. It establishes that contemporaneous digital communications (WhatsApp messages) can serve as primary corroborating evidence in sexual harassment cases where no eyewitnesses exist. It also clarifies that criminal-law presumptions and national law do not displace the UCI regulatory framework, and that CAS defers to first-instance disciplinary bodies on sanctions unless they are evidently and grossly disproportionate.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2022/A/8863-8864 CAS 2019/A/6233 CAS 2024/A/10384 CAS 2024/A/10295-10313 CAS 2013/A/3444 CAS 2023/A/9364

Frequently asked questions about Carballo

What did CAS decide in the Carballo cycling sexual harassment case?

CAS dismissed Carballo's appeal and confirmed the UCI Ethics Commission's decision of 11 August 2025 in its entirety. The Panel upheld the one-year ban from all cycling-related activities and CHF 1,000 in procedural costs, finding that Carballo had breached Article 6.4 of the UCI Ethics Code as supplemented by Article 2.3 of Appendix 1 by making unwanted sexual advances, persisting after explicit refusal, and using the word 'rape' during the incident at the 2023 UCI MTB World Cup in Leogang-Salzburgerland, Austria.

What standard of proof applies in UCI Ethics Code disciplinary proceedings?

The applicable standard is 'comfortable satisfaction', as expressly provided under Article 30.2 of the UCI Ethics Code and acknowledged by both parties in this case. The CAS Panel confirmed that this standard lies between 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and 'balance of probabilities', consistent with established CAS jurisprudence including CAS 2021/A/7840 and CAS 2014/A/3625.

Can a cyclist invoke the presumption of innocence or Spanish law in UCI disciplinary proceedings before CAS?

No. The CAS Panel in Carballo held that Spanish law had no applicable nexus beyond the shared nationality of the parties and was not of mandatory nature so as to override the UCI Ethics Code. The criminal-law presumption of innocence does not apply as such in sports disciplinary proceedings, which are governed by private law and their own evidentiary framework under Article 30.2 of the UCI Ethics Code and Article 8 of the Swiss Civil Code.

How did CAS treat the WhatsApp messages in the Carballo case as evidence?

The Panel accorded significant probative weight to the WhatsApp exchanges sent between [D.] and Carballo on the same day as the incident, describing them as contemporaneous, spontaneous, and bilateral. Carballo's message, in which he apologised, admitted he had 'insisted', and did not deny using the word 'rape', was found irreconcilable with his later claim that the encounter was innocuous and immediately ceased upon refusal, thereby corroborating [D.]'s account on key disputed elements.

Topics: Doping, ethics & governance at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.