During the Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic Games the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Ad Hoc Division operated to resolve, on an expedited basis, disputes that arose immediately before and during Milano Cortino 2026, ensuring athletes and sporting organisations had prompt access to a specialised tribunal.
CAS Ad Hoc Division
CAS is an international body responsible for resolving sports related disputes. Since 1996, CAS has convened an ad hoc tribunal at every Olympic Games. The mandate of the CAS Ad Hoc Division is to promptly determine ‘ any dispute arising on the occasion of, or in connection with, the Olympic Games in accordance with the Code of Sports‑Related Arbitration ’[1]. The CAS Ad Hoc Division provides arbitration of disputes that fall within its jurisdiction, with decisions in urgent cases possible within 24 hours, and ideally in line with the competition schedule.
Under Article 1 of the CAS Ad Hoc Division Rules, the tribunal’s jurisdiction extends to disputes arising during the Olympic Games or within the ten days preceding the Opening Ceremony. The jurisdiction of the CAS Ad Hoc Division is ordinarily engaged once internal remedies under the relevant sports body have been exhausted (unless doing so would render the application ineffective). As such, a preliminary question for each Panel hearing an application in the CAS Ad Hoc Division is to determine whether the CAS Ad Hoc Division has jurisdiction to hear the application.
CAS opened two temporary offices in Milan to provide dispute resolution services immediately before and during Milano Cortina 2026, operating between 27 January 2026 and 22 February 2026. [2] The first office hosts the CAS Ad Hoc Division. The second office hosted a section of the CAS Anti-Doping Division which is responsible for adjudicating doping-related cases arising during Milano Cortina 2026 as a first-instance authority.
Where an application is made to the CAS Ad Hoc Division, the matter is generally heard by three arbitrators. A panel of 9 arbitrators was appointed to the CAS Ad Hoc Division for Milano Cortina 2026. [3]
Case summaries
As we have done with previous Olympic Games, our specialists have prepared a summary of all the decisions of the CAS Ad Hoc Division in relation to Milano Cortina 2026. Although established for Milano Cortina 2026, the CAS Anti-Doping Division did not issue any decisions.
The CAS Ad Hoc Division arbitrated nine (9) applications in relation to Milano Cortina 2026, compared with 10 in PyeongChang 2018 and 7 in Beijing 2022.
The decisions of the CAS Ad Hoc Division for Milano Cortina 2026 related to:
- jurisdiction of the CAS Ad Hoc Division;
- selection of athletes to participate in Milano Cortina 2026;
- a provisional suspension following an adverse analytical finding under anti-doping rules;
- breach of the Olympic Charter relating to athlete expression of views;
- the application of equipment rules to a novel helmet design; and
- a provisional suspension following serious allegations of abuse.
No disputes relating to ‘field of play’ came before the CAS Ad Hoc Division for Milano Cortina 2026.
The applicant was not successful in any of the matters taken to the CAS Ad Hoc Division during Milano Cortina 2026.
Jurisdiction of CAS Ad Hoc Division
Each Panel hearing an application in the CAS Ad Hoc Division must determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear the application.
Under Article 1 of the CAS Ad Hoc Division Rules, the jurisdiction of the CAS Ad Hoc Division is the resolution of any disputes covered by Rule 61 of the Olympic Charter, insofar as they arise during the Olympic Games or during a period of 10 days preceding the Opening Ceremony of the Olympic Games. Rule 61 of the Olympic Charter provides:
‘Any dispute arising on the occasion of, or in conjunction with, the Olympic Games shall be submitted exclusively to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), in accordance with the Code of Sports-Related Arbitration.’
The Opening Ceremony for Milano Cortina 2026 was held on 6 February 2026, meaning the CAS Ad Hoc Division had jurisdiction in connection with disputes arising on or after 27 January 2026.
CAS OG 26/01: Aleksandr Bolshunov v International Ski and Snowboard Federation
Facts[4]
Athletes with a Russian passport may be eligible and invited to participate in Milano Cortina 2026 as an Individual Neutral Athlete (AIN) if they meet the quota and eligibility requirements set by the relevant International Federations (IFs). The IF for cross-country skiing is the International Ski and Snowboard Federation (FIS).
In early December 2025 Mr Aleksandr Bolshunov, a cross country skier from Russia, applied to FIS to be recognised as eligible to be entered in Milano Cortina 2026 as an AIN under FIS’s Individual Neutral Athlete Policy.
Decision appealed
On 24 December 2025, FIS wrote to Mr Bolshunov and advised that his application for AIN status had been declined by FIS.
Procedure
On 28 January 2026, Mr Bolshunov applied to the CAS Ad Hoc Division challenging FIS’s decision to reject his application for AIN status, and requested provisional measures intended to facilitate his participation.
The matter proceeded before a Sole Arbitrator. The Sole Arbitrator issued an award in the application on 29 January 2026 without an in-person hearing.
Decision
For the CAS Ad Hoc Division to have jurisdiction the relevant dispute must have arisen within the time period specified under the Rules. In this instance the dispute needed to arise no earlier than 27 January 2026, which was 10 days before the Opening Ceremony, which took place on 6 February 2026.
The relevant dispute in this application was FIS’s decision on 24 December 2025 to reject Mr Bolshunov’s request to participate in Milano Cortina 2026 as an AIN. As this dispute arose well before 27 January 2026, the CAS Ad Hoc Division did not have jurisdiction to hear the application.
Outcome
The application was unsuccessful. The CAS Ad Hoc Division did not have jurisdiction to hear the application as the dispute did not arise within the required time frame under the Rules.
CAS OG 26/02: Irish Luge Federation v International Luge Federation
Facts[5]
The Irish Luge Federation (ILF) challenged the International Luge Federation’s (FIL) decisions regarding Olympic qualification for Milano Cortina 2026. The dispute centred on the allocation of quota places and the eligibility extension granted to Russian International Neutral Athletes (AINs), which the ILF argued unlawfully deprived Ireland’s first ever Olympic luge athlete, Ms Elsa Desmond (Ms Desmond), of a qualification place.
Decision appealed
The FIL decided to assign the disputed qualification place to an AIN athlete, Ms Daria Olesik, on 16-18 January 2026 during an FIL World Cup event in Oberhof, Germany.
On 22 January 2026, the ILF’s solicitors wrote to the FIL challenging the FIL’s decisions. Specifically, the ILF sought to challenge the FIL’s decisions to (a) grant an extension of time to an AIN athlete to meet eligibility criteria, and (b) not allocate the 106th (and final) quota place, despite only 105 athletes being allocated places.
Procedure
On 29 January 2026, the ILF filed an application with the CAS Ad Hoc Division for Milano Cortina 2026, seeking to overturn the FIL’s decisions and secure a quota place for Ms Desmond.
The FIL and the International Olympic Committee objected to the admissibility and jurisdiction of the application, arguing that the dispute arose before the jurisdictional window set by the Rules. The ILF argued that, notwithstanding a provisional qualification list was settled on 12 January 2026, the dispute could not have arisen before 26 January 2026, which was the date on which the FIL submits the Sport Entries for Milano Cortina 2026.
The matter proceeded before a Sole Arbitrator, who issued an award on 31 January 2026 without holding a hearing.
Decision
Under Article 1 of the Rules, the CAS Ad Hoc Division only has jurisdiction if the dispute arises during the Olympic Games or within the 10 days preceding the Opening Ceremony of the Olympic Games (ie on or after 27 January 2026 for Milano Cortina 2026).
The Sole Arbitrator noted that it was uncontentious that ‘arise’ means to begin to occur, to emerge, to come into being or to become apparent and that it was not necessary to determine precisely when the dispute arose.
On that basis, the Sole Arbitrator held that the dispute between the ILF and FIL had clearly arisen by 22 January 2026, when the ILF’s solicitors formally challenged the FIL’s decisions. In the Sole Arbitrator’s view, at that time there was a ‘flourishing dispute’. The fact that the date on which the Milano Cortina 2026 Sport Entries were to be submitted was 26 January 2026 did not mean that the dispute could not arise before this date. As the dispute arose before the required time frame, the CAS Ad Hoc Division lacked jurisdiction to hear the application.
Outcome
The application was unsuccessful. The CAS Ad Hoc Division determined it had no jurisdiction to hear the case as the dispute did not arise within the required time frame under the Rules.
CAS OG 26/03: Katie Uhlaender v Bobsleigh Canada Skeleton (BCS), Joseph Cecchini & International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation (IBSF)
Facts [6]
Ms Katie Uhlaender, an American skeleton athlete, competed in the IBSF North American Cup Race on 11 January 2026 (Race). BCS and Mr Joseph Cecchini, the Canadian national team skeleton head coach, withdrew four Canadian athletes from the Race, which reduced the ranking points available to other competitors. As a result, Ms Uhlaender was not selected to represent the USA at Milano Cortina 2026.
On 14 January 2026, Ms Uhlaender lodged a complaint with the IBSF Interim Integrity Unit (IIU). The IIU dismissed it on the basis that, under the IBSF Code of Ethics, conduct cannot be improper if it is expressly permitted by the competition rules. The IBSF International Skeleton Rules allow entries to be withdrawn at any time.
On 19 January 2026, Ms Uhlaender filed a further complaint before the IBSF Appeals Tribunal, alleging a violation of the Olympic Movement Code on Prevention of the Manipulation of Competitions and the IBSF Code of Conduct.
The IBSF Appeals Tribunal issued an ‘Interim Order’ on 23 January 2026, stating it did not have the authority to award full points for the Race, and a ‘Final Order’ on 28 January 2026 confirming this position. The Tribunal also noted that the actions of the Canadian team were intentional and aimed at reducing the points available to other athletes.
Decision appealed
The decision appealed to the CAS Ad Hoc Division was the IBSF Appeals Tribunal’s Final Order on 28 January 2026.
Procedure
On 30 January 2026 Ms Uhlaender filed an application to the CAS Ad Hoc Division to challenge the Final Order.
The CAS Ad Hoc Division appointed a three-member panel and convened a hearing on 1 February 2026.
Decision
The CAS Ad Hoc Division has jurisdiction only if the dispute arose no earlier than 27 January 2026 - ten days before the Opening Ceremony on 6 February 2026.
The Panel determined that the dispute had, at the latest, arisen by 23 January 2026, being the date the IBSF Appeals Tribunal issued its Interim Order by which Ms Uhlaender’s request for reinstatement of full ranking points was rejected. As the dispute arose before 27 January 2026, the CAS Ad Hoc Division did not have jurisdiction to hear the application.
Outcome
The application was unsuccessful. The CAS Ad Hoc Division determined it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, as the dispute did not arise within the required time frame under the Rules. The skeleton qualification places for Milano Cortina 2026 remained unchanged.
Selection disputes
Participation in the Olympic Games represents the culmination of many years of dedication and is often the pinnacle of an athlete’s career. However, as Rule 44.3 of the Olympic Charter makes clear, ‘ nobody is entitled as of right to participate in the Olympic Games’ . [7] Rule 44.4 further provides:
‘An NOC [National Olympic Committee] shall only enter competitors upon the recommendations for entries given by national federations. If the NOC approves thereof, it shall transmit such entries to the OCOG [Organising Committee for the Olympic Games]. The OCOG must acknowledge their receipt. NOCs must investigate the validity of the entries proposed by the national federations and ensure that no one has been excluded for racial, religious or political reasons or by reason of other forms of discrimination.’
While most qualification and selection disputes are resolved before the Olympic Games, some disputes remain active in the immediate lead up to the event. These unresolved matters can result in urgent applications to the CAS Ad Hoc Division.
CAS OG 26/05: Angela Romei v Italian Ice Sports Federation
Facts[8]
On 20 January 2026 the Italian Ice Sports Federation (FISG) published the names of 87 Italian athletes selected for the five ice sports at Milano Cortina 2026, including the five‑athlete roster for women’s curling. The list included Ms Rebecca Mariani, but not Ms Angela Romei. The curling team’s Technical Director was Ms Mariani’s father.
On 30 January 2026 Ms Romei, through counsel, requested reconsideration of the selection decision, disclosure of Mr Mariani’s selection report, and clarification of the selection criteria applied, citing concerns of bias and arbitrariness in light of the family relationship between the Technical Director and Ms Mariani.
On 2 February 2026 FISG responded to Ms Romei’s complaint and said that the selection decision fell within its technical autonomy and approved selection criteria and declined to revisit the selection decision.
Decision appealed
The decision appealed to the CAS Ad Hoc Division was FISG’s decision on 2 February 2026 refusing to reconsider the 20 January 2026 selection of the women’s curling team, thereby maintaining Ms Mariani’s inclusion in the team and Ms Romei’s non‑selection.
Procedure
On 4 February 2026 Ms Romei applied to the CAS Ad Hoc Division challenging the 2 February 2026 decision, alleging an arbitrary and biased selection process tainted by conflict of interest. The application sought corrective relief to secure Ms Romei’s selection or review of the roster.
Decision
Although the International Olympic Committee, as an interested party, questioned whether the CAS Ad Hoc Division had jurisdiction to hear the dispute given when the dispute had arisen, the Sole Arbitrator held that jurisdiction existed because FISG had not objected to jurisdiction, thereby concluding FISG had tacitly accepted the jurisprudence of CAS to hear the matter.
On the merits, the CAS Ad Hoc Division emphasised that national federations such as FISG enjoy broad discretion in athlete selection, which reviewing bodies such as CAS must not substitute without good reason.
The Sole Arbitrator accepted that subjective criteria such as technical skills, teamwork, team dynamics, performance, and versatility are legitimate selection criteria in a team sport like curling, and found no reason to impugn those criteria per se. While acknowledging the applicant’s arguments that statistics and results favoured her selection and the apparent conflict arising from the Technical Director’s relationship with one of the selected athletes, the CAS Ad Hoc Division found no clear indication of arbitrariness or fabrication in the selection decision, noting corroboration by the head coach and consistent, uniformly applied evaluations.
Absent proof of unfairness or unreasonableness, the CAS Ad Hoc Division declined to override the FISG’s selection decision and dismissed the application.
Outcome
The application was unsuccessful.
CAS OG 26/06: Angela Romei v Italian Ice Sports Federation and World Curling Federation (WCF)
This case arises from the same underlying selection dispute as CAS OG 26/06, but concerns a separate decision, World Curling Federation’s (WCF’s) refusal to intervene in Italian Ice Sports Federation’s (FISG) selection process. [9]
Facts
Ms Angela Romei (Ms Romei) sent a letter to the WCF on 30 January 2026, requesting a review of the selection decision and an investigation into alleged bias and arbitrariness in the process. On 2 February 2026 WCF informed Ms Romei that as the International Federation, it did not have the power to instruct FISG who to select in its team and that it would not intervene in the selection process.
Decision appealed
On 4 February 2026, Ms Romei filed an application with the CAS Ad Hoc Division, contesting WCF’s refusal to intervene in FISG’s selection of the women’s curling team.
Procedure
Ms Romei requested that her application against WCF be consolidated with CAS OG 26/05. However, this request was denied by the President of the CAS Ad Hoc Division. Ms Romei’s application involving WCF proceeded to a hearing before the same Sole Arbitrator who heard Ms Romei’s application in CAS OG 26/05.
Decision
The Sole Arbitrator determined that the dispute between Ms Romei and WCF arose on 2 February 2026, within ten days of the Opening Ceremony of Milano Cortina 2026. As a result, CAS Ad Hoc Division had jurisdiction over the matter.
According to Olympic Games by-laws, only National Olympic Committees (NOCs), based on recommendations from national federations like FISG, have authority over athlete selection for participation in Olympic Games. WCF is an international federation entitled to establish curling rules for Milano Cortina 2026. WCF has no authority to determine who is selected to represent a NOC.
The Sole Arbitrator concluded that WCF did not have decision-making authority over national-level selection processes and could not grant Ms Romei’s requested remedy. The application was dismissed.
Outcome
This application was unsuccessful.
Doping matters
Anti-doping policies, rules and regulations are fundamental to the integrity of sport. There is a well-established international anti-doping framework for high level sport and events.
CAS Anti-Doping Division jurisdiction is limited to anti‑doping rule violations that have been formally referred to it by the responsible results‑management authority, such as the International Testing Agency during the Olympic Games.
In the case involving a provisional suspension at Milano Cortina 2026, the results‑management authority was NADO Italia, not the International Testing Agency. Consequently, the CAS Anti-Doping Division had no authority to assume the case. This dispute was heard by the CAS Ad Hoc Division.
CAS OG 26/07: Rebecca Passler v NADO Italia Antidoping; World Anti-Doping Agency, Italian Winter Sports Federation, International Olympic Committee, International Testing Agency, International Biathlon Union & Italian National Olympic Committee
Facts [10]
Ms Rebecca Passler, an Italian biathlete selected for Milano Cortina 2026, returned an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) for letrozole metabolite bis methanol (Letrozole) following an out-of-competition urine test conducted at her home on 26 January 2026. Letrozole is classified as an aromatase inhibitor and is prohibited under the 2026 World Anti-Doping Agency Prohibited List.
Ms Passler asserted that the presence of Letrozole in her system was due to inadvertent contamination caused by exposure to her mother's breast cancer medication, which contained Letrozole.
Decision appealed
Following the AAF, the Italian National Anti-Doping Tribunal (NADT) issued an order on 2 February 2026, provisionally suspending Ms Passler.
Procedure
On 6 February 2026 Ms Passler applied to the CAS Ad Hoc Division seeking its annulment or lifting of the NADT’s provisional suspension decision of 2 February 2026, and a stay to allow her to participate at Milano Cortina 2026 pending a final determination.
The respondents opposed on the application of jurisdiction and admissibility grounds, arguing that Ms Passler failed to exhaust internal remedies and that the CAS Ad Hoc Division lacked jurisdiction over a domestic provisional suspension imposed outside a CAS-appealable framework.
The application was heard at an in-person hearing held in Milan on 10 February 2026 by a three-person Panel.
Decision
The Panel found that because the CAS Ad Hoc Division can hear disputes arising during the Olympic Games or the ten days before the Opening Ceremony and the decision of the NADT to impose a provisional suspension on 2 February 2026 occurred within the 10 day period before the commencement of Milano Cortina 2026, prima facie, the CAS Ad Hoc Division had jurisdiction to hear the application.
However, although the decision of the NADT to impose a provisional suspension decision of 2 February 2026 fell within the relevant window, the Panel held that CAS jurisdiction cannot be established where the applicable rules do not provide or allow a right of appeal to CAS.
Under NADO Italia’s Anti‑Doping Sports Code and Results Management Procedure, an athlete may apply to the NADT for it to review its own provisional suspension decision. An application of this kind must be made within three days of the suspension decision. Such a review decision can be appealed to CAS. There was otherwise no right for the athlete to appeal a provisional suspension decision other than to the National Anti-Doping Appeal Board (which had not yet happened in this instance, and from which there is no right to appeal to CAS). Because the athlete had no right to appeal to the CAS Ad Hoc Division from the provisional suspension decision, the Panel concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application.
The Panel expressly said nothing about the merits of Ms Passler’s application.
Outcome
The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Olympic Charter and an athlete’s freedom of expression
Every athlete competing at Milano Cortina 2026 was required to sign the Conditions of Participation, under which they agreed to be bound by the Olympic Charter, including the Guidelines on Athlete Expression.[11]
Rule 40.2 of the Olympic Charter provides that:
‘All competitors, team officials or other team personnel in the Olympic Games shall enjoy freedom of expression in keeping with the Olympic values and the Fundamental Principles of Olympism, and in accordance with the Guidelines determined by the IOC Executive Board’.
The Guidelines on Athlete Expression for Milano Cortina 2026 are designed to ensure that sport at the Olympic Games remains neutral and free from political, religious, or other forms of interference. Their purpose is to maintain the focus on competition and on celebrating athletic performance.
Athletes continue to have opportunities to express their views throughout the Games, including through traditional media, digital platforms, and interviews. However, expressions of views are not permitted during official ceremonies, during competition or on the field of play, or within the Olympic Village. These measures aim to uphold the Olympic mission of bringing the world together and ensuring that each athlete’s moment of glory is respected and shared on a global stage.
CAS OG 26/09: Vladyslav Heraskevych v International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF) & International Olympic Committee (IOC)
Facts[12]
Mr Vladyslav Heraskevych, a Ukrainian skeleton athlete, was scheduled to compete in the Men’s Skeleton event at Milano Cortina 2026. Before the event, Mr Heraskevych publicly announced that he would wear a helmet during the competition displaying images of Ukrainian athletes killed during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (the helmet ).
Each athlete participating at Milano Cortina 2026 must comply with the Olympic Charter, including the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) Guidelines on Athlete Expression, which prohibit expressions of views at certain times, including during competition on the field of play.
Decision appealed
On 9 February 2026 the IOC informed Mr Heraskevych’s coach and the Ukrainian Deputy Chef de Mission of the National Olympic Committee that the helmet breached the Olympic Charter. Despite this, Mr Heraskevych publicly stated that he would wear the helmet in competition.
On 11 February 2026 the IOC notified Mr Heraskevych that he would not be permitted to compete while wearing the helmet and that the International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF) would take the necessary steps to implement this decision (IOC Decision).
On 12 February 2026 the Jury of the Olympic Skeleton Competition at Milano Cortina 2026 withdrew Mr Heraskevych from the starting list of the Men’s Skeleton event.
Procedure
On 12 February 2026, Mr Heraskevych filed an application with the CAS Ad Hoc Division seeking (1) to challenge the Jury’s decision and (2) urgent provisional measures in the form of immediate reinstatement into the Men’s Skeleton event at Milano Cortina 2026.
The respondents to the application were the IBSF and the IOC.
The arbitration was conducted by a Sole Arbitrator and proceeded by way of a hearing.
Decision
Mr Heraskevych asserted that the Helmet served as a commemoration, was not political or propaganda, that no specific provision of the guidelines said to be breached had been identified, and that excluding him from competing was disproportionate.
The Sole Arbitrator dismissed the application for provisional measures, finding that reinstatement was not necessary to prevent irreparable harm and that Mr Heraskevych had no likelihood of success on the merits. The Sole Arbitrator noted that the IOC Decision relied on Rule 40.2 of the Olympic Charter, which incorporates the Guidelines. The helmet was deemed to carry political connotations because it commemorated individuals killed in a war, and wars inherently involve political elements.
The Sole Arbitrator acknowledged that Mr Heraskevych’s right of freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights must be respected by international sports federations. However, the Sole Arbitrator found that the guidelines strike a reasonable balance between athletes’ freedom of expression and the IOC’s aim of keeping competition during the Olympic Games focused on sport. The guidelines expressly permit athlete expression in interviews, at team meetings, in traditional or digital media, and on the field of play before competition.
The decision of the CAS Ad Hoc Division noted that the respondents were entitled to take pre‑emptive steps to prevent an imminent breach of the guidelines. The Sole Arbitrator rejected Mr Heraskevych’s claim that they should have waited for a breach of the Rules to have occurred and then sanctioned Mr Heraskevych afterwards, calling that approach ‘dangerous’. It remained open to Mr Heraskevych to compete using a different helmet and to challenge the prohibition at a later time.
Finally, the Sole Arbitrator held that excluding Mr Heraskevych from the competition in this instance was reasonable and proportionate.
Outcome
This application was unsuccessful.
Rules of the sport
Athletes and participants in every sport at Milano Cortina 2026 are required to adhere to all the applicable rules and regulations governing their sport. This includes the official rules of play, technical and operational guidelines and codes of conduct and ethics.
Disputes can arise when an official or governing body determines that an athlete, team or official has breached one of these rules, leading to questions about interpretation, enforcement, or the consequences of the alleged infraction.
Where such a dispute arises on the occasion of, or in connection with, the Olympic Games it may be heard by the CAS Ad Hoc Division.
CAS OG 26/04: British Bobsleigh & Skeleton Association (BBSA) v International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation (IBSF)
Facts [13]
The IBSF, the international federation for the sport of bobsleigh and skeleton issues rules setting mandatory requirements for helmets used in skeleton events. Article 10.16.1 of the IBSF International Skeleton Rules 2025 (IBSF Rules) requires that a helmet must have a smooth surface, limits protrusions, prohibits spoilers and additional aerodynamic elements, references the shape of helmets 'normally available on the market', and includes specific drawings of helmets. The IBSF Rules also provide that from the 2026‑2027 season helmet models must be certified under ASTM 2040 and EN 1077 (Class A), however this certification requirement does not yet apply to the 2025‑2026 season covering Milano Cortina 2026.
The BBSA, the UK national federation for bobsleigh and skeleton, developed a new skeleton helmet (the BBSA helmet) for use at Milano Cortina 2026 and made it available to its athletes. The BBSA helmet was certified under ASTM 2040 and EN 1077 (Class A).
Decision appealed
On 1 January 2026, IBSF officials inspected the BBSA helmet. The parties later disagreed whether any approval was given during that inspection. British athletes subsequently used the BBSA helmet in training during January 2026.
On 26 January 2026, IBSF emailed BBSA stating that, after internal review, it had determined that the BBSA helmet was non‑compliant with Article 10.16.1 of the IBSF Rules referring to the prohibitions on spoilers, protruding edges, additional aerodynamic elements and the drawings in Article 12.10.
By way of written notice dated 28 January 2026, BBSA disputed IBSF’s determination, arguing the BBSA helmet was a single integrated form with no attached elements, no spoilers or protruding edges, no post‑manufacture aerodynamic modifications and a smooth surface.
In an email of 29 January 2026, IBSF advised BBSA that it maintained its position that the BBSA Helmet was non-compliant with the IBSF Rules.
Procedure
On 2 February 2026, BBSA filed an application with the CAS Ad Hoc Division seeking a declaration that the BBSA Helmet complied with Article 10.16.1 of the IBSF Rules and could be used at Milano Cortina 2026.
Decision
The Panel held that the CAS Ad Hoc Division had jurisdiction to hear BBSA’s application given the dispute had arisen within the 10‑day period before the Opening Ceremony. Although IBSF argued BBSA should first appeal to the IBSF Appeals Tribunal, the Panel found that insisting on this procedural step would leave too little time for any meaningful CAS Ad Hoc Division review before official training and competition for Milano Cortina 2026.
The Panel also rejected IBSF’s argument that the matter was a non‑reviewable 'field of play' issue, finding that the relevant dispute was a pre‑competition dispute about the interpretation and application of written equipment rules, not an in‑competition discretionary decision.
In considering the merits of the matter, the Panel found that Article 10.16.1 of the IBSF Rules makes national federations responsible for helmet compliance, so BBSA bore the burden of proving that the BBSA helmet complied with the IBSF Rules. The Panel found that Article 10.16.1 of the IBSF Rules together with the drawings in Article 12.10, set a baseline 'standard' helmet shape and visually indicated prohibited aerodynamic modifications. The Panel held that the prohibitions on 'spoilers', 'protruding edges' and 'aerodynamic modifications' apply to the helmet’s actual shape and aerodynamic effect, regardless of whether features are separately attached or incorporated during manufacture.
The Panel noted that the BBSA helmet involved a novel design with a protruding rear section, developed for aerodynamic benefit and departing from the shape of helmets normally available on the market. The Panel considered IBSF’s assessment of the BBSA helmet - that it effectively incorporated prohibited aerodynamic features despite being a one‑piece design - to be a reasonable application of the IBSF Rules. The Panel noted that BBSA had not shown that IBSF’s position was arbitrary, inconsistent, in bad faith or clearly outside the scope of Article 10.16.1 of the IBSF Rules and held that BBSA had not discharged its burden to establish that the BBSA helmet did in fact comply with the IBSF Rules.
Outcome
The application was unsuccessful. The CAS Ad Hoc Division held that BBSA had not established that the BBSA helmet complied with Article 10.16.1 of the IBSF Rules. As a result, the BBSA helmet could not be used in the skeleton competitions at Milano Cortina 2026.
CAS OG 26/08: Raimo Reinsalu v International Skating Union
Facts[14]
Mr Raimo Reinsalu, was the figure skating coach of the Lithuanian Olympic figure skater Ms Meda Variakojytė for Milano Cortina 2026.
In July 2025, the International Skating Union (ISU) Safeguarding unit received a complaint from a Latvian figure skater alleging prolonged physical, psychological and emotional abuse by her former coach, Mr Reinsalu, and his wife. Mr Reinsalu denied the allegations.
On or about 6 February 2026, the ISU filed a Statement of Complaint to the ISU Disciplinary Commission alleging breaches of the ISU Code of Ethics and seeking provisional suspension of Mr Reinsalu from all ISU activities, including Milano Cortina 2026. On 7 February 2026, the ISU Disciplinary Commission provisionally suspended Mr Reinsalu from all ISU activities including the skating events at Milano Cortina 2026 pending a final decision (Order No. 1).
Mr Reinsalu’s urgent application to revoke the suspension under Order No. 1 was dismissed by the ISU Disciplinary Committee on 8 February 2026. The ISU Disciplinary Committee noted that the provisional suspension was considered necessary:
‘…due to the seriousness of the allegations, whilst respecting the Alleged Offender’s presumption of innocence and right to be heard (…)’ ; and (b) the Winter Olympic Games ‘are the pinnacle event for participants, and the protection and safety of the participating athletes is of the highest priority. The DC has taken urgent provisional measures, being the provisional suspension of Mr Reinsalu as necessary due to potential risk to the athletes following these serious allegations against Mr Reinsalu. The principle of proportionality is respected.’
The Lithuanian Olympic Committee (LOC) cancelled Mr Reinsalu’s accreditation on 9 February 2026.
Decision appealed
The decision appealed to the CAS Ad Hoc Division was the ISU Disciplinary Commission’s 8 February 2026 ruling dismissing the urgent application and maintaining Order No. 1, being the 7 February 2026 provisional suspension covering participation at Milano Cortina 2026 (appealed decision).
Procedure
On 9 February 2026, Mr Reinsalu filed an application with the CAS Ad Hoc Division challenging the appealed decision seeking annulment of the appealed decision and immediate lifting of the provisional suspension. The LOC, Ms Variakojytė and the International Olympic Committee were all interested parties.
The CAS Ad Hoc Division appointed a three‑member Panel and convened a hearing on 11 February 2026.
Decision
The Panel firstly confirmed it had jurisdiction. The ISU had suggested that the dispute arose on 22 September 2025 when Mr Reinsalu sent an email to the ISU General Counsel in connection with the complaint made by the Latvian skater. However, the Panel held that the dispute related to the provisional suspension imposed under the appealed decision which was rendered during the necessary period and that it was irrelevant whether facts underlying the appeal decision arose at a previous stage.
In respect of the appealed decision, the Panel noted that Article 4(5) of the ISU Disciplinary Procedures provided that the provisional measures may be ordered as deemed appropriate according to the circumstances and that Article 6(1) of the ISU Code of Ethics (which coaches such as Mr Reinsalu were subject to) provided that:
‘[p]ersons subject to this Code of Ethics shall refrain from all forms of harassment and abuse, be it sexual, physical or psychological, whether occurring in isolation or in combination or whether consisting of a one-off incident or a series of incidents, whether done in person or online, (including but not limited to social media) and in particular from any abuse of authority, i.e. the improper use of a position of influence, power or authority over another person. Abuse can also take the form of neglect or negligence’
The central issue for the Panel to decide was whether the provisional suspension was based on a sufficient prima facie foundation, pursued a legitimate objective, and complied with the principles of reasonableness and proportionality.
The Panel observed that in matters involving allegations affecting participant welfare and integrity, governing bodies necessarily enjoy a margin of discretion in adopting preventive measures aimed at mitigating potential risks pending a final adjudication. Such discretion is inherent in the risk-prevention function of ethical and protective frameworks. The relevant question for the Panel was not whether the alleged misconduct had already been proven, but whether the adoption of a temporary suspension fell within the bounds of that margin of discretion and can be regarded as reasonable and proportionate.
The Panel found that, given the seriousness of the allegations, the position of authority and trust occupied by Mr Reinsalu and the preventive and protective function of the ISE Code of Ethics, the ISU Disciplinary Commission was entitled to conclude that maintaining Mr Reinsalu in active functions pending the outcome of the proceedings could pose risks which are incompatible with the preventive and protective objectives of the ISU Code of Ethics. As such, the provisional suspension constituted a reasonable, necessary and proportionate interim measure pending the final determination of the merits.
The Panel noted that while the potential indirect consequences for third parties, such as Ms Variakojytė, are relevant considerations, they do not override the legitimate regulatory interest in protecting participants and preserving the integrity of the sporting environment where serious allegations of abuse have been raised. To do otherwise would risk subordinating the preventive and protective objectives of the ISU Code of Ethics to contingent third-party interests. The Panel noted that Ms Variakojytė would benefit from the assistance of an accredited coach for Milano Cortina 2026, mitigating athlete prejudice.
Outcome
The application was unsuccessful. The Panel upheld the ISU Disciplinary Commission’s 8 February 2026 ruling dismissing the urgent application and maintaining the 7 February 2026 provisional suspension covering participation at Milano Cortina 2026.
