Welcome to the Milano Cortina Olympic Winter Games special edition newsletter, as we take a look at the legal issues arising from the Games. The Games have barely started, but plenty has happened off the snow and ice!
Court of Arbitration of Sport sets up office in Milan
Since Atlanta in 1996, the Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS) has operated temporary tribunals based at Olympic host cities that provide athletes and sporting federations guaranteed free access to dispute resolution services compatible with the competition schedule and resolution within an expedited timeframe, sometimes within 24 hours. There are two CAS divisions for these purposes – the CAS Ad hoc Division and the CAS Anti-Doping Division, both based in Milan for the 2026 Olympic Winter Games.
Before the games even started…
Well before the Games even started the CAS Ad hoc division issued its first ruling that it did not have jurisdiction to consider an application filed by Russian cross country skier Aleksandr Bolshunov (to reverse the decision to refuse him recognition as an Individual Neutral Athlete), because, pursuant to its procedural rules, it had been established to resolve disputes only insofar as they arise during the Games or during a period of 10 days preceding the Opening Ceremony. It was ruled that the origin of the dispute took place prior to that time frame.
Similar decisions followed in relation to applications lodged by the Irish Luge Federation and an American skeleton racer.
Equipment compliance
Upon the jurisdiction of the CAS Ad hoc Division kicking in, one of the first hearings involved an application by the Bobsleigh & Skeleton Association (BBSA) concerning a decision by the International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation (IBSF) that the safety helmet for Team GB for Skeleton did not comply with the IBSF Skeleton Rules.
The BBSA argued to the CAS Ad hoc Division that the new helmet design was compliant with the rules as it was manufactured without any elements “attached” to it and didn’t have “aerodynamic modifications”. IBSF disagreed with this assessment, arguing that “based on its overall shape and design, the helmet incorporated spoilers (attachments), protruding edges or aerodynamic elements” and did not comply with the applicable rules. CAS decided in favour of the IBSF and ruled that the Team GB safety helmet was not compliant with current rules and could not be worn at the Milano Cortina Games.
In one of the more bizarre stories to arise, on the eve of the games, WADA confirmed an investigation would be opened to address claims of ski jumpers injecting their penises with hyaluronic acid in a bid to fly further. The claims allege that jumpers have employed illegal methods to gain an advantage when they are measured for their suits. Athletes are measured from the lowest point of their genitals by a 3D scanner, and an artificially larger measurement results in a looser suit being allocated. A looser suit is a performance advantage (such as reducing the descent rate). Stay tuned…
Selection disputes
Inevitably, selection disputes kept the CAS Ad hoc Division busy in the lead-up to the commencement of the Games.
The first was an application by an Italian Curling athlete, Angela Romei, against the Italian Ice Sports Federation (FIGS) and against the World Curling Federation (WCF) concerning the selection of athletes for the Italian Women’s Curling Team for the Milano Cortina Games.
In her application to the CAS Ad hoc Division, Romei argued that the curling team selection was a conflict of interest, favouring a FISG Technical Director’s daughter over a more experienced and qualified athlete.
The application against the FISG was dismissed with the sole arbitrator finding it unlikely that the head coach of a national team would agree to include an athlete in the Olympic team that is inferior to another athlete, simply to help a member of the federation include family into the Olympic roster. They found it equally unlikely that he would endorse false or fabricated statements to justify such a decision. In the absence of sufficient evidence demonstrating that the selection decision was arbitrary or unreasonable, and the application was dismissed.
For the application against WCF, the sole arbitrator found that WCF did not hold the decision-making authority to grant Romei’s request and confirmed that it is not the task of international federations to revisit the selection process at the national level. The application against WCF was also dismissed.
Doping…
At the time of writing, an application has been registered by an Italian biathlete against numerous parties regarding a provisional suspension on the athlete preventing her from competing at the Games following an out-of-competition anti-doping control. The athlete requests CAS to annul the suspension due to her lack of intent or negligence, arguing that the case is one of contamination with no fault of the athlete.
With so much happening already, we can’t wait to see what else unfolds in Milano Cortina over the next fortnight!
