TAS - CAS Bulletin 2026-1

Editorial Board / Comité de rédaction / Comité de redacción

Mr Matthieu Reeb, CAS Director General Ms Estelle de La Rochefoucauld, CAS counsel, Editor-in-chief Mr Jean-Philippe Dubey, CAS Counsel, Head of Scientific Department

Ms Delphine Reeb, Graphic DesignTRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DU SPORT/COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT/TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DEL DEPORTE ___________________________________________________________________________

Bulletin TAS CAS Bulletin Boletín del TAS 2026/1

Lausanne 2026Table des matières/Table of Contents/Indice de Contenidos

Editorial 1

Jurisprudence notable / Cases of interests / Casos de interés 3

CAS ad hoc Division (OG Milano-Cortina) 26/004 British Bobsleih & Skeleton Association Ltd (BBSA) v. International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF) award of 7 February 2026 4

CAS ad hoc Division (OG Milano-Cortina) 26/007 Rebecca Passler v. Nado Italia, World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), Federazione Italiana Sport Invernali (FISI), International Olympic Committee (IOC), International Testing Agency (ITA), International Biathlon Union (IBU), Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI) award of 11 February 2026 26

CAS ad hoc Division (OG Milano-Cortina) 26/009 Vladyslav Heraskevych v. International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF) & International Olympic Committee (IOC)

award of 11 February 2026 26

CAS ad hoc Division (OG Milano-Cortina) 26/009 Vladyslav Heraskevych v. International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF) & International Olympic Committee (IOC) award of 17 February 2026 (operative part of 13 February 2026) 50

CAS 2022/A/8856

Table Tennis Federation of Russia (TTFR) v. European Table Tennis Union (ETTU) award of 26 September 2025 (operative part of 4 June 2024) 77

CAS 2023/A/9979

Renato Kayzer de Souza v. Daejeon Hana Citizen Football Club award of 27 January 2025 131

CAS 2024/A/11051

Natalia Rok v. Polish Anti-Doping Agency (POLADA) award of 24 September 2025 159

CAS 2024/A/11078

Alvaro Adriano Teixeira Pacheco v. Vasco da Gama Sociedade Anônima Do Futebol (SADF)

&CAS 2024/A/11079

José Miguel Carvalho Teixeira v. Vasco da Gama SADF &

CAS 2024/A/11081

Pedro Valdemar Vasconcelos Pinto da Cunha Teixeira v. Vasco da Gama SADF award of 4 November 2025 178

CAS 2024/A/11103

Al Gharafa S.C. v. Football Club FCSB award of 28 August 2025 220

CAS 2025/A/11140

Mohamed Katir v. World Athletics (WA) & CAS 2025/A/11183 WA v. Mohamed Katir award of 19 September 2025 246CAS 2025/A/11161 Antani Ivanov v. World Aquatics (WA) award of 29 August 2025 288

award of 19 September 2025 246CAS 2025/A/11161 Antani Ivanov v. World Aquatics (WA) award of 29 August 2025 288

CAS 2025/A/11162

Asociación Liga Deportiva Alajuelense v. Club León & Club de Fútbol Pachuca & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) award of 7 November 2025 (operative part of 6 May 2025) 318

CAS 2025/A/11173

Tullio Tinti v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) award of 22 October 2025 370

TAS 2025/A/11191

Moctar Mahamoud Hamid c. Fédération Tchadienne de Football (FTFA) & Tahir Oloy Hassan sentence du 30 octobre 2025 402

CAS 2025/A/11254

Riza Kayaalp v. United World Wrestling (UWW) award of 28 October 2025 435

CAS 2025/A/11604

Crystal Palace Football Club v. Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) & Nottingham Forest Football Club (NFFC) & Olympique Lyonnais (OL) award of 31 October 2025 (operative part of 11 August 2025) 467

Jugements du Tribunal fédéral / Judgements of the Federal Tribunal / Sentencias del Tribunal federal 537

4A_474/2024

A. gegen Nationale Anti-Doping Agentur Deutschland (NADA) & World Anti-Doping Agency

(WADA) & Deutscher Fussball-Bund e.V. (DFB) 6 Februar 2025 538

A_544/2024

A. c. Union Internationale de Biathlon 20 mai 2025 543

4A_608/2024

6 Februar 2025 538

A_544/2024

A. c. Union Internationale de Biathlon 20 mai 2025 543

4A_608/2024

A. c. Fédération Internationale de Football Association 22 janvier 2025 548

4A_638/2024

A. c. B. 27 mars 2025 553

4A_654/2024

A. c. Russian Anti-Doping Agency, International Skating Union, Agence Mondiale Antidopage

8 octobre 2025 557 4A_682/2024A. c. Union Internationale de Biathlon 20 mai 2025 571

4A_168/2025

A. c. United States Anti-Doping Agency 4 août 2025 578

4A_180/2025

A. c. B. 6 novembre 2025 582

4A_230/2025

A. c. B. 10 novembre 2025 589

4A_268/2025

A. c. B. 22 octobre 2025 595

4A_334/2025

A. c. B. 18 novembre 2025 600

Sélection de publications récentes relatives au TAS /Selected recent CAS publications/ Selección de publicaciones recientes del CAS 6061

Editorial The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) opened two temporary offices in Milan for the 2026 Olympic Winter Games (the Games) that were held from 6 to 22 February 2026 in Milan /Cortina (Italy). The CAS Ad Hoc Division, which resolves any legal disputes tha t arise during the Games, operates on -site at every edition of the Summer and Winter Olympic Games since

1996. Since Olympic events require swift decisions on issues related to athlete selection, equipment, judging or discipline,

Hoc Division, which resolves any legal disputes tha t arise during the Games, operates on -site at every edition of the Summer and Winter Olympic Games since

1996. Since Olympic events require swift decisions on issues related to athlete selection, equipment, judging or discipline, the CAS Ad hoc Division ha s tailored and simplified rules to resolve legal disputes quickly, sometimes less than 24 hours after a case is filed. Athletes and sporting federations are guaranteed free access to quality dispute resolution services that are compatible with the Olympic competition schedule.

The second temporary office was a section of the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) which adjudicates anti -doping-related matters arising during the Games as a firstinstance authority. Cases are referred to the CAS ADD by the International Testing Agency (ITA) and decided in accordance with the anti -doping rules of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The CAS ADD first opened for the Rio 2016 Summer Olympics and became a permanent structure at CAS in 2019.

Both CAS offices were located within the Hilton Milan and operated from 27 January 2026 until 22 February 2026. As part of the system guaranteeing access to CAS during the Milan /Cortina Olympics, the Milan Bar Association played an important role by providing the sports movement with pro bono lawyers helping athletes to proceed before the CA S ad hoc divisions. All in all, the preparation and organization of the CAS offices went smoothly, thank also to the assistance of the Organizing Committee of the Games.

The CAS Ad Hoc Division was composed as follows: President, Mr Michael Lenard (USA); Co -President, Ms Corinne Schmidhauser (Switzerland). The arbitrators present in Milan were Mr James Drake (Australia/United Kingdom); Dr Isabelle Fellrath, (Switzerland); Prof. Luigi Fumagalli

follows: President, Mr Michael Lenard (USA); Co -President, Ms Corinne Schmidhauser (Switzerland). The arbitrators present in Milan were Mr James Drake (Australia/United Kingdom); Dr Isabelle Fellrath, (Switzerland); Prof. Luigi Fumagalli (Italy); Prof. Joongi Kim (Korea); Ms Annett Rombach, (G ermany); Ms Marianne Saroli (Canada). Available remotely were Prof. Stefano Bastianon (Italy); Mr André Brantjes (the Netherlands); Mr Jordi Lopez (Spain).

The CAS ADD in Milan was composed as follows: President, Mr Ivo Eusebio (Switzerland); Deputy President, Mr David

W. Rivkin (USA). The arbitrators present in

Milan were Prof. Maria Beatrice Deli (Italy); Mr Markus Manninen (Finland). The arbitrators available remotely were Ms Susan Ahern (Ireland); Mr Pekka Ilmivalta (Finland).

During the Olympic Games, the CAS Ad Hoc Division dealt with nine cases whereas no case has been brought before the CAS ADD (no athlete tested positive for doping during the Games). A selection of awards rendered by the CAS Ad Hoc Division appears in this issue, including the two socalled “helmet cases”.

The twelve cases rendered by the CAS Appeal Division selected for this issue are highly diverse in terms of both the sports involved (athletics, aquatics, wrestling, boxing, table tennis, football) and the legal issues addressed (doping, disciplinary, contractual, eligibility, multi-club ownership, governance, participation of Russian and Belarusian athletes in international competitions).

A selection of extracts from judgments rendered in 2025 by the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT) in connection with CAS decisions has also been included in this Bulletin.

governance, participation of Russian and Belarusian athletes in international competitions).

A selection of extracts from judgments rendered in 2025 by the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT) in connection with CAS decisions has also been included in this Bulletin.

In terms of public policy, the SFT consistently recapped that only the outcome of an award — not its reasoning — may2

violate public policy, confirming the narrow scope of review (4A_616/2024; 4A_608/2024; 4A_28/2025). Prior to the Grand Chamber judgment in Semenya v. Switzerland issued on 10 July 2025, the SFT maintained that the ECHR guarantees fall within the restricti ve framework of Art. 190(2)(e) PILA and declined to apply them directly (4A_682/2024; 4A_544/2024). The SFT also confirmed that criminal law principles do not directly apply to sports disciplinary proceedings (4A_682/2024; 4A_544/2024; 4A_474/2024). The SFT also held that disregarding a liquidated -damages clause does not breach public policy where the arbitral tribunal deemed the clause void (4A_638/2024). Regarding the right to be heard, many alleged violations were dismissed. The SFT confirmed its restrictive understanding of the right to be heard in international sports arbitration (4A 334/2025). The SFT held that there is no breach where a panel implicitly addresses and dismisses arguments (4A_608/2024; 4A_168/2025), includ ing challenges to the reliability of the Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) evidence (4A_544/2024). Nor must CAS specifically identify each evidentiary element relied upon, provided it was on record and

challenges to the reliability of the Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) evidence (4A_544/2024). Nor must CAS specifically identify each evidentiary element relied upon, provided it was on record and debated at the hearing (4A_474/2024). Moreover, separate reliance on Art. 6 ECHR to reiterate the reasons related to compliance with due process was deemed inadmissible (4A_474/2024). Regarding the notion of sporting succession in the context of FIFA jurisdiction and arbitration agreements, the SFT held in 4A_180/2025 that although compatible with international public policy such a concept does not form part of Swiss law for jurisdictional purposes. Consequently, lex sportiva concepts including sporting succession cannot expand the scope of arbitration agreements to non-signatories in a context of sporting succession beyond the framework of Art. 178 PILA. In 4A_230/2025, the SFT explained the implications of the distinction between jurisdiction and admissibility in multi -tier FIFA–CAS clauses. If FIFA declares a claim time-barred, the parties cannot bypass that outcome by seizing CAS. Eventually, the SFT dealt with two revision requests under Art. 190a PILA. In 4A_654/2024, brought by Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva, the Court dismissed the application, finding no procedural fraud in the alleged non -disclosure of an expert report. By con trast, in 4A_268/2025, the SFT granted revision where a final state court judgment established the forgery of a document decisive to the CAS award. Finally, it is important to mention the appeal filed by US gymnast Jordan Chiles challenging the independence and impartiality of the President of the Panel (H. Gharavi), as well as her request for revision of a CAS award rendered during the 2024

Finally, it is important to mention the appeal filed by US gymnast Jordan Chiles challenging the independence and impartiality of the President of the Panel (H. Gharavi), as well as her request for revision of a CAS award rendered during the 2024 Olympic G ames in Paris, relating to the women’s floor exercise final in gymnastics. USA Gymnastics also submitted a request for revision. The SFT rejected Jordan Chiles' appeal concerning the alleged lack of independence and impartiality of the arbitrator in questi on. However, it accepted both requests for revision. It considered that the new evidence submitted by the Applicants, not available at the time of the CAS procedure, could potentially lead to a modification of the CAS award. The SFT has therefore referred the case back to the CAS for a new ruling, taking into account the probative value of the new evidence in question (SFT 4A_494/2024, 4A_510/2024 and 4A_512/2024, published on the SFT website). In general, the 2025 SFT’s judgements related to CAS jurisprudence confirm a restrictive and deferential line with strong protection of arbitration agreements, limited avenues for jurisdictional or public policy challenges and strict procedural discipline in multi-tier systems.

I wish you a pleasant reading of this new edition of the CAS Bulletin.

Matthieu Reeb CAS Director General3

___________________________________________________________________________ Jurisprudence notable Cases of interest Casos de interés

Nous attirons votre attention sur le fait que la jurisprudence qui suit a été sélectionnée et résumée par le Greffe du TAS afin de mettre l’accent sur des questions juridiques récentes qui contribuent au développement de la jurisprudence du TAS.

Nous attirons votre attention sur le fait que la jurisprudence qui suit a été sélectionnée et résumée par le Greffe du TAS afin de mettre l’accent sur des questions juridiques récentes qui contribuent au développement de la jurisprudence du TAS. We draw your attention to the fact that the following case law has been selected and summarised by the CAS Court Office in order to highlight recent legal issues which have arisen, and which contribute to the development of CAS jurisprudence. Llamamos su atención sobre el hecho de que la siguiente jurisprudencia ha sido seleccionada y resumida por la Secretaría del TAS con el fin de poner de relieve las recientes cuestiones jurídicas que han surgido y que contribuyen al desarrollo de la jurisprudencia del TAS.4

___________________________________ CAS ad hoc Division (OG Milano-Cortina) 26/004 British Bobsleih & Skeleton Association Ltd (BBSA) v. International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF) award of 7 February 2026 ___________________________________

Skeleton; Equipment compliance (helmet) with the IBSF Rules for the purpose of use at the Olympic Winter Games 2026 ; CAS jurisdiction and exhaustion of internal remedies; Nature of the dispute; Burden of proof; International Federations’ discretion to interpret and apply technical rules; Method of manufacture not determinative of compliance

Panel Ms Marianne Saroli (Canada) President Prof. Luigi Fumagalli (Italy) Prof. Joongi Kim (Republic of Korea)

1. The CAS Ad Hoc Division ha s jurisdiction to deal with an application where (i) the dispute arose within the ten -day period preceding the Olympic Games Opening Ceremony, as required by Article 1 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules and (ii) the exception to the exhaustion of internal remedies applies. Indeed, the requirement to

application where (i) the dispute arose within the ten -day period preceding the Olympic Games Opening Ceremony, as required by Article 1 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules and (ii) the exception to the exhaustion of internal remedies applies. Indeed, the requirement to exhaust internal remedies is subject to an express exception where the time required to do so would render recourse to the CAS Ad Hoc Division ineffective. This reflects the specific function of the CAS Ad Hoc Division in providing urg ent and effective dispute resolution during the Olympic Games period. An internal remedy whose procedure, timing, and jurisdiction are uncertain cannot be regarded as sufficiently effective for the purposes of the exhaustion requirement.

2. Pre-competition administrative determinations of equipment compliance with written rules constitute matters of rule interpretation and application, routinely within the remit of arbitral tribunals. Conversely, the “field of play” doctrine is confined to discretionary, real -time decisions made during competition — not to pre-competition administrative determinations of this nature.

3. Pursuant to Article 10.16.1 of the IBSF International Skeleton Rules 2025, w here a national federation seeks affirmative relief in the form of a declaration of equipment compliance, it bears the burden of proof.

4. International Federations must retain reasonable discretion to interpret and apply technical rules expressed in general terms and applied to novel designs . S uch discretion warrants deference absent arbitrariness, bad faith, or manifest error. Moreover, technical equipment rules cannot anticipate every conceivable design variation and must be interpreted purposively rather than as an exhaustive catalogue of prohibited configurations.

5. Compliance with equipment rules cannot depend solely on whether an element is attached after

manifest error. Moreover, technical equipment rules cannot anticipate every conceivable design variation and must be interpreted purposively rather than as an exhaustive catalogue of prohibited configurations.

5. Compliance with equipment rules cannot depend solely on whether an element is attached after manufacture. A helmet produced as a single integrated unit may nonetheless fall outside the scope of5

permitted configurations if its form produces the effects the rule seeks to prevent. Permitting otherwise would allow manufacturers to circumvent equipment regulations by integrating prohibited features at the design stage.

I. PARTIES

1. The Applicant , British Bobsleigh & Skeleton Association Limited (“BBSA”), is the national federation for bobsleigh and skeleton in the United Kingdom, headquartered at Bath, United Kingdom, and member of the International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation and of the British Olympic Association

(“BOA”).

2. The Respondent, International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation (“IBSF”), is the international organization that administers the sports of bobsleigh and skeleton, headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland.

II. FACTS

A. Background Facts

3. The elements set out below are a summary of the main relevant facts as considered established by the Panel by way of a chronology on the basis of the submissions of the Parties. Additional facts may be set out, where relevant, in the legal considerations of the present award.

4. The present dispute concerns the compliance, under Article 10.16.1 of the

IBSF International Skeleton Rules 2025 (Release Date September 2025) (the “IBSF Rules ”), of a newly developed skeleton helmet manufactured by the Applicant (the “Helmet”), and the Respondent's email dated 29 January 2026 stating its “opinion that the helmet does

(Release Date September 2025) (the “IBSF Rules ”), of a newly developed skeleton helmet manufactured by the Applicant (the “Helmet”), and the Respondent's email dated 29 January 2026 stating its “opinion that the helmet does not comply with the IBSF skeleton Rules”.

5. The following pictures of the Helmet

were provided by the Applicant:

6. Article 10.16.1 of the IBSF Rules governs the mandatory wearing of safety helmets in competitions and training and sets out detailed requirements relating, inter alia , to helmet shape, surface characteristics, protrusions, padding, and aerodynamic elements.

Article 10.16.1 further provides that, starting from the 2026 -2027 season, helmets must comply with, and be certified under, both ASTM 2040 and EN 1077 (Class A) standards.

7. Article 10.16.1 provides as follows: “10.16.1 Helmet Wearing of a safety helmet is mandatory for all competitions, during both training and races. It is the duty and the responsibility of the National Federations to comply with the safety standards.6

Only helmets whose shell and padding cover the head and at least the ear area are allowed. Helmets with spoilers or protruding edges are not allowed. The bottom edge of the helmet shell must maintain the shape of the helmets normally available on the market. Chin guards and clasps are not allowed to be positioned excessively low. The chin guard, the visor and the hardware for attaching them are the only protruding elements allowed. These elements cannot, however, have aerodynamic coverings. For safety reasons, all helmets must have a smooth surface. A safety helmet a) has to be without any additionally attached aerodynamic elements or adhesive tape (except that used to fix the visor or the goggle strap), and

aerodynamic coverings. For safety reasons, all helmets must have a smooth surface. A safety helmet a) has to be without any additionally attached aerodynamic elements or adhesive tape (except that used to fix the visor or the goggle strap), and b) one piece of adhesive tape is allowed on the chin guard with a maximum size of 50mm x 70mm. c) One piece of foam padding may be added on the chin strap with adhesive tape, the addition may not exceed a maximum size of 100mm along the length of the strap with 50mm width and 6mm thickness. d) On the inside of the chin guard padding may be applied but may not exceed a maximum size of 50mm width with 10mm thickness, according to Figure 8 & 8a. e) the helmet shell must not have any concave shape except for the recesses for the visor, and f) the padding may protrude a maximum of 3 cm below the shell. Please see the drawing in article 12.10. Requirements valid from the season 2026/2027 onwards Helmet model must meet ASTM 2040 and EN 1077 (Class A) and be certified under both. In addition, the helmet model must pass an additional specific test under EN 1077 test methods, but at a higher test speed of 6.8 m/s”.

8. The requirement for ASTM 2040 and EN 1077 (Class A) certification was first introduced by the Respondent into the IBSF Rules in 2022, with intended mandatory application from the 20232024 season. Its enforcement was subsequently postponed, first to the 2024-2025 season and later to the 20262027 season, due to the limited availability of suitable certified helmets.

It is common ground between the Parties that such requirement does not apply to the Olympic Winter Games

subsequently postponed, first to the 2024-2025 season and later to the 20262027 season, due to the limited availability of suitable certified helmets. It is common ground between the Parties that such requirement does not apply to the Olympic Winter Games Milano-Cortina 2026 ( “OWG 2026 ”) since they fall within the 2025 -2026 season.

9. Against this background, the Applicant undertook the development and manufacture of a new helmet, which it asserts complies with both ASTM 2040 and EN 1077 (Class A) standards. The Applicant states that it obtained the relevant certifications and made the Helmet available for use by its athletes in preparation for the OWG 2026.

10. On 1 January 2026, representatives of

the Respondent, Mr Christoph Langen (Head of Material, Technology and Innovation) and Mr Christian Senge,7

(Material Controller IBSF), attended a meeting at the Applicant’s hotel in Winterberg, Germany.

11. The meeting lasted approximately one hour. Representatives of the Applicant,

including Ms Natalie Dunman, Mr David Short and Mr Matthias Guggenberger, presented several items of equipment intended for use at the OWG 2026 skeleton competitions, including the Helmet. The Respondent’s representatives examined the equipment and asked questions concerning its design and characteristics.

12. The Parties disagree as to whether any approval of the Helmet was given during this meeting and, if so, with what legal effect. The Applicant asserts that the Respondent’s representatives confirmed that the Helmet met the requirements of the IBSF Rules and was approved for use at the OWG 2026. The Respondent denies having given any binding approval, characterizing the meeting as informal and stating that Mr Langen expressly reserved the right for the Helmet to be reviewed by the IBSF

the IBSF Rules and was approved for use at the OWG 2026. The Respondent denies having given any binding approval, characterizing the meeting as informal and stating that Mr Langen expressly reserved the right for the Helmet to be reviewed by the IBSF Material Controllers.

13. Following the meeting, British athletes began using the Helmet during training sessions in St. Moritz, Switzerland, where it was visible to other teams.

14. By email dated 26 January 2026, Mr Langen informed the Applicant that, following internal review and discussion, the Helmet, in its current form, was considered not to comply with the IBSF Rules. The email cited concerns relating to protruding elements, ae rodynamic features, and the illustrative drawings in Article 12.10, stating in relevant part

(emphasis in original): “[…] It has been reviewed and discussed, and it has been decided that the helmet, in its current form, does not comply with our regulations. The decision is based on the following points of the regulations:

1. The chin guard, the visor and the hardware for attaching them are the only protruding elements allowed.

2. Helmets with spoilers or protruding edges are not allowed. 3.A safety helmet has to be without any additionally attached aerodynamic elements or adhesive tape (except that used to fix the visor or the goggle strap). 4. 12.10. Equipment Drawing for article 10.16.1 no aerodynamic modification allowed.

We therefore consider that the presented helmet design does not comply with these three points . […]”

15. By email dated 28 January 2026, the Applicant contested this assessment, asserting that the Helmet complied with Article 10.16.1 and that the Respondent’s position represented a reversal of the understanding reached on 1 January 2026. The Applicant addressed each of the provisions cited by Mr

Applicant contested this assessment, asserting that the Helmet complied with Article 10.16.1 and that the Respondent’s position represented a reversal of the understanding reached on 1 January 2026. The Applicant addressed each of the provisions cited by Mr Langen, emphasizing that the Helmet was manufactured as a single integrated form without attached elements and had not been aerodynamically modified after manufacture. In particular, the Applicant argued that the Helme t “does comply with the rules for the following reasons:

1. The chin guard, the visor and the hardware for attaching them are the only protruding elements allowed.8

Response: There are no protruding elements. The helmet has been manufactured as one solid form.

2. Helmets with spoilers or protruding edges are not allowed.

Response: There is no spoiler or protruding edges.

3. A safety helmet a) has to be without any additional attached aerodynamic elements or adhesive tape (except that used to fix the visor or the goggle strap).

Response: There are no attached aerodynamic elements or adhesive tape on the helmet. The helmet is one solid form - there is nothing attached. 4. 12.10. Equipment: Drawing for article 10.16.1 no aerodynamic modification allowed Response: There has been no aerodynamic modification. The helmet has been produced in a form that meets the rules and has not been modified in any way”.

16. On 29 January 2026, the Respondent’s

Sports Manager, Mr Gatis Gūts, responded as follows: “Based on the new shape of the helmet, we have reviewed the documentation provided, and the Material Controllers are of the opinion that the helmet does not comply with the IBSF Skeleton Rules. In order to further assess the technical development of your proposed helmet prototype, we intend to organise a call within the next few

reviewed the documentation provided, and the Material Controllers are of the opinion that the helmet does not comply with the IBSF Skeleton Rules. In order to further assess the technical development of your proposed helmet prototype, we intend to organise a call within the next few days with the relevant Skeleton Sport experts, e.g. members of the Skeleton Sport and Skeleton Material Committees. We would propose that you present the prototype during this call for evaluation. Should you not be available for this call, we would kindly ask you to provide the relevant information, which we could then circulate to the committee members for their assessment”.

17. Later that day, the Applicant responded that, while disappointed with the outcome, it acknowledged the Respondent’s position that the Helmet was considered non -compliant. The Applicant reiterated its disagreement and objected to the proposal to share information regarding the Helmet with the “Skeleton Sport and Materials Committees”, asserting that such assessment was not normal procedure during the competitive season and that the matter should be treated as confidential between the Parties.

18. On 30 January 2026, the Respondent confirmed that no information had been shared with other parties, while noting that members of the relevant committees were aware of the Helmet due to its visible use in training sessions in St. Moritz. The Respondent further indicated that equipment could be presented to IBSF Material Control during official OWG 2026 training sessions in Cortina for review and feedback, and that “[t]he approval of used items during the race is done during each material control check as on e may amend or change the previously presented material for the race”.

19. It is against this factual background that the Applicant filed its application before

the CAS Ad Hoc Division.

20. The central issue in the present arbitration is whether the Helmet complies with Article 10.16.1 of the9

race”.

19. It is against this f