Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics: summary of Court of Arbitration for Sport decisions

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. 

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.