Katie Uhlaender v. Bobsleigh Canada Skeleton (BCS), International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF), Joseph Luke Cecchini

III. FACTS

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

10. On or about 11 January 2026, the First and Second Respondents decided to withdraw four of the six Canadian women’s skeleton athletes from the NAC Races in Lake Placid (7-11 January 2026), reducing the number of participants drawn for the race to below 20. As per the International Skeleton Rules 2025, table 11.3 (IBSF Ranking List - Points, North American- /Europe-/Asian-Cup/Junior World Championships), this resulted in the reduction from 100% to 75% of available ranking points for all participants. This decision allegedly adversely impacted athletes from other countries, including the Applicant and their ability to qualify for the 2026 OWG. The Applicant, third-ranked US skeleton athlete, was eventually not selected to represent the United States at the 2026 OWG.

11. On 14 January 2026, the Applicant submitted “evidence for inclusion in the ongoing integrity investigation concerning the North America Cup (NAC) races in Lake Placid” to the IBSF Interim Integrity Unit.

12. On 15 January 2026, the IBSF reported on its website the following “[f]ull decision by the Interim Integrity Unit”:

“The Interim Integrity Unit (IIU) met to consider the concerns raised by the withdrawal of several Canadian sliders from the most recent NAC and the effect on Olympic qualification. The IIU has determined that no further information or investigation is necessary.

Section 7 of the IBSF Code of Ethics for all members specifically states that "No person shall violate the principles of fair play by engaging in improper conduct or attempting to alter the course or result of a competition except as expressly permitted by the rules and regulations governing the competition."

Section 8.6(d) of the IBSF International Skeleton Rules states that "Entries may be withdrawn at any time. Already paid entry fees are non-refundable." The International Skeleton Rules do not provide any additional consequences for late withdrawal of athletes.

The IBSF Code of Conduct for Executive Committee, Staff, Coaches, Advisor, Commission and Committee members requires coaches to acknowledge in Section 2 that "I am fully aware of the Olympic Movement Code on the Prevention of the Manipulation of Competitions and my responsibilities and duties thereof."

The Olympic Movement Code on the Prevention of the Manipulation of Competitions prohibits, among other things, "An intentional arrangement, act or omission aimed at an improper alteration of the result or the course

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/003 4

of a competition in order to remove all or part of the unpredictable nature of the sports competition with a view to obtaining an undue benefit for oneself and/or for others.

The late withdrawal of athletes intuitively gives rise to concern that the action may have constituted impermissible manipulation, a matter that is within the competence of the IIU to adjudicate. At the same time, the express language of Section 7 of the IBSF Code of Ethics precludes any finding that conduct "expressly permitted" by the competition rules is "improper" or creates an "undue benefit." As a consequence, the IIU dismisses the complaints.

Notwithstanding the above conclusions, the IIU reminds the Canadian coach and the National Federation that, whilst acting within the letter of the IBSF Code of Conduct, it is expected that all parties concerned should also act within the spirit of the Code, whose aim is to promote fair play and ethical conduct at all times”.

13. On 15 January 2026, the Applicant filed a request for investigation with the IOC Integrity Unit reporting “the purposeful manipulation of a sports competition that occurred during the North America Cup (NAC) races held in Lake Placid, New York, from 9–13 January 2026”, formally requesting the opening of “an independent investigation into this matter, which continues to impact Olympic qualification pathways across several countries”.

14. On 16 January 2026, the IOC Ethics and Compliance Office denied the request for investigation on the ground that that “[t]his matter relates to an event under the International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF) and is therefore outside the IOC’s jurisdiction. We therefore refer you to the IBSF Integrity Unit for follow up. […]”.

15. On 19 January 2026, the Applicant filed a “Complaint for Violation of the Olympic Movement Code on the Prevention of the Manipulation of Competitions and IBSF Code of Conduct; or, Alternatively, Petition for Appeal of the Decision Issued by IBSF Interim Integrity Unit” before the IBSF Appeals Tribunal, seeking i.a. :

“[…]

7.1.2 That the decision of the IIU be set aside;

7.1.3 A determination that the decision by Bobsleigh Canada Skeleton to withdraw four (4) of its athletes from the NAC Lake Placid Race was in violation of the Olympic Movement Code on the Prevention of the Manipulation of Competitions and that the BCS coaches violated the IBSF Code of Conduct by violating said rules.

7.1.4 That full ranking points (i.e., 100% of the available points as opposed to 75%) be awarded for the 11 January 2026 NAC Lake Placid Race 7; and

7.1.5 That the 18 January 2026 Ranking List be updated to reflect the full points. […]”.

16. Mirela Rahneva (22 January 2026), Kellie Delka (21 February [recte January] 2026), Mike Douglas (21 January 2026), Brazilian Ice Sports Federation (21 January 2026), Malta Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation (20 January 2026) and Virgin Islands Winter Sports Federation (23 January

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/003 5

2026) submitted letters of support and requested to join Katie Uhlaender’s appeal as interested parties.

17. On 22 January 2026, the IBSF filed some determinations to the BSF Appeals Tribunal; it does not proceed from the evidence on records when these determinations, filed by the Applicant in these proceedings, were communicated to the Applicant:

“1. The IBSF does not object to this matter being heard by the IBSF Appeals Tribunal.

2. While the IBSF has brought the complaints about the withdrawal of female Canadian athletes before the Interim Integrity Unit (IIU) for investigation, it has taken note of the decision by the IIU and accepts it.

3. The IBSF is not a party to the proceedings before the IBSF Appeals Tribunal. The IBSF does not apply for admission as a party in the proceedings before the IBSF Appeals Tribunal, and it has no further interest in this matter.

4. The IBSF points out that the outcome of the proceedings before the IBSF Appeals Tribunal does not affect in any way the allocation of Quota Places for the Women’s Skeleton competitions at the Olympic Winter Games Milano Cortina 2026 to National Olympic Committees. The allocation of two (2) Quota Places to the USOC [sic] remains unchanged.

5. The IBSF has no influence whatsoever on how the NOCs and national skeleton federations use their quotas and to whom they assign a starting place in the Olympic Skeleton competitions. Hence, it is at the sole discretion of the USOPC and USA Bobsled & Skeleton, under their own rules, how the two Quota Places for Women’s Skeleton are allocated”.

V. THE CAS PROCEEDINGS

22. On 30 January 2026 at 11:54 (Milan time), the Applicant filed a “Statement of Appeal and Appeal Brief” with the CAS Ad Hoc Division against the Respondents to challenge the Final Order with supporting evidence; the Applicant specifically indicated that “[she] intends for this Statement of Appeal to also serve as her Appeal Brief, in light of the expedited nature of this Appeal and the Ad Hoc Division” (“Application”, par. 8.2). The Applicant formally designated several “witnesses”, including the persons named above in par. 16) to “testify consistent with their statement as an interested party”.

23. On 30 January 2026 at 13:26 (Milan time), the CAS Ad Hoc Division notified the Application to the Respondents and the Interested Parties.

24. On 30 January 2026 at 17:20 (Milan time), the CAS Ad Hoc Division notified the Parties of the composition of the Panel:

President: Dr Isabelle Fellrath, Attorney-at-Law, Morges, Switzerland

Arbitrators: Mr James Drake KC, Barrister, London, United Kingdom

Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, Professor and Attorney-at-Law, Milano, Italy

25. The Applicant was invited to clarify by 30 January 2026 at 20:00 (Milan time) whether the persons named in par. 16 above were witnesses and/or interested parties, and Respondents invited to file their reply (Article 15 lit. b of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules) and USOPC and IOC an amicus curiae brief until 31 January 2026 at 17:00 (Milan time).

26. The Parties, USOPC and IOC were also summoned to appear at a hearing to be held by videoconference (Article 15 lit. c para. 1 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules) on 1 February 2026, at 15:00 (Milan time). It was further specified that:

“5. The purpose and contents of the hearing are set forth in Article 15 lit. c para. 2 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules […] Therefore, if the Parties have any persons to be heard as witnesses or expert-witnesses, they are requested, to every extent possible, to make these persons available.

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/003 8

After the hearing, the Panel of arbitrators will proceed to issue a final decision.

6. Whether or not the Parties attend the hearing, they should be aware that they may be bound by the decision that the Panel will issue. […]”.

27. There were no objections to the appointment of the Panel.

28. Within the set time and deadline, the Applicant submitted that “[…] the individuals identified at par. 3.17 of the Statement of Appeal should be considered as interested parties”.

29. On 31 January 2026, at 09:59 (Milan time), the IOC submitted that it “[…] considers that after receiving the answers and the amicus briefs, the Panel will be sufficiently informed, and holding a hearing would be entirely unnecessary”.

30. On 31 January 2026, at 10:11 (Milan time), the CAS Ad Hoc Division invited “the Interested Parties to file amicus curiae briefs or, in the alternative, to confirm that they will rely on their written “statements of support” already on file, by today, 31 January 2026 at 17:00 (Milan time). If the Respondents have objections in this regard, they shall inform the Panel accordingly by today, 31 January 2026 at 13:00 (Milan time)”.

31. On 31 January 2026, at 11:33 (Milan time), the CAS Ad Hoc Division informed the Parties and Interested Parties that the President of the CAS Ad Hoc Division extended the time-limit for the Panel to give a decision until 2 February 2026 at 17h00 (Milan time).

32. On 31 January 2026, the Third Respondent (at 16:20, Milan time) and the First Respondent (at 17:07 Milan time) filed their respective Replies to the Application filed by the Athlete, with supporting evidence. The Second Respondent, whilst requesting a copy of “all relevant materials”, did not file any reply within the imparted time.

33. On 31 January 2026, within the imparted time, the IOC (16:58, Milan time) and the Virgin Islands Winter Sports Federation (17:00, Milan time) filed amicus curiae briefs, and the Malta Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation informed the Panel that they would be relying on their statement of support already on file. Mirela Rahneva, Kellie Delka, Mike Douglas, CBDG, and the Danish Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation did not file any amicus curiae brief within the imparted time.

34. On 31 January 2026, at 17:28 (Milan time), the Applicant submitted Exhibit-033 in response to IOC’s amicus curiae brief (par. 16), specifying that “[i]n submitting this responsive exhibit, Appellant does not concede the accuracy of the IOC’s claim that “The Applicant does not allege, let alone demonstrate, that the USOPC would have selected her to participate in the 2026 Winter Olympic Games had she been ranked 17th in the IBSF World Rankings”. See Statement of Appeal, at par. 3.8 and 6.9.1”.

35. On 31 January 2026, at 17:33 (Milan time), the CAS Ad Hoc Division circulated the Parties and Interested Parties’ submissions, communication and amicus curiae briefs, and, on behalf of the Panel, invited the Applicant to file her position on the issue of the jurisdiction of the CAS Ad Hoc Division by 1 February 2026 at 07:00 (Milan time), and at 18:02 (Milan time), the Applicant’s Exhibit-033 and email; it further summoned the remaining Interested Parties to appear at a videoconference hearing before the Panel of arbitrators.

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/003 9

36. On 1 February 2026, at 03:47 (Milan time), the Applicant filed submissions on the issue of the jurisdiction of the CAS Ad Hoc Division; she also submitted evidence missing from her Application.

37. On 1 February 2026, at 09:46 (Milan time), the IOC reiterated that the Panel should consider itself sufficiently informed to adjudicate the matter without holding a hearing.

38. On 1 February 2026, at 11:13 (Milan time), the CAS Ad Hoc Division confirmed that the hearing was maintained and circulated the link to access the video conference hearing to all Parties and Interested Parties, including those who had not confirmed their attendance.

39. In accordance with Article 15 lit. c of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules, the Parties and Interested Parties, to the extent set out below, participated at the hearing which was held by videoconference on 1 February 2026, from 15.00 to 20:00 (Milan time). The Panel was assisted by Delphine Deschenaux-Rochat, Counsel at the CAS, and joined by the following persons, all attending remotely:

- for the Applicant: Katie Uhlaender, party; Howard L. Jacobs, Leah M. Bernhard and Katlin

F. Freeman, counsel.

- for the First Respondent: Kien Tran, BCS CEO, party; Justin Safayeni, Aimee Huntington, Adam Klevinas, counsel.

- Second Respondent Joe Cecchini, party; R. Fitzgerald Scott counsel.

- For the Third Respondent: Heike Grösswang, IBSF General Secretary, party; Stephan Netzle, counsel.

40. Some of the Interested Parties also attended, namely IOC: Antonio Rigozzi, counsel; Mirela Rahneva; Brazilian Ice Sports Federation: Emilio de Souza Strappason, President; Malta Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation: Sarah Krebs, Secretary General; Virgin Islands Winter Sports Federation: Brigitte Berry, Treasurer, Interested Party; Craig M. O’Shea, counsel and Katie Tannenbaum, skeleton athlete; and Danish Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation: Tom Johansen, General Manager.

41. USOPC was not represented, but Kacie Wallace, Athlete Ombuds, attended. Kellie Delka and Mike Douglas did not attend.

42. The Panel heard evidence from Katie Uhlaender and Joe Cecchini. The Parties and had full opportunity to examine and cross-examine Katie Uhlaender and Joe Cecchini, to present their case, to submit their arguments and answer the questions posed by the Panel, and the Interested Parties could express their positions.

43. Before the hearing was concluded, the Parties confirmed that they had full opportunity to present their case and that they did not have any objection with the procedure adopted by the Panel and that their right to be heard had been respected.

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/003 10

44. The Panel confirms that it carefully heard and took into account in its decision all of the submissions, evidence, and arguments presented by the parties, even if these have not been specifically summarised or referred to thereafter.

VI. THE PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS AND REQUESTS FOR RELIEF

45. The Parties’ submissions and arguments shall only be referred to in the sections below if and when necessary, even though all such submissions and arguments have been considered.

A. Applicant

a. Applicant’s Submissions

46. The Applicant’s submissions can be summarized as follows:

47. Scope of the Application:

- The Applicant expressly stipulates in the Application that the “findings of the IBSF Appeal Tribunal that the Canadian’s actions were undertaken with the intent to manipulate the points available to athletes who competed at the 11 January 2026 North American World Cup Race in violation of the IOC’s Code of Ethics” are not disputed.

- Nevertheless, the Applicant’s formal prayer in arbitration includes a determination that Bobsleigh Canada Skeleton’s withdrawal of four athletes from the NAC Lake Placid race violated the Olympic Movement Code, and the BCS coaches breached the IBSF Code of Conduct (below par. 51), which the Applicant expressly confirmed at the hearing.

48. Admissibility and jurisdiction: the CAS Ad Hoc Division has jurisdiction over this matter:

- The dispute as to whether the IBSF has the authority to issue full points to the race to remedy the injustice that resulted from the impermissible conduct based on its findings that the Canadians violated the IOC’s Code of Conduct and illegally arose from the issuance of the Final Order, i.e. within the “period of ten days preceding the Opening Ceremony of the Olympic Games” scheduled to take place on 6 February 2026.

- The Interim Order cannot not be considered final for purpose of any appeal to CAS, the Interim Order reserving “further adjudication of the Complaint in a final order” in its transmittal email, and in effect the 21 days deadline to challenge “by way of appeal” to CAS the IBSF Appeals Tribunal “decisions” under Article 18.3 of the IBSF Statutes/Article R49 of the Code of Sports-arbitration for Sport (the “CAS Code”) applied as from the notification of the complete, reasoned decision.

49. Burden of proof: CAS precedent has readily established that the burden of proof in cases involving match fixing or match manipulation should be to a comfortable satisfaction, defined as being greater than a mere balance of probability, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/003 11

50. Merits:

- The First and Second Respondents’ decision to pull the four healthy BCS athletes to “eliminate the odds” of Jane Channell being surpassed in the IBSF Ranking which would result in BCS only earning one female skeleton athlete quota place for the 2026 OWG instead of two, meets the classic definition of competition manipulation under the Olympic Movement Code on Prevention of Manipulation of Competition (Article 2.2), as confirmed by the Final Order.

- IBSF Appeals Tribunal Code, Section VIII.G gives the IBSF Tribunal power to invalidate or modify results from an IBSF sports contest; consequently, the IBSF Appeal Tribunal’s finding that it does not have the authority to award full points for the race is erroneous.

b. Applicant’s Prayer for Relief

51. The Applicant requests the Panel:

“8.1 Appellant respectfully requests that the Panel find as follows:

8.1.1 That the appeal of Katie Uhlaender is admissible and will be decided on an expedited basis;

8.1.2 That the decision of the IIU be set aside;

8.1.3 A determination that the decision by Bobsleigh Canada Skeleton to withdraw four (4) of its athletes from the NAC Lake Placid Race was in violation of the Olympic Movement Code on the Prevention of the Manipulation of Competitions and that the BCS coaches violated the IBSF Code of Conduct by violating said rules.

8.1.4 That full ranking points (i.e., 100% of the available points as opposed to 75%) be awarded for the 11 January 2026 NAC Lake Placid Race 7; and 8.1.5 That the 18 January 2026 Ranking List be updated to reflect the full points.

8.2 The Appellant intends for this Statement of Appeal to also serve as her Appeal Brief, in light of the expedited nature of this Appeal and the Ad Hoc Division.

8.3 Appellant further designates the following witnesses:.

8.3.1 Katie Uhlaender, who will testify as to her background and experience as an elite skeleton athlete, the circumstances surrounding the 11 January 2026 NAC Lake Placid Race 7, her communications with Joe Cecchini, and the impact of the Canadian’s actions on her athletic career and ability to compete in the 2026 Winter Olympic Games.

8.3.2 Jack Thomas, who may be called upon to testify regarding his communications 27with Joe Cecchini about his decision to withdraw BCS athletes from the 2026 NAC Lake Placid Race and the impact that such actions have on other athletes and the sport of Skeleton.

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/003 12

8.3.3 Mirela Rahneva (Canada), who may be called upon to testify consistent with their statement as an interested party.

8.3.4 Kellie Delka & Mike Douglas (Puerto Rico), who may be called upon to testify consistent with their statement as an interested party.

8.3.5 Emilio de Souza Strappason (Brazil), who may be called upon to testify consistent with their statement as an interested party.

8.3.6 Sarah Krebs (Malta), who may be called upon to testify consistent with their statement as an interested party.

8.3.7 Tom Johansen (Denmark), who may be called upon to testify consistent with their statement as an interested party.

8.3.8 Enrique Rodriguez (Virgin Islands), who may be called upon to testify consistent with the statement submitted on behalf of the Virgin Islands as an interested party.

8.3.9 Katie Tannenbaum (Virgin Islands), who may be called upon to testify regarding the circumstances surrounding the 11 January 2026 NAC Lake Placid Race 7,

8.3.10 Appellant reserves the right to designate additional witnesses in response to any arguments or issues raised by Respondents”.

B. First Respondent

a. First Respondent’s Submissions

52. The First Respondent’s submissions can be summarized as follows:

53. Admissibility and jurisdiction:

- The CAS Ad Hoc Division’s jurisdiction is limited to appeals in respect of disputes that arise during the Olympic Games or ten days prior to the Opening Ceremony, i.e. by 27 January 2026.

- The dispute “crystallized” at the very latest on 23 January 2026 with the Interim Order concluding that the IBSF Appeals Tribunal lacked the authority to award the Applicant the full points she seeks which is the very essence of what the Applicant seeks to challenge before the CAS Ad Hoc Division.

54. Admissibility:

- The withdrawal of Canadian racers did not affect in any way the allocation of quota places for the women’s skeleton competitions at the 2026 OWG to National Olympic Committees.

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/003 13

55. Merits:

- Even under the disputed assumption of a sanctionable conduct, the IBSF Appeals Tribunal correctly determined the limits of its own authority under paragraph VIII.G of the IBSF Appeals Tribunal Code to “modify results”, which applies for example when a particular athlete engages in wrongdoing during a race, with a consequent impact on race results. The IBSF Appeals Tribunal Code does not contemplate or allow for the wholesale revision of race record based on the fiction of 21 race participants.

- Such relief would further be predicated on the flawed assumption that every single race participant would achieve the same standing in a hypothetical race with additional racers that never actually occurred.

- Strategic withdrawals from competition are common and expressly in skeleton allowed without limitation or consequences (sect. 8.6(d) IBSF International Skeleton Rules, “ISR”); in casu, withdrawal was decided after IBSF officials’ prior confirmation that it was permitted, and the IBSF Appeals Tribunal did not subsequently make any findings of competition manipulation on that account, expressly declining to decide that issue leaving it an open question.

b. First Respondent’s Prayer for Relief

56. The First Respondent requests the Panel:

“BCS respectfully requests that this appeal be dismissed”.

C. Second Respondent

57. The Second Respondent did not file any submission and did not make any formal request.

D. Third Respondent

a. Third Respondent’s Submissions

58. The Third Respondent’s submissions can be summarized as follows:

59. Jurisdiction:

- The CAS Ad Hoc Division is no appellate body; it settles disputes which arise on the occasion of, or in connection with the Olympic Games. The formal reference point for the jurisdiction ratione materiae of the CAS Ad Hoc Division is a dispute, and for temporal jurisdiction when the dispute arose.

- In the present case, the dispute arose on 11 January 2026, i.e. at the skeleton competition in Lake Placid, after the Canadian team withdrew four of its athletes from competition resulting in a reduction of points for the results of the competitors, or at the latest on 15

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/003 14

January 2026 when the Athlete learned of the result of the IIU investigation and disagreed with the outcome. The IBSF Appeals Tribunal procedure was not the beginning of the dispute, but rather the culmination of it; the date of the IBSF Appeals Tribunal’s decision may be relevant for the calculation of the deadline of an appeal to the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division but is irrelevant to determine whether the CAS Ad Hoc Division has jurisdiction.

60. Admissibility:

- The Applicant lacks sufficient interest worth of legal protection as the case pertains to the allocation of quota places to skeleton athletes representing the USA. This is not for the IBSF to decide but is in the power of the USOPC and the national federation responsible for skeleton, irrespectively of the outcome of this procedure. When USOPC reported Kelly Curtis and Mystique Ro as the athletes selected for the US skeleton team on 26 January 2026, and published it on the USOPC’s website on 28 January 2026, USOPC was well aware of but did not take into consideration the ongoing dispute concerning Katie Uhlaender and her claim that she should be awarded more points because of the withdrawal of the Canadian athletes, which would then place her ahead of Mystique Ro.

- Even if the Applicant would be awarded the “full ranking points” for the 11 January 2026 NAC Lake Placid Race 7, this would not lead to an additional quota place for the team USA, nor would the Applicant automatically qualify for the 2026 OWG. It would still be up to the USOPC and USA Bobsled Skeleton to replace one of the already nominated athletes by the Applicant and ask for a late amendment of their nomination list.

61. Merits:

- IBSF agrees with and accepts the IBSF Appeals Tribunal’s finding that “it is satisfied that the action of the Canadians was intentional and directed to reducing the points available to athletes”; the IBSF Appeals Tribunal referred to “actions” without qualifying them as “manipulation”, which is a legal term; it did not find that BCS and/or Mr Cecchini intentionally manipulated the outcome of the competition.

- The IBSF Appeals Tribunal rightly held that it has no legal authority to amend the ranking of the NAC Lake Placid competitions and award the Applicant more points.

b. Third Respondent’s Prayer for Relief

62. The Third Respondent requests the Panel:

“1. Not to accept the Application because of lack of jurisdiction.

2. Subsidiarily, and in case the Panel accepts jurisdiction of the CAS Ad Hoc Division, it shall dismiss the Application in its entirety to the extent that it is admissible.

3. To order the Applicants to pay a fair contribution towards the Respondent's legal costs to be determined by the Panel.

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/003 15

Procedural Request

1. The Panel shall decide on its jurisdiction based on the written of the Appellant and this Reply, without holding a hearing.

2. If the Panel accepts its jurisdiction, it shall decide the dispute on the merits of the Application based on the written submissions without holding a hearing.

3. If the Panel prefers to hold a hearing, witnesses and interested parties which already submitted a written statement, shall not be heard at the hearing”.