British Bobsleigh & Skeleton Association Ltd (BBSA) v. International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF)

V. JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY

48. Rule 61.2 of the Olympic Charter provides as follows:

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/004 14

“61 Dispute Resolution

[…]

2. Any dispute arising on the occasion of, or in connection with, the Olympic Games shall be submitted exclusively to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), in accordance with the Code of Sports-Related Arbitration”.

49. Article 1 of the CAS Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games (hereinafter referred to as the “CAS Ad Hoc Rules”) provides as follows:

“Article 1. Application of the Present Rules and Jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)

The purpose of the present Rules is to provide, in the interests of the athletes and of sport, for the resolution by arbitration of any disputes covered by Rule 61 of the Olympic Charter, insofar as they arise during the Olympic Games or during a period of ten days preceding the Opening Ceremony of the Olympic Games.

In the case of a request for arbitration against a decision pronounced by the IOC, an NOC, an International Federation or an Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, the claimant must, before filing such request, have exhausted all the internal remedies available to him/her pursuant to the statutes or regulations of the sports body concerned, unless the time needed to exhaust the internal remedies would make the appeal to the CAS Ad Hoc Division ineffective”.

50. As consistently held in CAS jurisprudence, including CAS OG 22/02, the jurisdiction of the CAS Ad Hoc Division is limited. Jurisdiction exists only where the cumulative requirements set out in Article 1 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules are satisfied. In particular, the dispute submitted to the Panel must:

(a) arise on the occasion of, or in connection with, the Olympic Games within the meaning of Rule 61.2 of the Olympic Charter; and

(b) arise during the Olympic Games or within the ten-day period preceding the Opening Ceremony;

(c) where the request is directed against a decision of a sports body, either follow the exhaustion of available internal remedies or fall within the exception provided in Article 1 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules where the time required to exhaust such remedies would render recourse to the CAS Ad Hoc Division ineffective.

A. Subject matter jurisdiction

51. As a preliminary matter, the Panel notes that in its Requests for relief, the Applicant requests this Panel to find that the Helmet is safe to be used in “future IBSF competitions, and that based on its safety certifications it is objectively proven to be more safe and beneficial to athletes’ health and safety than any of the other available helmets being used by athletes at IBSF and Olympic Games Skeleton Sport competitions” and that the Respondent be condemned “for seeking prohibit the use of the Certified Helmet and to force athletes to wear uncertified helmets that fail to provide the safety guarantees rigorously tested for and established by the bodies that administer the ASTM 2040 and EN 1077 standards”.

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/004 15

52. At the Hearing, the Applicant confirmed that its Requests for reliefs were limited to the present OWG 2026.

53. The Panel notes that, pursuant to Rule 61.2 of the Olympic Charter, the jurisdiction of the CAS Ad Hoc Division is limited to “any dispute arising on the occasion of, or in connection with, the Olympic Games”.

54. Therefore, even if the Applicant had decided to maintain its Requests for relief beyond the present OWG 2026, the Panel would lack jurisdiction to rule on matters exceeding its limited mandate under Rule 61.2 of the Olympic Charter and Article 1 of the CAS Ad Hoc Arbitration Rules.

55. Further, the Panel also notes that the Respondent characterizes the dispute as a “field of play” matter involving technical compliance determinations by Material Controllers, and therefore submits that it is not appropriate for arbitral review.

56. The Panel, however, does not accept this characterization. The Applicant does not assert that the Respondent is bound by any alleged verbal approval given on 1 January 2026, which it describes as contextual only. The Applicant seeks a determination as to whether the Helmet complies with Article 10.16.1 of the applicable rules for use at the OWG 2026.

57. The Respondent’s position of non-compliance was communicated by email on 29 January 2026, following a review of documentation and the Helmet’s design. It was not a split-second decision taken by officials during competition.

58. The question whether equipment complies with written rules is a matter of rule interpretation and application. While it may involve technical evidence, it is ultimately a legal question of the type routinely addressed by arbitral tribunals.

59. The doctrine of “field of play” restraint applies to discretionary, real-time decisions made during competition. It does not extend to pre-competition administrative determinations regarding equipment compliance. To hold otherwise would insulate such determinations from any form of review.

60. Moreover, the Respondent cannot have it both ways. It cannot argue to this Panel that the matter is a “field of play” issue beyond legal review while simultaneously asserting that the Applicant should have use the internal remedies of the IBSF Appeals Tribunal, which expressly lacks jurisdiction over field of play matters. If the IBSF Appeals Tribunal would lack jurisdiction, then there is no internal remedy to exhaust.

B. Jurisdiction ratione temporis

61. The Parties disagree as to whether the Respondent’s email of 29 January 2026 constituted a final decision or merely a provisional opinion. The email stated that “the Material Controllers are of the opinion that the helmet does not comply with the IBSF Skeleton Rules”, while also indicating that “in order to further assess the technical development of your proposed helmet prototype, we intend to organise a call within

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/004 16

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”.

62. For the purposes of jurisdiction, however, the precise characterization of the 29 January 2026 email is not decisive. This is because the Parties agree that a dispute arose on 28 January 2026, when the Applicant contested the Respondent’s position communicated on 26 January 2026 and sought reconsideration. The Respondent’s reply of 29 January 2026 confirmed its position that the Helmet did not comply with the applicable rules.

63. The Parties agree that the dispute arose within the ten-day period preceding the Opening Ceremony, as required by Article 1 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules.

64. Hence, the jurisdictional requirements relating to the existence of a dispute connected to the Olympic Games and arising within the relevant temporal window are satisfied. The remaining issue is whether, assuming arguendo that the 29 January 2026 email constitutes a “decision” within the meaning of Article 1 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules, the Applicant was required to exhaust internal remedies prior to seizing the CAS Ad Hoc Division, or whether the exception to that requirement applies.

C. Exhaustion of internal remedies

65. Where a request for arbitration is directed against a decision of an International Federation, Article 1 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules requires exhaustion of available internal remedies, unless the time required to exhaust such remedies would make recourse to the CAS Ad Hoc Division ineffective.

66. The requirement to exhaust internal remedies serves important purposes, including respect for the autonomy of sports governing bodies and affording them the opportunity to resolve disputes internally in the first instance.

67. That requirement is, however, expressly subject to an exception where “the time needed to exhaust the internal remedies would make the appeal to the CAS Ad Hoc Division ineffective”. This exception reflects the specific function of the CAS Ad Hoc Division, namely to provide urgent and effective dispute resolution during the Olympic Games period, when ordinary appeal timelines are incompatible with competition schedules.

68. The question for the Panel is therefore whether, in the circumstances of the present case, requiring the Applicant to exhaust the internal remedies of the IBSF Appeals Tribunal would render recourse to the CAS Ad Hoc Division ineffective.

69. In casu, the dispute arose on 28 January 2026. The first official training session is scheduled for 9 February 2026, and the first competition for 12 February 2026.

70. The Respondent submits that the IBSF Appeals Tribunal could render a decision prior to 9 February 2026. Even accepting this assertion arguendo, the relevant question is whether there would thereafter be sufficient time for meaningful review by the CAS Ad Hoc Division.

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/004 17

71. If the IBSF Appeals Tribunal were to issue a decision shortly before the first training session, the Applicant would have, at most, one day to file an application with the CAS Ad Hoc Division, prepare the necessary documentation, serve the opposing party, allow for submissions, constitute a panel, and obtain a decision. In the Panel’s view, this would not amount to an effective or meaningful opportunity for CAS Ad Hoc review.

72. The exhaustion requirement is not intended to operate in a manner that effectively forecloses access to the CAS Ad Hoc Division. Where insistence on internal remedies would, as a practical matter, eliminate the possibility of timely CAS review, the exception in Article 1 applies (CAS OG 22/004).

73. The Respondent further submits that the IBSF Appeals Tribunal could act expeditiously and notes that its Chairman would be present in Cortina d’Ampezzo from 6 February 2026, with other members available by videoconference.

74. However, the Respondent has not identified any published or established expedited procedure governing Games-time appeals before the IBSF Appeals Tribunal. Nor has it explained which procedural rules would apply, what timelines would govern submissions and deliberations, or whether member federations had been notified of the existence of such expedited procedures.

75. The mere availability of tribunal members does not amount to an established, effective, and expedited remedy upon which the Applicant could reasonably rely. An internal remedy whose procedure, timing, and jurisdiction are uncertain cannot be regarded as sufficiently effective for the purposes of the exhaustion requirement.

D. Conclusion

76. In light of the foregoing, and given the circumstances of the present case, the Panel finds that it has jurisdiction to hear this dispute.

VI. APPLICABLE LAW

77. Under art. 17 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules, the Panel shall decide the dispute “pursuant to the Olympic Charter, the applicable regulations, general principles of law and the rules of law, the application of which it deems appropriate”.

78. The Panel notes that the “applicable regulations” in this case are the IBSF Rules.

VII. DISCUSSION — A. Legal framework

79. These proceedings are governed by the CAS Ad Hoc Rules enacted by the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (“ICAS”) on 14 October 2003 (amended on 8 July 2021). They are further governed by Chapter 12 of the Swiss Private International Law Act of 18 December

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/004 18

1987 (“PILA”). The PILA applies to this arbitration as a result of the express choice of law contained in Article 7 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules and as the result of the choice of Lausanne, Switzerland as the seat of the CAS Ad Hoc Division and of the Panel, pursuant to Article 7 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules.

80. According to Article 16 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules, the Panel has “full power to establish the facts on which the application is based”.

B. Merits

81. The Applicant seeks a declaration that the Helmet complies with Article 10.16.1 of the IBSF Rules and authorization to use it at the OWG 2026. Both Parties however agree that safety is not an issue to be determined by the Panel in the framework of the present proceedings.

82. The Panel notes at the outset that this dispute arises in a context of rapid technological development in athlete safety and performance innovation. In addition to its aerodynamic innovations, the Helmet presented by the Applicant is alleged to be independently certified to international safety standards, and designed to enhance athlete protection.

83. The question is, however, whether, on the evidence before it, the Applicant has sufficiently established that the Panel can determine that the alleged aerodynamic innovations of the Helmet comply with the design and configuration requirements of Article 10.16.1 as currently applicable to the OWG 2026.

a. Burden of Proof

84. Article 10.16.1 provides in its opening paragraph that: “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”.

85. The rule thus expressly places responsibility for compliance with the applicable standards on National Federations. Where a National Federation seeks affirmative relief in the form of a declaration of compliance and advance authorization for use at the OWG 2026, it necessarily bears the burden of proof.

86. The Panel emphasizes that it is not tasked with determining whether the Helmet represents an improvement over existing equipment, nor with deciding what the equipment rules ought to be. Its role is confined to assessing whether the Applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that the Helmet complied with the rules as they currently stand.

87. The Panel is also mindful that it should not substitute its own technical judgment for that of the Respondent’s Material Controllers or the Jury. Rather, it must determine whether the Applicant has provided sufficiently clear and convincing evidence that the Helmet falls within the range of equipment permitted by Article 10.16.1.

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/004 19

b. Analysis

88. The evidence establishes that after the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympic Games the Respondent does not, typically, operate a pre-competition equipment homologation or certification system. Equipment controls are now ordinarily conducted on-site before competition to verify compliance.

89. That said, the absence of a formal homologation procedure does not deprive the Respondent of authority to “assess” compliance prior to competition. The Respondent’s emails of 26 and 29 January 2026 demonstrate that pre-competition “assessments” of equipment compliance can sometimes occur in practice.

90. The issue for determination by the Panel is therefore whether the Applicant has sufficiently established that the Helmet complies with Article 10.16.1.

91. In connection with examining whether the Applicant has discharged its burden of proof, the Panel finds it should also consider whether the Respondent exercised its regulatory authority in a manner consistent with the applicable rules.

92. Although the Respondent enjoys discretion in administering its equipment control system, such discretion must be exercised within the framework of the written rules. The Panel’s task is therefore confined to determining whether the Applicant has sufficiently demonstrated, on the basis of those rules and the evidence, that the Helmet falls within the scope of equipment permitted under Article 10.16.1.

93. The Applicant submits that the relevant provisions are ambiguous and should be interpreted in its favour, invoking both the principle of contra proferentem and the maxim that what is not expressly prohibited is permitted.

94. The Respondent counters that the rules are clear and submits that Article 10.16.1 of the IBSF Rules must be read together with the illustrative drawings contained in Article 12.10, which depict a standard helmet shape and configuration and identify prohibited features.

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/004 20

95. The Panel considers that Article 10.16.1, read in conjunction with the drawings in Article 12.10, provides guidance as to the helmet configurations that are permitted and those that are not. In accordance with Article 15.3, the terms used in the rule, such as “attached”, “modified”, “spoilers”, and “protruding edges”, should be interpreted in context and in light of the rule’s underlying purpose.

96. The Respondent further relies on Article 15.3 of the IBSF Rules on interpretation, which provides that: “[i]f an article in these Rules should be ambiguously defined so that multiple interpretations are possible, the interpretation should be used that matches the underlying meaning for which the article was written”.

97. The Panel accepts that the drawings in Article 12.10 illustrate a baseline or “standard” helmet shape and configuration and serve as a visual aid to understanding the types of shapes and configurations the rules are intended to permit and prevent, including aerodynamic enhancements that depart from that baseline.

98. The Panel further notes that the maxim that what is not prohibited is permitted is not without limits in a regulatory sporting context. Technical equipment rules cannot anticipate every conceivable design variation and must therefore be interpreted purposively rather than as an exhaustive catalogue of prohibited configurations.

99. Against this framework, the Respondent maintains that the Helmet departs from the standard shape and configuration illustrated in the rules. While the Applicant emphasizes that the Helmet is manufactured as one integrated piece and therefore has no “attached” elements, this argument

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/004 21

focuses on the method of manufacture rather than on the resulting shape and configuration assessed against the regulatory standard.

100. Article 10.16.1 provides that “[t]he bottom edge of the helmet shell must maintain the shape of the helmets normally available on the market”. This provision presupposes a reference configuration against which compliance is assessed. Avoiding separately attached elements is not, in itself, sufficient if the integrated design departs from “the shape of helmets normally available on the market”.

101. The Applicant’s experts submit that several helmets currently available on the market exhibit a profile along the lower edge similar to that of the Helmet at issue. The Applicant further notes that, in other sections of the IBSF Rules (in particular Articles 12.3 to 12.6), equipment requirements are accompanied by detailed measurements and corresponding technical drawings. By contrast, the rules governing helmets do not contain equivalent dimensional criteria. The Applicant argues that, had the Respondent intended to regulate helmet shape in a precise manner, it could have adopted detailed design specifications similar to those applied in other sports.

102. The Respondent’s expert submits that the relevant provisions are intended to regulate helmet shape so as to ensure general uniformity and to prevent the development of helmets conferring an aerodynamic advantage. According to the Respondent’s expert, the absence of precise measurements reflects an intentional choice to permit case-by-case assessment by competent technical officials.

103. The Panel notes the absence of detailed technical specifications and lack of precise clarity in some terms in the IBSF Rules but finds that it does not deprive the Respondent of regulatory authority to control helmet shape. Rather, the rules rely on functional standards rather than prescriptive measurements. While this approach necessarily involves an element of discretion, that discretion is directed toward a legitimate regulatory objective, namely preserving equipment uniformity and preventing aerodynamic advantage.

104. Unless the Applicant can demonstrate that the Respondent applied this discretion arbitrarily, inconsistently, in a discriminatory fashion, or contrary to the purpose of the rules, for instance, the lack of precise drawings or the existence of similar market-available helmets does not, in itself, establish that the Respondent exercised its discretion in an arbitrary way.

105. In the present case, the evidence indicates that the Helmet departs from the standard “shape of helmets normally available on the market”, as illustrated under Article 12.10. The Applicant has not demonstrated that the Helmet maintains such a standard shape. Rather, the Helmet reflects a novel design specifically developed to enhance aerodynamic performance where the rear considerably protrudes. While such innovation may be commendable for aerodynamics, the decisive issue for the Panel is whether the Helmet complies with the requirements of the rules currently in force.

106. A clear distinction must therefore be drawn between innovation and regulatory compliance. The Panel is not criticizing the design as unsafe or undesirable. Rather, it emphasizes that the Applicant bears the burden of proving that the design falls within the category of equipment permitted by Article 10.16.1, particularly from an aerodynamic standpoint. Against this

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/004 22

background, the Panel turns to the question of whether the Helmet incorporates prohibited aerodynamic features within the meaning of the rule.

107. The question then becomes whether the Helmet possesses spoilers, protruding edges, or other aerodynamic elements within the meaning of Article 10.16.1. The joint protocol indicates that the Parties’ experts reached opposing conclusions on this issue.

108. The IBSF Rules prohibit helmets with spoilers and protruding edges, while permitting only the chin guard, the visor, and their attachment hardware as protruding elements, provided they do not include aerodynamic coverings.

109. The Applicant submits that the Helmet contains no spoilers, no protruding edges, and no aerodynamic coverings, and that it is manufactured as a single, integrated unit. On that basis, the Applicant argues that the Helmet complies with the IBSF Rules.

110. The Respondent contends that compliance cannot be determined solely by the presence or absence of attached elements. According to the Respondent, the Helmet’s overall shape produces a spoiler effect, the back section constitutes a protruding edge or “element”, and the Helmet’s shape and form may confer an aerodynamic advantage. The resolution of this dispute turns first on the reasonable interpretation of Article 10.16.1.

111. In ordinary usage, “attached” refers to something affixed to another object, and “modified” suggests a change from an original state. These terms, however, cannot be read in isolation from the remainder of Article 10.16.1 or from its purpose.

112. Article 10.16.1 prohibits helmets “with spoilers or protruding edges”. This prohibition is not limited to features added after manufacture. It applies to helmets that possess such features, irrespective of how or when they were created.

113. Likewise, the requirement that helmets have a smooth surface and the prohibition on aerodynamic coverings are not confined to separately attached components.

114. Against this textual background, the Respondent’s position emphasises the functional effect of the Helmet’s overall shape. The Panel accepts that compliance cannot depend solely on whether an element is attached after manufacture, but must also consider whether the design, irrespective of how it is produced, results in an impermissible aerodynamic effect.

115. In this respect, the Applicant’s reliance on one-piece manufacture is not decisive. A helmet may be produced as a single integrated unit and nonetheless fall outside the scope of permitted configurations if its form produces the effects the rule seeks to prevent.

116. If the Applicant’s interpretation were accepted, a manufacturer could circumvent the rules by integrating prohibited features into the initial design rather than adding them later. Such an interpretation would undermine the purpose of Article 10.16.1.

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/004 23

117. The Panel therefore considers that there has been a “modification” to the helmet, within the meaning of Article 10.16.1, compared to the standard market configuration, even when the change producing the aerodynamic effects has been implemented at the manufacturing stage.

118. In these circumstances, the Applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the Helmet falls within the permitted equipment shape and configuration under Article 10.16.1.

119. The Panel does not consider that the principle of contra proferentem can resolve this issue. While relevant in certain contexts, it must be applied cautiously in the regulatory setting of sports equipment rules.

120. International Federations must retain reasonable discretion to interpret and apply technical rules expressed in general terms and applied to novel designs. Such discretion warrants deference absent such factors as arbitrariness, bad faith, or manifest error.

121. The Panel finds that the Respondent’s assessment, which appears non-binding, that the Helmet does not comply with Article 10.16.1 falls within the range of reasonable interpretations and applications of the rule.

122. The Panel fully acknowledges the Applicant’s commitment to athlete safety. Article 10.16.1 itself emphasizes safety as a core objective. Mandatory certification requirements will enter into force only in the 2026-2027 season. For the OWG 2026, helmets must comply with the design and configuration requirements of Article 10.16.1 as currently drafted.

123. The Helmet has obtained ASTM 2040 and EN 1077 (Class A) certifications, and the evidence suggests improved impact safety performance compared with helmets currently in use. Yet, it has not been argued that the innovative, protruding rear section in controversy was for safety purposes. To the contrary, it was only for aerodynamic purposes.

124. The Panel cannot substitute its own assessment of optimal safety policy for the regulatory choices made by the Respondent. If the Applicant believes the current rules inadequately prioritize safety or should be amended to permit certified helmets regardless of aerodynamic design shape and configuration, the appropriate forum for that argument is the Respondent's rule-making process, not this arbitration.

125. That said, the Panel expresses the hope that the Respondent will give due consideration to the safety benefit aspects of the Helmet and will continue to develop rules that appropriately balance safety innovation and competitively fair performance innovation.

126. Although the Application must be dismissed for failure to meet the necessary burden of proof, the Panel offers for consideration certain observations regarding regulatory clarity.

127. The Respondent does not maintain a published or transparent procedure for pre-competition equipment approval or for expedited resolution of equipment disputes. Greater procedural clarity could benefit both the Respondent and its member federations.

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/004 24

128. The events surrounding the meeting of 1 January 2026 illustrate this point. A lengthy meeting attended by senior technical representatives reasonably gave rise to expectations on the part of the Applicant that the equipment had been substantively reviewed. The subsequent communication of non-compliance, issued weeks later, created undesirable uncertainty at a critical stage of Olympic preparation.

129. The Panel does not, in any way, suggest that the Respondent acted in bad faith or that the meeting created a binding approval. However, clearer communication as to the status and consequences of such meetings could have reduced the risk of misunderstanding.

130. Finally, the Panel notes the inherent tension between encouraging safety innovation, reflected in forthcoming mandatory certification requirements, and maintaining competitive fairness through reasonable design restrictions on performance enhancement. This tension warrants clearer expression in the rules so that National Federations are not left to speculate as to what degree innovative, novel equipment will be permitted.

131. Drafting technical rules capable of keeping pace with evolving technology is a complex task. The present case nonetheless demonstrates that the current framework would benefit from greater precision and transparency.

c. Conclusion

132. For the reasons set out above, in view of the information available to date, the Panel concludes that the Applicant has not discharged its burden to sufficiently establish that the Helmet complies with the IBSF Rules. The Application must therefore be dismissed.

VIII. COSTS

133. According to Article 22 para. 1 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules, the services of the CAS Ad Hoc Division “are free of charge”.

134. According to Article 22 para. 2 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules, parties to the CAS Ad Hoc proceedings “shall pay their own costs of legal representation, experts, witnesses and interpreters”.

135. None of the Parties sought costs. Accordingly, there is no order as to costs.

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/004 25

DECISION

The Ad Hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport renders the following decision:

1. The CAS Ad Hoc Division has jurisdiction to deal with the application filed by the British Bobsleigh & Skeleton Association Limited on 2 February 2026 at 13:17 (time of Milan).

2. The application filed by the British Bobsleigh & Skeleton Association Limited on 2 February 2026 at 13:17 (time of Milan) is dismissed.

3. All other and further motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.