CAS PROVISIONAL SUSPENSION OF COACH DURING THE 2026 WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES

In a decision, OG 2026/08, which was rendered on 12 February 2026 by the Ad Hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS AHD) during the Milano-Cortina Winter Olympic Games (the Games), the CAS has confirmed the broad discretion of International Sports Federations in safeguarding the integrity of their sports.

The case raises the delicate balance between the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair hearing, and the preventive protection of sporting integrity in the specific context of the Olympic Games, which is characterised by exceptionally compressed timelines and heightened safeguarding requirements.

The proceedings originated from a complaint lodged in the summer of 2025 by a Latvian figure skater against her former coach, an ISU technical specialist who was also responsible for the preparation of another athlete for the Games. The allegations concerned physical, psychological and emotional abuse alleged to have occurred over a prolonged period whilst the complainant was still a minor.

Following the complaint, the International Skating Union (ISU) initiated an internal investigation, mandating a third party to conduct inquiries and gather witness statements, as well as medical documentation. In February 2026, only days before the commencement of the Games, the ISU Disciplinary Commission imposed a provisional suspension on the coach, barring him from all ISU-related activities, including participation in the Games.

The coach promptly filed an application before the CAS AHD and contended that the decision had been adopted at a strategically prejudicial moment, namely after the Games had already commenced, and in the absence of any determination on the merits of the allegations. He further argued that the measure amounted, in substance, to an anticipatory sanction, producing irreversible consequences for his professional career and for the Olympic preparation of the athlete under his supervision.

As a preliminary matter, the ISU challenged the jurisdiction of the CAS AHD, submitting that a provisional suspension did not constitute a “final decision” capable of appeal and that the dispute had arisen prior to the Olympic period.

The CAS AHD rejected that objection, reaffirming the cumulative jurisdictional requirements consistently recognised in its jurisprudence:

• the dispute must arise “on the occasion of or in connection with the Olympic Games”;
• it must arise during the Games or within the ten days preceding the Opening Ceremony;
• and
• internal remedies must have been exhausted, unless doing so would render recourse to the Ad Hoc Division ineffective.

In the present case, the Panel found that the suspension decision—directly affecting the participation of the coach in the Olympic Games—was plainly connected with the Games and had been adopted within the relevant timeframe.

Furthermore, the ISU itself had acknowledged the absence of any additional internal remedies capable of being pursued within a timeframe compatible with the Olympic schedule.

The central issue in the case concerned the legal characterisation of the provisional suspension and the applicable standard for its review.

The Panel reaffirmed a well-established principle: a provisional suspension constitutes a protective and precautionary measure, not a disciplinary sanction. It does not presuppose a definitive finding of liability, nor does it imply any advance determination of guilt. Its function is to safeguard the integrity of the sport, to protect the welfare and safety of athletes, and to prevent further risk pending a final determination on the merits.

In cases involving allegations of abuse—particularly within relationships marked by structural imbalances of power, such as that between coach and athlete—the preventive interest assumes heightened importance.

One of the principal submissions of the coach was that the suspension, imposed during the course of the Games, produced irreversible effects and, therefore, operated, in reality, as a sanction, causing serious prejudice also to the Olympic athlete concerned.

The Panel viewed this argument through the lens of proportionality. In balancing the coach’s individual interest in participating in the Games against the ISU regulatory interest in protecting athletes and preserving sporting integrity, the CAS AHD accorded precedence to the latter.

Significantly, the Panel observed that indirect effects on third parties—such as the athlete coached by the coach—cannot override the preventive imperative where serious allegations of abuse have been raised. To conclude otherwise would risk subordinating safeguarding objectives to contingent competitive interests, thereby undermining the effectiveness of integrity frameworks within international sport.

The coach further invoked the presumption of innocence, arguing that the ISU Disciplinary Commission had effectively required him to demonstrate that the complainant’s psychiatric condition had not been caused by his conduct.

The CAS AHD clarified that, in the context of provisional measures, the applicable standard is not that of full proof or “beyond reasonable doubt”, but rather the existence of a sufficient prima facie basis to justify the adoption of a protective measure. Referring to its prior case law, the Panel reiterated that it is sufficient that there be a “reasonable possibility” that the alleged violation has been committed.

As the provisional suspension did not entail any definitive finding of guilt, the Panel held that it did not infringe the presumption of innocence.

From a procedural standpoint, the coach also had alleged a breach of his right to be heard, including in relation to the alleged failure to consider certain written submissions filed shortly before the challenged decision.

The Panel considered that the coach had been afforded an opportunity to present his case and to seek urgent reconsideration of the suspension. The ISU disciplinary proceedings on the merits remained pending, within which the applicant would be able to exercise fully his rights of defence. Moreover, any procedural deficiencies, should they arise, could be remedied in subsequent proceedings or, if necessary, on appeal before the Ordinary CAS Division following a final decision.

No material violation of procedural fairness was, therefore, established.

In view of these considerations, the CAS AHD dismissed the claims of the coach and upheld, in full, the decision of the ISU Disciplinary Commission.

The CAS decision forms part of a now well-established line of CAS jurisprudence recognising the broad margin of discretion enjoyed by International Sports Federations in adopting preventive measures, which are designed to protect athletes and preserve the integrity of their sports.

Three key principles emerge with clarity:

• A provisional suspension is not a sanction but a protective measure;
• The evidentiary threshold at the provisional stage is attenuated, requiring only a credible prima facie basis;
• The interest in safeguarding athletes may prevail over individual interests, even in the highly sensitive and time-critical context of the Olympic Games.

The decision further underscores the central role of safeguarding mechanisms within contemporary sports law. The protection of athletes’ physical and psychological integrity is treated as a dominant value, not to be displaced by competitive or reputational considerations.

We act in CAS cases and further information is available from Avv. Sara Botti or Dr Lucien Valloni by emailing them at botti@valloni.ch or valloni@valloni.ch respectively.