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

At a glance

Parties

Katie Uhlaender (United States skeleton racer) v. Bobsleigh Canada Skeleton (BCS), Joseph Luke Cecchini (Canadian national skeleton head coach) and the International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation (IBSF)

Case no.

CAS OG 26/003

Forum and rules

CAS ad hoc Division for the Milano-Cortina 2026 Olympic Winter Games; CAS Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games (CAS Ad Hoc Rules); Rule 61 of the Olympic Charter

Panel

Isabelle Fellrath (President), James Drake, Luigi Fumagalli

Sector

Sport: skeleton; Olympic qualification

Outcome

Jurisdiction declined (2 February 2026). The dispute arose by 23 January 2026 at the latest, before the ten-day period preceding the Opening Ceremony.

Amount

No monetary claim. No order as to costs; CAS ad hoc services are free and each party bears its own costs.

The dispute

Katie Uhlaender, the third-ranked US women's skeleton athlete, challenged the decision of BCS and its coach Joe Cecchini to withdraw four of six Canadian women from the North American Cup race in Lake Placid on 11 January 2026. The withdrawal cut the field below 20 athletes, which under table 11.3 of the International Skeleton Rules 2025 reduced the available ranking points from 100% to 75%. She argued that this was competition manipulation under the Olympic Movement Code on the Prevention of the Manipulation of Competitions. She asked for full ranking points for the race and an updated 18 January 2026 Ranking List; she was not selected for the US team at the 2026 Games. The IBSF Interim Integrity Unit dismissed the complaints, and the IBSF Appeals Tribunal held that it had no power to award full points, although it found the Canadians' action intentional and directed at reducing the points. The respondents and the IOC (as amicus) argued that the CAS ad hoc Division lacked jurisdiction ratione temporis, that the athlete lacked a legal interest because quota places belong to NOCs, and that the IBSF Appeals Tribunal had correctly found it had no such power.

Key holdings

1. A dispute is a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of interests between two persons. It must be distinguished from a claim, and the date it arises cannot be the date the request for arbitration is filed. The Panel adopted the reasoning of CAS OG 14/003 on this point. ¶¶ 75–76
2. Whether the Interim Order of 23 January 2026 or the 15 January 2026 IIU decision was final is not the decisive question. Article 18.3 of the IBSF Statutes and Article R49 of the CAS Code govern time limits for appeals to CAS, not the jurisdiction of the ad hoc Division. ¶ 77
3. The dispute with BCS and Mr Cecchini existed once the athlete formally contested the withdrawal before the IBSF Appeals Tribunal on 19 January 2026. The IBSF opposed her position in its submission of 22 January 2026, and the Interim Order rejected her request for full points on 23 January 2026. The dispute had therefore arisen by 23 January 2026 at the latest, outside the ad hoc Division's temporal jurisdiction. ¶¶ 79–81
4. The reasoned Final Order of 28 January 2026 changed nothing on the request for full ranking points. It repeated the conclusion of the Interim Order, and the athlete's request for reasons only sought the grounds for a position already finally expressed. ¶ 82
5. The CAS ad hoc Division has no jurisdiction over the application filed on 30 January 2026. The Panel did not address admissibility or the merits. ¶¶ 83–85; operative part
6. No order as to costs. Under Article 22 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules, the Division's services are free and each party pays its own costs of representation, experts, witnesses and interpreters. ¶¶ 86–88

Procedural history

1. 11 January 2026BCS and its coach withdraw four Canadian women from the NAC race in Lake Placid; available ranking points fall to 75%.
2. 15 January 2026The IBSF Interim Integrity Unit dismisses the complaints about the withdrawal. The athlete asks the IOC Integrity Unit to investigate; the IOC Ethics and Compliance Office declines on 16 January 2026 for lack of jurisdiction.
3. 19 January 2026The athlete files a complaint, or alternatively an appeal against the IIU decision, before the IBSF Appeals Tribunal.
4. 23 January 2026IBSF Appeals Tribunal Interim Order: it has no authority to award full points; the order is declared final for any appeal to CAS.
5. 28 January 2026IBSF Appeals Tribunal reasoned Final Order: the Canadians' action was intentional and directed at reducing points, but the complaint is dismissed for lack of power to grant the relief.
6. 30 January 2026The athlete files her application with the CAS ad hoc Division; the Panel is constituted the same day.
7. 1 February 2026Hearing by videoconference.
8. 2 February 2026Award: the CAS ad hoc Division has no jurisdiction.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Isabelle Fellrath President, CAS ad hoc Division Panel
• James Drake Co-arbitrator, CAS ad hoc Division Panel
• Luigi Fumagalli Co-arbitrator, CAS ad hoc Division Panel

For the claimant

Howard Jacobs · Leah M. Bernhard · Katlin F. Freeman

For the respondent

Justin Safayeni · Aimee Huntington · Adam Klevinas · R. Fitzgerald Scott · Stephan Netzle

For other participants

Antonio Rigozzi · Craig M. O'Shea

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• CAS ad hoc Division
• Milano-Cortina 2026
• Olympic Winter Games
• skeleton
• Olympic qualification
• jurisdiction ratione temporis
• ten-day period before Opening Ceremony
• definition of dispute
• Mavrommatis
• competition manipulation
• strategic withdrawal
• ranking points
• IBSF Appeals Tribunal
• quota places
• Rule 61 Olympic Charter
• amicus curiae

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.