By Kaylah Dove
During the 2026 Sports Lawyers Association Conference in Chicago this spring, a panel of sports law experts examined major Olympic disputes and recent Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) anti-doping case law.
The panel featured Michael Lenard, president of the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS); Matthieu Reeb, director general of the Court of Arbitration for Sport; and William Sternheimer, manager of education at CAS. The discussion provided insight into the evolving role of CAS in resolving high-profile Olympic disputes and shaping global anti-doping jurisprudence.
Lenard opened the session by discussing the historical development of CAS’s Ad Hoc Division and its role in resolving disputes during the Olympic Games. He explained that the expedited arbitration framework emerged, in part, from controversies involving American sprinter Butch Reynolds in the early 1990s, highlighting the need for athletes to have immediate access to independent dispute resolution during Olympic competition.
Lenard emphasized that the Ad Hoc Division serves two primary purposes: preserving the orderly operation of the Olympic Games while ensuring athletes are not deprived of meaningful procedural protections. He noted that the system’s expanded standing and jurisdictional principles were intentionally designed to prevent athletes from being left without an effective forum during the Games.
Reeb reviewed several notable disputes arising from recent Olympic competitions.
One case involved the British Bobsleigh & Skeleton Association’s attempt to introduce a redesigned aerodynamic helmet during the Milan-Cortina Winter Games. CAS ultimately upheld the International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation’s determination that the helmet violated equipment regulations because of its altered aerodynamic features.
Reeb also discussed the widely publicized case involving Ukrainian athlete Vladyslav Heraskevych, who sought to wear a helmet honoring Ukrainian athletes killed during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. CAS upheld restrictions prohibiting political demonstrations during Olympic competition, concluding that while athletes maintain freedom of expression, the field of play must remain politically neutral under Olympic regulations.
Additional disputes addressed during the panel included athlete-selection controversies, procedural challenges involving Olympic scoring protests, and disciplinary matters arising from coach misconduct allegations.
The panel also revisited the ongoing controversy surrounding the women’s floor exercise final at the Paris 2024 Olympic Games involving Jordan Chiles and Romanian gymnast Ana Bărbosu. Reeb explained the procedural issues concerning the timeliness of scoring protests and noted that aspects of the dispute remain under review following proceedings before Swiss authorities.
Sternheimer then focused on recent developments in CAS anti-doping case law, emphasizing the stringent burden athletes face when attempting to establish contamination defenses or demonstrate a lack of intent.
His presentation analyzed several high-profile matters, including the Kamila Valieva contamination defense, Paul Pogba’s appeal involving prohibited substances, and Simona Halep’s contaminated-supplement case.
Sternheimer explained that CAS jurisprudence consistently requires athletes to identify the source of a prohibited substance before sanctions may be meaningfully reduced. Even when contamination theories appear plausible, CAS panels continue to apply strict evidentiary standards when evaluating whether athletes have met their burden of proof.
The discussion also highlighted the importance of procedural compliance by anti-doping organizations. Sternheimer noted that CAS panels have increasingly scrutinized whether governing bodies properly followed notification, testing, and adjudicatory requirements before imposing sanctions.
Collectively, the panel explored how CAS continues to balance athlete rights, procedural fairness, and the integrity of international sport in an increasingly complex global sports environment.
Dove is a 2L at University of Texas School of Law.
