The case revolves around Loredana Elena Toma, a Romanian weightlifter, who sought to challenge her ineligibility to participate in the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games through the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc Division. The dispute originated from the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) suspending the Romanian Weightlifting Federation (RWF) for one year due to multiple anti-doping violations by its athletes in 2012. This suspension, effective from June 15, 2021, resulted in the annulment of Toma’s international ranking, making her ineligible for the Olympics. Toma requested the IWF to allow her to compete as a neutral athlete, but the IWF did not respond. She then filed an appeal with CAS, requesting an expedited procedure, which the IWF refused. After another unanswered request to the IWF, Toma submitted an application to the CAS ad hoc Division on July 16, 2021. The CAS ad hoc Division’s jurisdiction is limited to disputes arising during the Olympic Games or within ten days before the Opening Ceremony, which for Tokyo 2020 was July 23, 2021. Since the initial dispute stemmed from the IWF’s June 15 decision, it fell outside this jurisdictional timeline. The Sole Arbitrator, Juan Pablo Arriagada, ruled that the CAS ad hoc Division could not hear the case due to this jurisdictional limitation. The arbitrator also noted that the IWF’s refusal to agree to an expedited procedure was within its rights and that decisions regarding neutral athlete participation are discretionary policy matters, not subject to CAS review unless specific rules are contested. The arbitrator highlighted that the Respondents—IWF, International Olympic Committee (IOC), and Romanian Olympic and Sports Committee (ROSC)—did not file responses to Toma’s application within the deadline. The case underscores the procedural constraints of the CAS ad hoc Division and the challenges athletes face in navigating sports arbitration, particularly in time-sensitive disputes. The arbitrator acknowledged the significance of the Olympics for Toma’s career but concluded that the proper legal avenue would have been to request provisional measures in her initial appeal rather than filing a new case with the ad hoc Division. The ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the limited scope of CAS review in discretionary policy decisions by sports governing bodies. Ultimately, the CAS ad hoc Division dismissed Toma’s application, reinforcing the boundaries of its jurisdiction in such disputes.