The case centers on Krystsina Tsimanouskaya, a Belarusian track and field athlete, who filed a legal challenge against the National Olympic Committee of Belarus (NOC Belarus) during the 2021 Tokyo Olympic Games. The dispute arose when Tsimanouskaya was unexpectedly included in the women’s 4x400m relay team by the Belarus Athletics Federation without her consent, replacing two athletes disqualified for insufficient doping tests. After publicly criticizing this decision on Instagram, she faced negative media coverage and hate messages. Subsequently, the Belarusian coaching staff withdrew her from the 200m event, citing a doctor’s report about her mental and emotional state—a claim she denied, alleging the decision was politically motivated by senior officials. Tsimanouskaya also reported attempts to forcibly repatriate her to Belarus, leading her to seek asylum in Japan and request intervention from the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
On August 2, 2021, Tsimanouskaya filed an urgent application with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Ad Hoc Division to overturn the decision barring her from competing. However, her request was dismissed due to lack of urgency, as the race had already taken place. The CAS Ad Hoc Division later allowed her to proceed with the case, appointing a sole arbitrator. The NOC Belarus requested extensions to prepare its defense, but the arbitrator denied a postponement of the preliminary hearing, emphasizing the need to clarify jurisdictional issues and the relief sought. The case highlighted tensions between athlete rights and political interference in sports, with Tsimanouskaya’s claims reflecting broader concerns about repression in Belarus.
The jurisdictional debate centered on whether Tsimanouskaya had exhausted internal remedies before appealing to CAS, as required by the CAS Ad Hoc Rules. The NOC Belarus argued she had not pursued internal appeals, such as those outlined in the Belarus NOC Statutes, while Tsimanouskaya contended that the urgency of the situation made internal remedies ineffective. The Sole Arbitrator ultimately ruled that the CAS Ad Hoc Division lacked jurisdiction because she had not exhausted these internal avenues. The decision underscored the procedural complexities of sports arbitration, particularly the balance between timely resolution and adherence to established protocols. The Arbitrator did not address the merits of Tsimanouskaya’s claims, focusing solely on jurisdictional grounds and noting that each party would bear its own legal costs. The case illustrated the limitations of the CAS Ad Hoc Division in handling disputes that extend beyond the immediate context of the Olympic Games, particularly when witness testimony and procedural fairness are required. The outcome left Tsimanouskaya to pursue internal remedies before any further appeal to CAS, while the broader implications of the case highlighted the challenges athletes face when contesting decisions influenced by political factors.