The case revolves around Krystsina Tsimanouskaya, a Belarusian sprinter, who filed an urgent application with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Ad hoc Division during the 2021 Tokyo Olympics. Tsimanouskaya sought to overturn the National Olympic Committee of Belarus's (NOCB) decision to withdraw her from the women’s 200m qualification race. The dispute began when she publicly criticized her team’s decision to include her in the 4x400m relay, an event outside her specialization, after other athletes were disqualified due to insufficient doping tests. Her Instagram post drew negative media attention, leading Belarusian officials to claim she was withdrawn due to her "mental and emotional state," a claim she denied, stating she had never been medically examined. Tsimanouskaya alleged the decision was politically motivated and feared retaliation upon returning to Belarus, prompting her to seek asylum in Japan.
The CAS Ad hoc Division President ruled ex parte, dismissing her request for a stay because the qualifications were imminent. The decision considered the criteria for provisional measures under CAS rules, which require irreparable harm, likelihood of success on the merits, and a balance of interests favoring the applicant. While acknowledging national federations' discretion in athlete selection, the ruling emphasized that such discretion must be exercised properly to protect athletes' rights. The CAS affirmed its jurisdiction under the Olympic Charter, which mandates arbitration for disputes during the Games. However, due to the urgency and lack of opportunity to hear from the respondent or clarify key details—especially since Tsimanouskaya was incommunicado—the CAS President found insufficient evidence to conclude her claim had a high likelihood of success. The application was dismissed without addressing the other criteria, though the case raised complex issues about athlete safety and logistical challenges for reinstatement.
Ultimately, the CAS Ad hoc Division ruled against granting the stay, leaving the decision to exclude Tsimanouskaya in place. The case highlights the difficulties of adjudicating urgent disputes during the Olympics, particularly when critical evidence or testimony is unavailable. It also underscores the tension between athletes' rights and the discretionary authority of sports federations, as well as the procedural limitations of ex parte proceedings. The ruling concludes the immediate legal intervention sought by Tsimanouskaya, marking the end of this specific dispute.