The case involves Russian freestyle skiers Andrei Makhnev and Artem Shuldiakov, along with the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC), challenging the International Ski Federation (FIS) over the allocation of quota positions for the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics. The dispute arose because the athletes, who were among Russia's top moguls skiers, were unable to participate in four World Cup events in Canada and the USA due to COVID-19 travel restrictions. These restrictions stemmed from the fact that the athletes had received the Russian Sputnik V vaccine, which was not recognized by the USA and Canada at the time. Despite efforts by the ROC to secure exemptions, the athletes were denied entry, significantly impacting their qualification chances for the Olympics. The ROC argued that the athletes should retain their quotas or receive additional ones, as their inability to compete was beyond their control. The FIS expressed sympathy but maintained that cancellations and injuries are common in sports and that it would work to ensure fair qualification without disadvantaging athletes from other nations.
The case was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Ad Hoc Division, which has jurisdiction over disputes arising during or shortly before the Olympic Games. The panel examined whether the CAS had jurisdiction and whether the athletes' claims were valid. The ROC contended that the athletes were unfairly deprived of qualification opportunities due to discriminatory travel restrictions, violating the Olympic Charter's principle of non-discrimination. They requested either the reallocation of unused quotas from other Russian athletes or the granting of additional spots. The FIS and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) countered that the dispute fell outside the CAS Ad Hoc Division's jurisdiction, as the issue arose before the ten-day window preceding the Olympics. They also argued that quota adjustments were under the IOC's authority and that reallocating spots from other disciplines would violate qualification rules.
The CAS panel ultimately ruled that it lacked jurisdiction, as the dispute had crystallized earlier than the ten-day period before the Opening Ceremony. The decision underscored the challenges of balancing fairness in sports with external factors like government regulations, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. While the panel acknowledged the athletes' difficulties, it emphasized adherence to procedural timelines and jurisdictional boundaries in sports arbitration. The ruling dismissed the application, with each party bearing its own costs, as per CAS Ad Hoc Rules. The case highlights the complexities of Olympic qualification processes and the tension between athlete rights and the regulatory authority of international sports federations. The outcome set a precedent for handling similar disputes in future Olympic qualification scenarios.