Team GB has reacted with ‘disappointment’ after losing an appeal against a ruling that declared their new skeleton helmets as illegal.
The design, handed down by the Court of Arbitration of Sport on Saturday evening, is a blow to world champion Matt Weston and gold-medal rival Marcus Wyatt.
The British pair will now revert to the helmets they used to dominate the 2025-26 World Cup season. Given their success with the previous equipment, in which Weston won five of seven races and Wyatt the other two, the failed appeal will be interpreted as more of an embarrassment than a major setback.
Natalie Dunman, the team’s performance director, said: ‘Based on the strength of the case we put forward, naturally we are disappointed in today’s decision.
‘However, this does not affect our final preparations and nor has the discourse affected the athletes’ focus or optimism going into the Games. Our athletes have been winning medals all season and throughout the Olympic cycle in their current helmets and we remain in a strong position to continue that trend.’
Matt Weston insists he is not letting the row over Team GB’s equipment affect his bid for gold
Weston previously declared he was ‘not concerned’ by the discovery that their new design was non-compliant.
The issue first arose when the British sliders unveiled their upgrade during a training camp in St Moritz on January 29. Their contention was that the helmet would be in line with rule changes that have been slated for next year, but under scrutiny from the International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation its shape was deemed illegal under regulations in force at the Winter Olympics. Neither Weston nor Wyatt had used the later model in competition.
Explaining the verdict, a Court of Arbitration for Sport statement read: ‘Filed on February 2, 2026, the appeal challenged a decision by the IBSF on January 29, 2026 stating that the Team GB helmet does not comply with the IBSF Skeleton Rules based on its shape.
‘The British Bobsleigh and Skeleton Association maintained that the helmet is compliant because it is manufactured without any elements ‘attached’ to it and does not have ‘aerodynamic modifications’. The IBSF maintained that based on its overall shape and design, the helmet incorporates prohibited spoilers (attachments), protruding edges or aerodynamic elements and does not comply with the applicable rules.
‘The CAS Ad hoc division panel emphasizes that it is not tasked with determining whether the helmet is an improvement over existing equipment. Its role was to assess whether the BBSA complies with IBSF rules as they currently stand for the 2026 OWG.
‘After hearing the expert opinions and considering the evidence, the panel noted that the helmet departs from the standard shape and reflects a novel design specifically developed to enhance aerodynamic performance where the rear considerably protrudes. The panel determined that the BBSA did not sufficiently establish that the helmet complies with the current IBSF Rules. As a consequence, the application was dismissed.’
