Stephanie Buersmeyer
Background
Gymnastics is one of the marquee events of the Olympic Games. Unfortunately, in Paris, the meet ended in controversy as the final event, the Women’s Floor Exercise Final, has been embroiled in legal disputes over the bronze medal. Jordan Chiles of USA Gymnastics (‘USAG’) competed last and, at the time, Romanian Ana Bărbosu was in third place.[1] Originally, Chiles’ scores placed her fifth, but Chiles’ coach, Cecile Canqueteau-Landi, submitted a verbal inquiry claiming an incorrect difficulty score; this inquiry was accepted, and her difficulty was revised, putting Chiles in third place.[2]
The Federation Internationale de Gymnastique (‘FIG’), allows for coaches to inquire about difficulty scores in the moment.[3] For the final gymnast of the event, they have one minute to inquire after their score is reported.[4] The Federation of Romanian Gymnastics (‘FRG’) challenged the validity of Landi’s inquiry, arguing that it was filed too late.[5] After a hearing, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (‘CAS’) agreed, determining that Landi filed the inquiry four seconds past the minute-mark, reverting Chiles’ scores, and awarding the bronze medal to Bărbosu.[6]
Procedural Concerns
For the Olympic Games, CAS operates an ad hoc arbitration division to resolve disputes (the ‘Ad Hoc Division’).[7] Proceedings before the Ad Hoc Division are “remarkably fast” and the stakes of these decisions are particularly high.[8] While it is understandable that expediency is key and the proper procedures will not be as robust as normal proceedings, that does not mean due process is not owed to the involved parties. There were three primary procedural concerns that have come to light surrounding this case: i) the lack of timely notice to Chiles, USAG, and the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee (‘USOPC’); ii) evidentiary issues related to the timing of lodging the complaint; and iii) a potential conflict of interests with one of the arbitrators on the panel.
The first issue with the original hearing is the notice that was afforded to USAG and USOPC. When the FRG originally filed the complaint, neither Chiles nor USAG were named in the application, it wasn’t until later that CAS named them as interested parties.[9] However, even once named, “crucial communications” were sent to “erroneous email addresses at USOPC and USAG.”[10] This resulted in USAG and USOPC not receiving these communications until two days past the deadline to submit objections, and they only had twenty-four hours until the hearing, which was likely inadequate to fully prepare and find any evidence to help Chiles’ case.[11] With the speed of these hearings, errors like this puts undue prejudice on the aggrieved party.
The second procedural issue concerns the evidence showing that the initial inquiry was late. CAS relied on the time provided by the Omega system used at the event, which showed the time of inquiry was four seconds late.[12] However, it is unclear who logged this time and if it was logged immediately upon speaking to Landi.[13] The evidentiary concern also connects to the notice issues discussed previously. USAG has discovered contradicting evidence in the form of a time-stamped video showing that Landi lodged her inquiry forty-seven seconds after the scores were posted, well within the required time.[14] If USAG were properly notified through the correct channels when they should have been, it is possible they may have had this evidence ready at the time of the hearing. Given the questions related to the process of recording the initial inquiry, having the time to investigate the issue further and discover additional evidence, as USAG was able to do, would have been helpful to make sure CAS’s decision was accurate and fair.
The third issue is the assignment of arbitrator Hamid Gharavi. Gharavi, who presided over the hearing, currently provides legal counsel to Romania in other international proceedings.[15] Gharavi did disclose this relationship prior to the hearing, and there were no objections at the time.[16] However, as mentioned previously, it is possible that USAG did not have time to make an objection given the communication issues. Gharavi’s involvement in the hearing caused enough concern for Chiles’ representatives that they have requested in their appeal to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland that he be removed from presiding over any future hearing involving this issue.[17] Even if, this did not impact the decision, the appearance of a conflict can be just as damaging to the trust in the process and outcome.[18]
What’s Next
Chiles and USAG have appealed the decision to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland arguing that “Chiles was not given a full and fair opportunity to defend herself.”[19] In addition to requesting the ruling be vacated and the decision reconsidered, the appeal also requests that CAS remove Gharavi from any future hearings.[20] The Swiss Courts will either confirm the original CAS ruling or remand back to CAS, but it will be unable to reinstate Chiles’ bronze medal itself.[21] The current procedure will not have the same pace as the original Ad Hoc Division hearing and is expected to take several months.[22]
All of these procedural issues highlight the pitfalls of expediting the legal process in international sports arbitrations. It is understandable why these quicker procedures are in place, these decisions are often tied to ongoing competitions that can’t be held up for decisions to be made, but it can be frustrating, for athletes and the fans, when this process appears to lead to inaccurate results. When CAS gets these decisions wrong and appeals are filed, the process can drag on, sometimes for years, with athletes unsure of their status.[23] There needs to be a more deliberate process to be as accurate and fair as possible given the time constraints. Especially for something like the Chiles case, where the event was completed and nothing was being held up by the decision, it would probably be better to take a little more time instead of risking inaccuracies that could make this process go on for far longer.
[1] Fed’n Romanian Gymnastics v. Sacchi, CAS OG 24-15, ¶¶ 6-11 (Aug. 6, 2024), https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_OG_15-16__for_publication_.pdf [hereinafter “Fed’n Romanian Gymnastics”]
[2] Id.
[3] Technical Regulations 2024, Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique, art. 8.5, May 2023, https://www.gymnastics.sport/publicdir/rules/files/en_1.1%20-%20Technical%20Regulations%202024.pdf.
[4] Id.
[5] Fed’n Romanian Gymnastics, ¶¶ 6-11
[6] Fed’n Romanian Gymnastics, ¶ 146
[7] Arbitration Rules Applicable to the CAS Ad Hoc Division for the Olympic Games, Tribunal Arbitral du Sport / Court of Arbitration For Sport, https://www.tas-cas.org/en/arbitration/ad-hoc-division.html (last visited Oct. 26, 2024).
[8] Neil Popović, Arbitration at the Olympic Games: Faster Higher Stronger – Together?, Sports Bus. J. (Aug. 1, 2024), https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2024/08/01/oped-01-popovic.
[9] Fed’n Romanian Gymnastics, ¶¶ 12-14.
[10] Chelsea Bailey, Everything to Know About the Controversy Over Jordan Chiles’ Olympic Bronze Medal, CNN (Aug. 16, 2024) https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/12/sport/jordan-chiles-bronze-olympics-controversy-explained/index.html.
[11] Id.; see also, Fed’n Romanian Gymnastics, ¶ 33 (relating to this issue, USOPC General argued that “the deadlines were not reasonable in circumstances in which Ms. Chiles, US Gymnastics and USOPC were not aware of the proceedings since their outset”).
[12] Fed’n Romanian Gymnastics, ¶ 137
[13] Fed’n Romanian Gymnastics, ¶¶ 125-26 (showing that the FIG didn’t have the name of the official who recorded the inquiry, and that the arbitration panel was “surprised” that they were unable to identify the individual, observing that “no clear and established mechanism appeared to be in place to address so important a matter as the timing of a request for inquiry.”).
[14] Bailey, supra note 10.
[15] Becky Sullivan, Gymnast Jordan Chiles Appeals to Swiss Supreme Court for her Olympic Bronze Medal, NPR (Sep. 16, 2024) https://www.npr.org/2024/09/16/g-s1-23333/jordan-chiles-american-gymnast-bronze-medal-swiss-court-appeal.
[16] Fed’n Romanian Gymnastics, ¶ 15
[17] Sullivan, supra note 15.
[18] Michael Peregrine, Jordan Chiles and Olympian-Level Conflicts of Interest, Forbes (Aug. 19, 2024) https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelperegrine/2024/08/19/jordan-chiles-and-olympian-level-conflicts-of-interest/.
[19] Nancy Armour & Tom Schad, Jordan Chiles Files Second Appeal to Get Her Olympic Bronze Medal Back, USA Today (Sept. 24, 2024) https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2024/09/24/jordan-chiles-appeal-olympic-bronze-medal/75294251007/.
[20] Sullivan, supra note 15.
[21] Armour & Schad, supra note 19.
[22] Id.
[23] See, e.g., Brian Mann, U.S. Figure Skating Team Awarded Gold Medals in Paris After a 2-Year Delay, NPR (Aug. 7, 2024) https://www.npr.org/2024/08/07/nx-s1-5066690/us-figure-skating-team-olympic-gold-beijing-valieva-doping (showing how it took two years for medals to be awarded for the team figure skating event after Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva tested positive for a performance enhancing drug in the months before the Winter Games after the skated in the competition).