by Abigail Adu, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review Vol. 93
I. Introduction
Women’s gymnastics has been an Olympic sport since 1928.[1] Over the last century, Olympic women’s gymnastics transformed into one of the most watched sports in the Olympic games.[2] So, when three talented gymnasts ended up in a bronze medal dispute based on a scoring technicality, it became one of the most memorable and controversial aspects of the 2024 Paris Olympic Games.[3]
This article will discuss the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) and its recent ruling on the 2024 Olympic Women’s Gymnastics bronze medal dispute between Ana Bărbosu from Romania, Sabrina Maneca-Voinea from Romania, and Jordan Chiles from the United States. Part II provides background on how the CAS handles sports disputes, the process of appealing CAS rulings, and the facts that led to the bronze medal dispute. Part III discusses the likelihood that Chiles can appeal to the Swiss Supreme Court (“Court”). Finally, Part IV concludes by summarizing the dispute and addressing how the CAS can avoid this problem in the future.
II. Background
Women’s artistic gymnastics is governed by the Federation International de Gymnastique (“FIG”).[4] Therefore, Olympic gymnasts must abide by the rules and regulations outlined by the FIG during Olympic competitions.[5] During the 2024 Olympics, a potential violation of the FIG technical rules created a bronze medal dispute among the world’s top gymnasts.[6]
A. The Court of Arbitration for Sport
The CAS is an arbitral jurisdiction with legally binding enforceability.[7] The CAS resolves any disputes related to sports, including gymnastics.[8] The CAS was created in 1984 by the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”), and it is governed and financed by the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (“ICAS”).[9] The CAS currently has more than 400 arbitrators.[10] To become an arbitrator through the CAS, an individual must have legal training, specialized knowledge of arbitration or sports law, and a generalized understanding of sports.[11]
In its early years, dispute resolution through the CAS tended to be long, and the CAS typically only dealt with commercial or disciplinary disputes.[12] Therefore, the CAS created the Ad Hoc Division (“AHD”) for the Olympic Games, ensuring an avenue for competing athletes to have disputes resolved quickly and efficiently.[13] Since 1996, the CAS’s AHD has secured finality during the Olympic Games by settling disputes within twenty-four hours.[14]
If a party wishes to bring a dispute before the AHD, the party must file a written application including the decision they are challenging, a statement of facts, a legal argument, and a request for relief.[15] The application also allows for the petitioner to name the respondent.[16] Throughout the arbitral process, the AHD must deliver their notifications by mail or electronic mail when communicating to the applicant and the named respondent.[17] In addition to the applicant and named respondent, others can be identified as “interested parties.”[18] Communications to interested parties can be made by telephone and confirmed in writing or electronic mail.[19] If the panel does not conduct written confirmation, the communication is still valid if the recipient knows of the communication.[20]
Once the AHD receives the application, the president of the AHD will compile a panel of three CAS arbitrators who are present at the Olympic Games.[21] In limited circumstances, the president may choose to appoint a single arbitrator.[22] An arbitrator chosen for an AHD panel must disqualify themselves if they have a conflict of interest which may prevent them from serving as an unbiased member of the panel.[23]
Shortly after the arbitration panel receives the application, the panel will summon the parties for a hearing.[24] Each party can introduce evidence and make their legal argument at the hearing, and the panel has complete control over the evidence admitted.[25] Once the hearing concludes, the arbitrator makes decisions based on the Olympic Charter, Chapter 12 of the Swiss Act of Private International Law (PILA), in addition to general principles and rules of law.[26] Once the AHD renders a decision, that decision is final; the CAS cannot rehear the case even if new evidence is uncovered .[27] An athlete’s only means of recourse is with the Court.[28]
B. The Swiss Supreme Court
A revision of a CAS award, which allows for annulment and reconsideration of an award, can be brought to Court if: (1) the applicant has discovered new relevant facts; (2) the award was influenced by criminal conduct; or (3) a new ground to challenge an arbitrator appeared.[29] Like the CAS, Chapter 12 of the PILA also governs the Court.[30]
For a revision based on new evidence, the applicant must show that the evidence existed during the first proceeding, became known to the applicant after the CAS’s award, and is relevant to the case.[31] For new evidence to be relevant in Swiss law, the evidence must be capable of altering the factual record and conclusive enough to aid in a favorable outcome.[32] In Case 4A_144/2010, the Court rejected a petition for a CAS award revision based on new evidence.[33] In this case, a German speed skater applied to the CAS and challenged her doping-related competitive ban, arguing that her blood levels were higher than usual due to anemia.[34] The CAS refused to overturn her competitive ban, but the skater discovered a new method of diagnosing anemia after she received her CAS award.[35] The skater appealed to the Court; the Court rejected a revision based on this new evidence because the CAS already assessed her anemia claim, meaning the evidence was not relevant.[36] Further, the speed skater did not present any evidence showing that she attempted to find this evidence earlier, and if an applicant cannot show the efforts they made to obtain the newly found evidence during the original proceeding, the Court is likely to deny an application for revision.[37]
The Court will accept a challenge to annul a CAS award based on five grounds.[38] First, the Court may accept an appeal based on an improper appointment of the arbitral tribunal.[39] This challenge only applies when the arbitrator performs activities typical of a lawyer.[40] For example, in Decision 4A_404/2021, the Court held that grounds for a challenge based on an improper tribunal did not exist where the arbitrator acted as a private and pro bono honorary counsel to one of the parties.[41] The Court usually finds that a party is estopped from challenging an arbitrator’s lack of independence unless they learned about the arbitrator’s alleged bias after the award or already tried to challenge the arbitrator’s bias during the original CAS proceeding.[42]
The second ground to challenge an award is the wrongful acceptance or denial of jurisdiction by the arbitral tribunal.[43] For example, if an arbitration agreement that gives CAS jurisdiction is contained in the regulations of a sport’s governing body, but an athlete involved in a CAS proceeding is not part of that governing body, the CAS may not have jurisdiction over that athlete.[44]
The third ground to challenge an award is when the tribunal decision did not receive, or that it failed to consider, a claim submitted to it.[45] The fourth ground to challenge an award is a violation of the right to equal treatment or the right to be heard.[46] The right to equal treatment requires that arbitrators afford each party equal opportunities in bringing forward their cases.[47] The right to be heard protects the right of a party to present evidence.[48] A party that believes their right to be heard was violated must protest during the arbitration proceedings, not after the award.[49] However, the Court has held that a boilerplate clause in a CAS award stating that parties did not object to the CAS proceedings will not prevent a party from challenging their award based on their right to be heard.[50]
The last ground to challenge an award is if the award is incompatible with public policy.[51] The Court has set aside few cases based on this ground, and those cases dealt with contractual and legal rights.[52] For instance, in Decision 4A_558/2011 the Court set aside a CAS award which banned an athlete from playing based on public policy because it violated his publicity rights.[53] So, an arbitral award is contrary to public policy only if it violates widely accepted notions of sports law in Switzerland.[54]
C. The 2024 Women’s Gymnastics Olympic Floor Final
1. Olympic Rules and Procedures
Women’s artistic gymnastics has four apparatuses: floor, beam, vault, and bars.[55] In the Olympics, women must qualify to compete both in the individual all-around – where they perform all four events – and in event finals for a specific apparatus.[56] The gymnasts with the top eight qualifying scores for each apparatus can compete in the apparatus final, however, no more than two gymnasts per country can compete.[57]
For each event, a gymnast is given a score based on two parts: a difficulty score (“D Score”) and an execution score (“E Score”).[58] The D Score reflects how hard the gymnast’s routine is.[59] A gymnast’s E Score begins at 10.0 points, and each time a gymnast makes an error, such as falling, bending their legs, or taking extra steps on landing, points are deducted from the 10.0 score.[60] A gymnast’s final score is made up of their D and E Scores added together.[61]
If a gymnast believes they were not awarded the correct D Score, they may submit an inquiry for the judges to review the score.[62] A gymnast may not submit an inquiry about their E Score or any penalties they received.[63] A gymnast must submit this inquiry as soon as possible, and if they are the last gymnast in their group to perform, they must submit the inquiry within one minute after the score is shown.[64] The individuals responsible for receiving the verbal inquiries in the 2024 Olympic Games were National Technical Officials who did not work directly under FIG.[65] The National Technical Officials must record the inquiries they receive either in writing or electronically.[66] After the judges review the routine, they will keep the score the same or change it per the new difficulty score.[67]
2. The Competition
The gymnastics floor exercise final occurred on August 5, 2024.[68] Bărbosu, Maneca-Voinea, and Chiles competed alongside five other gymnasts for a medal.[69] Bărbosu performed her routine fifth.[70] The judges awarded Bărbosu a D Score of 5.800, an E Score of 8.000 with a .01 penalty, and a final score of 13.700.[71] Maneca-Voinea performed her routine seventh.[72] The judges awarded her a D Score of 5.900, an E Score of 7.900 with a .01 penalty for stepping out of bounds, and a final score of 13.700.[73] Believing the judges did not fairly score her, Maneca-Voinea submitted an inquiry to increase her D Score.[74] The judges denied her inquiry.[75] Chiles was the last gymnast to perform.[76] Chiles was awarded a D Score of 5.800, an E Score of 7.866, and a final score of 13.666.[77] At this time, the standings of the gymnasts were as follows: Bărbosu, third; Maneca-Voinea, fourth; and Chiles, fifth.[78] Because Chiles was the last gymnast to perform, Bărbosu believed she was the bronze medal winner at that time.[79]
After Chiles received her initial score, Chiles’ coach, Cecile Canqueteau-Landi, immediately submitted a verbal inquiry into Chiles’ D Score.[80] The judges reviewed their scoring of Chiles’ routine and, realizing they did not give her the proper level of difficulty, raised Chiles’ D Score to 5.900, increasing her overall score to 13.766.[81] The revision of Chiles’ score bumped her into the bronze medal position, moving Bărbosu to fourth and Maneca-Voinea to fifth.[82]
D. The CAS’s Arbitral Award
The day after the floor exercise finals, on August 6, the Romanian Gymnastics Federation (“FRG”) applied with the AHD to challenge the scores awarded to the three gymnasts.[83] The FRG named the FIG and Donatella Sacchi, the president of the Women’s Artistic Gymnastics Technical Committee, as Respondents.[84] The FRG did not name Chiles or USA Gymnastics (“USAG”) anywhere in the application.[85] The CAS arbitration panel named Chiles and USAG as interested parties and claimed to have sent them a copy of the application on the same day it was filed.[86] However, USAG did not receive notice of the proceeding until the morning of August 9, 2024.[87] Because of this, USAG had less than ten hours to gather their evidence and submit their application materials to the CAS.[88]
On August 7, 2024, the arbitral panel notified the parties and interested parties that the president of the arbitration panel, Dr. Hamid G. Gharavi, acted as counsel for Romania in multiple international investment arbitral disputes.[89] None of the parties objected to Gharavi serving as panel president; however, Gharavi’s disclosure occurred just two days before USAG received any communication about the hearing.[90] While all of the parties stated they were satisfied with the panel at the outset of the hearing, it remains unclear whether USAG received this communication about Dr. Gharavi’s disclosure before the hearing, and they may not have been prepared to object to Dr. Gharavi’s involvement given the short notice.[91]
At the hearing on August 10, all parties confirmed that their right to be heard was respected.[92] The FRG’s main contention about Chiles’ score revision was that Landi violated Article 8.5 of the FIG Technical Regulations by submitting her score inquiry for Chiles outside the one-minute timeframe.[93] Landi testified that she was unsure whether she submitted her inquiry on Chiles’ initial score within one minute.[94] Still, she did it “as fast as she could” and “in a great rush.”[95] Sacchi, on the other hand, admitted that she could not find the person who received Landi’s verbal inquiry because she was not in charge of them.[96] Further, Sacchi explained that by the time she electronically received Landi’s inquiry, she did not verify whether it was submitted within one minute.[97] Therefore, the CAS concluded that the FIG had sole responsibility for the dispute since they did not have any system to monitor the timeliness of the inquiry.[98] Despite this, the CAS held that Landi’s score inquiry was outside the one-minute required time limit and overturned Chiles’ revised score.[99] As a result, Chiles’ score revision was revoked, and her initial score of 13.666 was reinstated, leaving the FIG to assign the bronze medals under the decision.[100] The FIG reallocated the bronze medal to Bărbosu.[101] Shortly after the CAS ruling, USAG discovered a time-stamped video that proved that Landi initiated her inquiry into Chiles’ score forty-seven seconds after the judges posted her score.[102]
III. Discussion
Chiles plans to appeal to the Court, hoping the Court will overturn her CAS Award. If the Court hears her case and decides to revise or overturn the CAS award, the Court can restore Chiles’ bronze medal position. Chiles’ strongest avenues for appeal are the post-hearing evidence that USAG discovered, and the bias of the panel. However, it is unlikely that the Court will overturn Chiles’ CAS award because the Court gives great deference to the CAS’s decisions.
A. Grounds for Revision of the CAS Award
Chiles could petition the Court to revise her CAS award by showing (1) that she has discovered new, relevant facts, (2) that the award was influenced by criminal conduct, or (3) by demonstrating new grounds to challenge an arbitrator on the panel.[103] Since this dispute does not implicate criminal conduct, Chiles’ only avenues for revision are to show newly discovered evidence or challenge Dr. Gharavi’s presence on the panel.
If USAG’s statement is correct, that they found a time-stamped video, this is likely their strongest avenue to appeal. Because the evidence was recorded in real-time, it would have existed during the first procedure as required by the PILA.[104] Further, this new evidence could alter the factual record.[105] Landi did not locate this evidence until after the award. Because neither Landi nor FIG could locate any evidence showing how long it took Landi to submit her inquiry, this evidence could show that Landi followed the correct procedure. This information could conclusively solve the timing dispute and thus allow Chiles to receive the bronze.
The issue that USAG is likely to run into is proving that it was impossible to find evidence earlier. The fact that they only had ten hours to gather evidence will aid their case but given the strict requirements the Court has set for admitting new evidence, this standard may be the hardest for USAG to prove.
Regarding the makeup of the arbitration panel, it is unlikely that the Court will take Chiles’ case on the grounds of biased arbitrators. The statute explains that the Court will only accept challenges based on the bias of arbitrators if the bias becomes known after the trial.[106] So, unless USAG can prove they did not know Dr. Gharavi’s involvement with Romania, they have likely waived their chance to claim bias as a basis for a revision.
B. Grounds for Challenging a CAS Arbitral Award
Chiles can also petition the Court and challenge the CAS’s award. Though there are five potential ways to challenge a CAS award, Chiles’ strongest arguments for challenging the award are by claiming arbitral bias or a violation of the right to equal treatment. [107]
USAG may have a better chance at challenging the award under this ground than revising the award based on bias. Dr. Gharavi was counsel for Romania on multiple occasions, which gives USAG a stronger argument than the petitioners in Decision 4A_404/2021, where the challenged arbitrator was an honorary counsel free of charge.[108] So, USAG could challenge the award on the grounds that Dr. Gharavi violated the Arbitral Rules because he should have disqualified himself from the arbitration panel.
Chiles can bring a claim based on a violation of the right to equal treatment, given the short amount of time she had to collect evidence. Chiles could argue that the CAS treated her unfairly because the RFG had multiple days to collect evidence, while Chiles and USAG had ten hours. Further, it is unclear whether the CAS properly notified Chiles when it named her an interested party because there is no indication that they kept a written record of the communications sent to them.[109]
Regarding the right to be heard, Chiles and USAG may be estopped from claiming this violation because they confirmed their right to be heard was respected at the beginning of the hearing.[110] But, revisiting Decision 4A_536/2018, Chiles could still argue that her right to be heard was violated since the CAS record does not state that the parties confirmed their right to be heard at the end of the case.[111]
C. How the CAS Should Have Ruled
Given the unique facts of this case, the CAS should have applied equitable principles of fairness.[112] In the applicant’s request for relief, the RFG requested that all three gymnasts be awarded bronze medals.[113] However, because the FIG opposed this, the CAS was forced to rule on one bronze medal winner.[114] The CAS lamented this decision, explaining it would award three bronze medals if it could, but that this was not feasible as it would be applying principles of equity and fairness instead of the laws that govern it.[115]
On the contrary, the reward of a bronze medal to all three gymnasts could be sanctioned under the Olympic Charter, which governs CAS rulings.[116] The Olympic Charter states that the International Olympic Committee must “encourage and support the promotion of ethics and good governance in sport as well as . . . dedicate its efforts to ensuring that, in sport, the spirit of fair play prevails.”[117] Thus, as a part of the Olympic movement and under the umbrella of the IOC, the CAS is responsible for upholding decisions that promote fair play in gymnastics.[118] However, by revoking Chiles’ third-place position due to the recklessness of the FIG, the CAS is allowing the FIG to implement disorganized and unfair practices toward their gymnasts. By allowing all three gymnasts to receive bronze medals, the CAS could both hold FIG accountable and rectify the FIG’s mistakes.
IV. Conclusion
The Court of Arbitration for Sport has great power to settle and finalize sports-related disputes. However, their recent ruling on the Women’s floor exercise final to remove Chiles from the bronze medal position was illogical. The USAG did not have proper notice, there was a potential conflict of interest on the arbitrator panel, and the court failed to hold FIG responsible. Chiles plans to appeal to the Court, and if the Court accepts her appeal, Chiles’ strongest argument will likely be the new evidence Landi uncovered after the CAS award. Further, to avoid a comparable situation, the FIG needs to keep track of their employees and scoring systems, and the CAS should hold the FIG accountable for their mistakes. This way, athletes who have spent their entire lives training for the Olympic Games will not have to go through the heartbreak of having a medal taken away from them based on a technicality.
[1] Jax Miller, A Her-story of Women’s Gymnastics in the Olympic Games, NBC, (July 17, 2024, 11:45 AM), https://www.nbc.com/nbc-insider/history-womens-olympic-gymnastics-artistic-rhythmic.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] About the FIG, Fèdèration Internationale de Gymnastique, https://www.gymnastics.sport/site/about.php (last visited Sept. 13, 2024).
[5] Id.
[6] Fed’n Romanian Gymnastics v. Donatella Sacchi, CAS OG 24-15, Judgement, at 3, The ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Aug. 14, 2024), https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_OG_15-16__for_publication_.pdf.
[7] History of the CAS, Court of Arbitration for Sport, https://www.tas-cas.org/en/general-information/history-of-the-cas.html (last visited Sept. 6, 2024).
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] List of Arbitrators, Court of Arbitration for Sport, https://www.tas-cas.org/en/arbitration/liste-des-arbitres-liste-generale.html (last visited Sept. 14, 2024).
[11] Code of Sports-Related Arbitration, Court of Arbitration for Sport, art. S14 (Jan. 2, 2023), https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Code_2023__EN_.pdf.
[12] History of CAS, supra note 7.
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Court of Arbitration for Sport, Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games art. 10, https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Arbitration_Rules_Olympic_Games_July2021.pdf [hereinafter Arbitration Rules].
[16] Fed’n Romanian Gymnastics v. Donatella Sacchi, CAS OG 24-15, Judgement, at 3, The ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Aug. 14, 2024), https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_OG_15-16__for_publication_.pdf.
[17] Arbitration Rules, supra note 15, art. 9.
[18] Fed’n Rom. Gymnastics, CAS OG 24-15, at 3.
[19] Arbitration Rules, supra note 15, at art. 9.
[20] Id.
[21] Id. at art. 11.
[22] Id.
[23] Id. at art. 13.
[24] Id. at art. 15.
[25] Id.
[26] Id. at art.1; 7-17.
[27] Id. at art. 21; Emily Giambalvo & Molly Hensley-Clancy, U.S. Officials Didn’t Object to Key Claim in Jordan Chiles Medal Case, Document Shows, The Washington Post, (Aug. 14, 2024, 6:58 PM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/olympics/2024/08/14/jordan-chiles-court-bronze-medal/.
[28] Arbitration Rules, supra note 15, at art. 21.
[29] Id. at art. 26.
[30] Anya George & Letícia Morais, Arbitration in Switzerland, Westlaw Practical Law (2024), Westlaw 9-513-8272. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-513-8272?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default).
[31] Antonio Rigozzi, Challenging Awards of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, 1 J. of Int’l Disp. Settlement 217, 260-62 (2010).
[32] Id. at 262.
[33] Nathalie Voser & James Menz, Swiss Supreme Court Rejects Two Petitions for Revision, (Practical Law Legal Update, 1-504-0972, 2010) https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/1-504-0972?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default).
[34] Id.
[35] Id.
[36] Id.
[37] Id.
[38] Rigozzi, supra note 31, at 219.
[39] Id.
[40] George, supra note 30, at 31.
[41] Id.
[42] Rigozzi, supra note 31, at 237.
[43] Id. at 219.
[44] Id. at 243.
[45] George, supra note 30, at 30.
[46] Id.
[47] Rigozzi, supra note 31, at 247-248.
[48] Id. at 248.
[49] Id.
[50] George, supra note, 30 at 37.
[51] Rigozzi, supra note 31, at 219.
[52] Id. at 252.
[53] George, supra note 30, at 39.
[54] Id. at 39.
[55] Gymnastics 101: Apparatus Guide, NBC Olympics, (Aug. 6, 2024, 5:06 PM), https://www.nbcolympics.com/news/gymnastics-101-apparatus-guide.
[56] J.J. Post, How does Olympic gymnastics work? Events, schedule, scoring, ESPN, (Aug. 11, 2024, 6:42 PM), https://www.espn.com/olympics/story/_/id/40536752/olympic-gymnastics-events-formats-competitors.
[57] Id.
[58]Gymnastics 101: Olympic scoring, rules and regulations, NBC Olympics, (Aug. 6, 2024, 5:10 PM), https://www.nbcolympics.com/news/gymnastics-101-olympic-scoring-rules-and-regulations.
[59] Id.
[60] Id.
[61] Id.
[62] 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 [hereinafter Technical Regulations].
[63] Id.
[64] Id.
[65] Fed’n Romanian Gymnastics v. Donatella Sacchi, CAS OG 24-15, Judgement, at 24, The ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Aug. 14, 2024), https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_OG_15-16__for_publication_.pdf.
[66] Technical Regulations, supra note 62.
[67] Id.
[68] Fed’n Romanian Gymnastics, CAS OG 24-15, at 2.
[69] Kasey Nelson, Women’s Gymnastics 2024 Olympic Floor Final Results, Forbes, (Aug. 5, 2024, 12:54 PM), https://www.forbes.com/sites/kaseynelson/2024/08/05/womens-gymnastics-2024-olympic-floor-final-results-andrade-edges-out-biles/.
[70] Id.
[71] Fed’n Romanian Gymnastics, CAS OG 24-15, at 3.
[72] Nelson, supra note 69.
[73] Fed’n Romanian Gymnastics, CAS OG 24-15, at 3.
[74] Id.
[75] Id.
[76] Id.
[77] Id.
[78] Id.
[79] Nelson, supra note 69.
[80] Fed’n Romanian Gymnastics, CAS OG 24-15, at 3.
[81] Id.
[82] Id.
[83] Id.
[84] Id. at 2.
[85] Id. at 3.
[86] Id.
[87] Id. at 6.
[88] Id. at 6-7.
[89] Id. at 4.
[90] Id. at 4-6.
[91] Id. at 4.
[92] Id. at 8-9.
[93] Id. at 9.
[94] Id. at 15.
[95] Id.
[96] Id. at 1, 12.
[97] Id. at 12.
[98] Id. at 12, 26.
[99] Id. at 29.
[100] Id. at 29.
[101] Becky Sullivan, Gymnast Jordan Chiles appeals to Swiss supreme court for her Olympic bronze medal, NPR, (Sept. 16, 2024, 7:29 PM), https://www.npr.org/2024/09/16/g-s1-23333/jordan-chiles-american-gymnast-bronze-medal-swiss-court-appeal#:~:text=Close%20Navigation%20Menu-,Gymnast%20Jordan%20Chiles%20appeals%20to%20Swiss%20court%20for%20Olympic%20bronze,was%20filed%20seconds%20too%20late.
[102] Giambalvo, supra note 27.
[103] See discussion supra Section II.B.
[104] Id.
[105] Id.
[106] Id.
[107] See discussion supra Section II.B.
[108] Id.
[109] See discussion supra Section II.D.
[110] Id.
[111] See discussion supra Section II.B.
[112] See discussion supra Section II.C.
[113] Fed’n Romanian Gymnastics v. Donatella Sacchi, CAS OG 24-15, Judgement, at 11, The ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Aug. 14, 2024), https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_OG_15-16__for_publication_.pdf.
[114] Id. at 28.
[115] Id.
[116] Arbitration Rules, supra note 15, art. 1.
[117] Olympic Charter, International Olympic Committee (July 23, 2024), art. 2, https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/General/EN-Olympic-Charter.pdf.
[118] Id.
Cover Photo by Pixaboy on Pexels.
