For Jordan Chiles, the Paris Olympics in August marked both the realization of a dream and a rude awakening.
Chiles finished third in the women’s gymnastics floor exercise final after Team USA coach Cecile Landi filed an inquiry challenging the scoring of her routine. International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) officials conducted a review, confirmed an error in the judging, and raised Chiles’s score, boosting her from fifth to the bronze medal position (and displacing Ana Barbosu of Romania). Five days later, after Chiles had returned home to a hero’s welcome, she learned it was all a big mistake.
Her journey from Olympic glory to legal limbo exposes fundamental flaws in the dispute resolution process and casts doubt on the integrity of competition.
Unbeknownst to Chiles, on the day after the competition the Romanian Gymnastics Federation appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), alleging the U.S. inquiry had been submitted four seconds after a one-minute time frame referenced in FIG rules. News reports focused on whether video evidence could establish the precise timing of the inquiry—overlooking the fact that timeliness had no bearing on the validity of FIG’s decision.
CAS ruled in favor of the Romanian Gymnastics Federation, asserting a “mandatory one-minute rule” requiring coaches to submit verbal inquiries within one minute of the posting of their gymnast’s score. Based on this interpretation, CAS instructed FIG to lower Chiles’ score and recommended the International Olympic Committee (IOC) reallocate the bronze medal to Barbosu, which it did. In September, Chiles filed an appeal to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court and she is awaiting a ruling.
FIG rules establish an in-competition review process, providing coaches a limited right to challenge certain judging decisions. A coach may submit a verbal inquiry within one minute of a gymnast’s score being displayed, followed by a written confirmation within four minutes. The Superior Jury—the group of officials that rules on inquiries during a competition—reviews the inquiry, examines video footage and determines whether a judging error occurred. Its decision is final and unappealable.
The only support for what CAS refers to in its ruling as the “mandatory one-minute rule” is a provision in FIG’s rules allowing a coach to submit an inquiry for the final gymnast of a rotation provided it is initiated verbally within one minute of the gymnast’s score being shown. The CAS panel inferred that such language imposes a strict deadline and requires the dismissal of late verbal inquiries.
But this interpretation contradicts FIG’s rules, which provide that the discretion of the Superior Jury trumps the timeliness of verbal inquiries.
While officials may dismiss those lodged beyond the one-minute time frame, they are not required to do so. In the rules, FIG’s choice of “will” over “shall” is notable. In legal drafting, “shall” denotes a mandatory requirement, whereas “will” implies a permissive or discretionary action. In referring to the rejection of late verbal inquiries, FIG’s language allows officials to dismiss them but does not require them to do so. This interpretation aligns with FIG’s overarching emphasis on scoring accuracy and procedural fairness.
Moreover, a strictly enforced deadline conflicts with numerous other rules. Enforcing a strict deadline would require additional policies and procedures, none of which exist. FIG provides no guidance on how to determine whether a verbal inquiry is late or how officials should enforce such a rule. By contrast, FIG’s discretionary approach upholds its fundamental purpose of accurately scoring gymnasts’ performances while preventing unnecessary procedural conflicts.
References in the rules to time frames are intended to ensure the inquiry process aligns with the strict time limits for athletes to begin their routines, since it can take several minutes for the Superior Jury to conduct a review. This is not a concern for inquiries involving the last gymnast of a rotation—which Chiles was. As CAS acknowledged in its ruling, the aim of the time frame is to ensure “a prompt closure and finality of the competition, to avoid a situation of extended uncertainty as to who may have finished in what order.” However, CAS failed to recognize that the timing of the verbal inquiry is only one factor in determining the duration of the inquiry process, since coaches have an additional four minutes to confirm the inquiry in writing. Even if Chiles’s verbal inquiry was submitted four seconds late, it did not delay the closure of the competition since her coach filed the written component of the inquiry immediately after—well within the five-minute time frame.
CAS’s ruling in the Chiles case exposes serious procedural deficiencies that undermine confidence in its arbitration process. Notification failures—such as using incorrect email addresses and failing to confirm receipt, despite having access to accurate contact information—effectively barred Chiles, USA Gymnastics and the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee from fully participating in the proceedings. Unaware of the dispute until hours before the hearing, they had limited opportunity to present evidence, rebut claims or challenge the panel’s impartiality. These exclusions not only violated fundamental principles of due process but also created a record that disadvantaged Chiles at every stage.
Beyond these procedural failures, impartiality concerns further undermine the ruling. Notably, the Panel included Dr. Hamid Gharavi, who represents Romania in other arbitrations—raising serious questions about the fairness of the proceedings.
These issues were compounded when, soon after CAS acknowledged that Chiles, USAG and USOPC had not been properly notified, the IOC suggested that CAS resolve the dispute before the closing ceremony. Shortly thereafter, CAS informed the parties that it would not refer the case to the Appeals Division for a more thorough review and would not postpone the proceedings, effectively denying Chiles the opportunity for a fair hearing.
The consequences of these procedural missteps extend beyond this case. By imposing an unfounded interpretation of FIG’s rules, CAS has undermined the integrity of the adjudication process.
For athletes like Chiles, the Olympics represent the culmination of years of sacrifice and dedication. This decision not only stripped an Olympian of her rightful medal but also sets a dangerous precedent, eroding trust in the arbitration process and the fundamental fairness of Olympic competition. This decision diminishes athletes’ confidence that their performances will be judged accurately and fairly, even after the competition concludes.
Peter Carlisle is the managing director of Octagon’s Olympics and Action Sports Division and has represented Olympic athletes for more than 25 years. He does not represent Jordan Chiles.
This article was originally published on www.si.com as Jordan Chiles Should Keep Her Disputed Paris Olympics Medal. Here’s Why..
