But the CAS panel noted that would have required the consent of the FIG, which did not agree.
“So in that moment I assumed that the system didn’t block the (initial) verbal inquiry because out of the limit.
How far did Landi have to go, and how many seconds did that take, to make the verbal inquiry?
Did anyone at the FIG, a respondent in the case, notify USA Gymnastics officials that an appeal had been filed involving Chiles?
In asking for an extension after CAS finally contacted McCleary, USA Gymnastics said “[c]opies were secured circuitously from other parties.”
A “great deal of heartache” could have been avoided if there had been a simple way to instantly determine whether a scoring appeal was filed on time. Jordan Chiles and two Romanian gymnasts would all receive bronze medals if an arbitration panel could award them.
The ad-hoc panel of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which ruled that Chiles should not have been awarded her bronze medal in the floor exercise at the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris, stated in its full release that the International Gymnastics Federation should establish a system to ensure that a similar circumstance “never happens again.”.
The full decision was released on Wednesday. It states that “in view of their performance, good faith, and the injustice and pain to which they have been subjected, the Panel would surely have attributed a bronze medal to all three gymnasts.”.
The Panel hopes that the FIG will take appropriate action in the future to ensure that this does not happen to any other athletes or their support staff, as well as to these three exceptional athletes. “.
Romania asked that Chiles, Ana Barbosu, and Sabrina Maneca-Voinea receive bronze medals. However, the CAS panel pointed out that would have needed the FIG’s approval, and the FIG disagreed.
Track the biggest names and stories from the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris by reading USA TODAY’s coverage.
“The panel wrote that it is fully aware of the disappointment this adjudicating process may cause to the two other extraordinary gymnasts who have always acted in good faith and with integrity and probity.”.
USA Gymnastics as well as the U. s. The detailed decision was met with “strong disagreement” from the Olympic and Paralympic Committee, who cited the prolonged delay in Chile and the U.S. s. even learning about the case from officials. Only in August did notices to “incorrect email addresses” arrive. 9. Three days following Romania’s appeal filing and two days following the objections deadline, that CAS contacted Chris McCleary, the U. S. general counsel for the Olympic and Paralympic Committee.
The Chiles and the U. S. Two more hours were granted to officials to reply to Romania’s appeal. However, even with the extension, she, USA Gymnastics, and the USOPC still had less than 24 hours before a CAS hearing to file their response—roughly 10 hours.
“New information that shows administrative mistakes by FIG and mishandlings by CAS has since supported our objections, which we were unable to bring up during the hurried hearing. The USOPC stated in a statement on Wednesday night, “In short, we were denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard.”.
Chiles began the floor final on August by placing fifth. 5, her 13.666 placing her behind Maneca-Voinea and Barbosu. Barbosu has placed higher due to a better execution score than the two Romanians, who had each scored 13 points. ( ).
But in addition to serving as the U.S. team’s coach, Cecile Landi is also Chiles’ personal coach. s. coach in Paris, contested her difficulty rating on the grounds that Chiles had not received full credit for a tour jete, or leap. The review panel concurred, and the extra 100 points put the American in third position, ahead of the two Romanians.
On August, Romania filed a CAS appeal. 6. claiming that Chiles’ investigation was not submitted on time. Given that Chiles was the final competitor in the floor final, she was required to file a written inquiry and make a verbal appeal within the minute of her initial score being posted.
On an August… At the FIG women’s technical committee meeting on June 10, the president admitted that it was impossible to determine right away whether the verbal appeal had been filed on time or late. That data was available through Omega, the official Olympic timing system, but it was not shared with the appeal panel or connected to the FIG’s system.
“Therefore, I assumed at that very moment that the system had not blocked the (first) verbal inquiry because it was beyond the limit. Upon seeing the written inquiry, I concluded that everything was fine. Donatella Sacchi, the president of the women’s technical committee, gave testimony on this matter.
“I move forward because I have no control over the timing discrepancy or the inquiries’ timing. “.
No one has been able to identify the individual to whom the verbal appeal was made, according to the CAS panel. Sacchi clarified that it was a worker for the Paris organizers rather than a FIG employee.
As per the complete decision, “they were also unable to inform the Panel, when asked, about any plans to guarantee that the one-minute rule had been followed.”.
A number of other questions remain unresolved in the decision.
➧ If Chiles’ coaches had known that an investigation was necessary, they would never have left the arena until nearly five seconds had passed between the display of Chiles’ overall score and the separate execution and difficulty scores.
It’s unclear if Chiles and her coaches saw those results somewhere else prior to the Jumbotron posting. Nevertheless, USA Gymnastics announced on Sunday that it had sent recently uncovered video evidence to CAS, which “conclusively establishes” that Landi made the oral inquiry forty-seven seconds after Chiles’ score was announced. CAS swiftly dismissed it, stating that even in the presence of fresh information, its decision could not be reviewed.
➧ How does the verbal inquiry get recorded? Does the recipient just have to tap a button on a tablet, or does it require more information that might take longer to provide and receive? ➤ How far did Landi have to travel, and how long did that take?, in order to initiate the verbal inquiry?
➤ Did anyone at the FIG, a respondent in the case, inform USA Gymnastics officials that an appeal involving Chiles had been filed? Whose “erroneous email addresses” CAS was using for USA Gymnastics and the USOPC officials?
When CAS did get in touch with McCleary, USA Gymnastics requested an extension, stating that “copies were secured circuitously from other parties.”. “.
➤ Why did the IOC seek a resolution before the conclusion of the Paris Games? In response to a question concerning the potential referral of the case to the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division, the IOC declared that “it would be both preferable and consistent with the purpose of the CAS Ad Hoc Division that a dispute concerning an event that took place on August 5, 2024 be resolved before the end of the Olympic Games.”. “.
Switzerland’s highest court, the Swiss Federal Tribunal, will hear appeals from USA Gymnastics and the USOPC on behalf of Chiles, according to statements released on Wednesday.
As stated by the USOPC, “We are still fully committed to finding the truth in this matter.”.
