USA Gymnastics officials say an arbitration panel won’t reconsider a decision asking gymnast Jordan Chiles to return the bronze medal she won at the Paris Olympics
Just to be clear, arbitration is always final, pretty much everywhere. So it makes sense that the CAS did not review the case it already decided.
That said, you can appeal CAS awards to the Swiss Federal courts, and USA Gymnastics intends to do just that.
“We are deeply disappointed by the notification and will continue to pursue every possible avenue and appeal process, including to the Swiss Federal Tribunal, to ensure the just scoring, placement, and medal award for Jordan.”
Switzerland being a hub of international business, has an explicit provision in its law allowing the appeal of arbitration if new evidence comes to light. In Article 190a of the PILA:
A party may request a review of an award if:
a) It has subsequently become aware of significant facts or uncovered decisive evidence which it could not have produced in the earlier proceedings despite exercising due diligence; the foregoing does not apply to facts or evidence that came into existence after the award was issued;
…
The request for a review must be filed within 90 days of the grounds for review coming to light.
The court would then order the CAS to re-hear the case including the new evidence. I think the only way the appeal fails is if the court rules that due diligence would have found this evidence before the proceedings.
A friend fought a pretty wild case with CAS all the way to Switzerland. All the previous courts sided against him. It’s a wild tail, I can’t share, because it’s so unique, it could probably be figured out. All the lower courts weren’t really interested in his circumstances, just “a narrow reading of the rules,” that certainly didn’t take into account a situation like his. When he got to Switzerland, they were very interested in his situation. They sided in his favour and recommended changes to the other organizations for not having a way to deal with this unique circumstance. For him, it was a bit too little too late, but there was satisfaction in winning. But I hope her case is given more thought, like his was, and the outcome successful. There are mistakes being made here, not by the athlete and like my friend, they are pointing to strict rules that don’t fit the situation.
I wish her luck. I don’t know what I’d do if they try to took back my medal after the high of winning, the interviews, family and friends celebrating. It’s disgusting.
The interesting thing about this though is that a key party was not involved nor able to submit allegedly conclusive evidence. Which I understand in theory, as the arbitration was not adversarial against the US, but in practice makes for an outcome that doesn’t actually allow every stakeholder to present their case.
Exactly this. I imagine the CAS report was heavily influenced by evidence provided by the Romanian Gymnastics team and it is clear that USAG was not given an opportunity to provide counter evidence. I am not familiar with how arbitration traditionally works, but this process seems susceptible to corruption.
Well the Romanian Committee submitted the appeal and CAS would not have opened an investigation without evidence? They may not have used that evidence in their official ruling but there was almost certainly evidence provided by Romania to file the appeal. You can’t just file appeals willy nilly
Yes, that’s what I meant but maybe I didn’t phrase it correctly. They provided some evidence they gathered but it was not used to determine the verdict. In fact, the evidence they gathered pointed to 1m24s having passed, most likely because they had no way of knowing exactly when the judge registered the inquiry. But TAS then checked their internal timekeeping and discovered it was in fact 1m4s.
What I’ve heard is that CAS contacted the wrong USA officials which is why they didn’t get a response or this evidence before considering the case. Have not been able to confirm that.
I am not 100% sure on the precise details but USAG tried to appeal with new evidence showing that Chiles’s orignal appeal was submitted 47 seconds after the score was posted. CAS refused to reconsider the case in light of this evidence thus effectively shutting USAG out of the case.
Also. As far as I am concerned, whatever “official times” they have are questionable at best given that they clearly messed it up one way or the other. Chiles was originally within the time limit and then they came out and said that she wasn’t indicating a lack of precision in the timing of appeals.
Lastly, it appears that the evidence is largely based on third party recordings from television cameras and whatever else which also leads me to question the efficacy of the times. It does not appear that there was a precise way of measuring times after scores were posted otherwise they wouldn’t have missed it up on the first place.
there is an “official source”. it’s the omega system that times the whole competition and all the logs. the initial evidence may have been based on tv recordings, but it was judged upon the official system. the initial suggested time for the us inquiry was around 1.20, the cas coreected it to 1.04 according to this system.
“The time-stamped, video evidence submitted by USA Gymnastics Sunday evening shows Landi first stated her request to file an inquiry at the inquiry table 47 seconds after the score is posted, followed by a second statement 55 seconds after the score was originally posted,” USA Gymnastics said in its statement.
“The video footage provided was not available to USA Gymnastics prior to the tribunal’s decision and thus USAG did not have the opportunity to previously submit it.”
The Romanian gymnastics federation determined it was 4 seconds late as part of their appeal , but no evidence has been supplied to USAG or the public on how they came to that conclusion.
But FIG did admit that the Romanian federation was right.
The release from the CAS does not address how or whether the parties were informed that CAS Presiding Arbitrator Gharavi, currently serves as legal counsel to Romania in its disputes before the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).
Gharavi’s relationship with Romania began at least in 2011, when he was appointed by the U.S claimant in a case against Romania. Hassan Awdi, Enterprise Business Consultants Inc. and Alfa El Corp. v. Romania. In 2016, about one year after the conclusion of that case, Gharavi began representing Romania in its ICSID Proceedings, prevailing in a matter this spring. Nova Group Investments B.V. v. Romania.
In two additional ICSID cases, Gharavi is serving as lead counsel–see Aderlyne Ltd. v. Romania, a pending renewable energy project and/or is working alongside Romanian government counsel. EP Wind Project (Rom) Six Ltd. v. Romania.
Article 190 specifies that an award can be voided if the tribunal was “improperly constituted.” I don’t know what Swiss jurisprudence says that means. e.g., if one of three panel members had a potential conflict of interest. Appealing that has a 30-day time limit.
Just to be clear, arbitration is always final, pretty much everywhere. So it makes sense that the CAS did not review the case it already decided.
That said, you can appeal CAS awards to the Swiss Federal courts, and USA Gymnastics intends to do just that.
Switzerland being a hub of international business, has an explicit provision in its law allowing the appeal of arbitration if new evidence comes to light. In Article 190a of the PILA:
The court would then order the CAS to re-hear the case including the new evidence. I think the only way the appeal fails is if the court rules that due diligence would have found this evidence before the proceedings.
A friend fought a pretty wild case with CAS all the way to Switzerland. All the previous courts sided against him. It’s a wild tail, I can’t share, because it’s so unique, it could probably be figured out. All the lower courts weren’t really interested in his circumstances, just “a narrow reading of the rules,” that certainly didn’t take into account a situation like his. When he got to Switzerland, they were very interested in his situation. They sided in his favour and recommended changes to the other organizations for not having a way to deal with this unique circumstance. For him, it was a bit too little too late, but there was satisfaction in winning. But I hope her case is given more thought, like his was, and the outcome successful. There are mistakes being made here, not by the athlete and like my friend, they are pointing to strict rules that don’t fit the situation.
I wish her luck. I don’t know what I’d do if they try to took back my medal after the high of winning, the interviews, family and friends celebrating. It’s disgusting.
The interesting thing about this though is that a key party was not involved nor able to submit allegedly conclusive evidence. Which I understand in theory, as the arbitration was not adversarial against the US, but in practice makes for an outcome that doesn’t actually allow every stakeholder to present their case.
Exactly this. I imagine the CAS report was heavily influenced by evidence provided by the Romanian Gymnastics team and it is clear that USAG was not given an opportunity to provide counter evidence. I am not familiar with how arbitration traditionally works, but this process seems susceptible to corruption.
No Romanian evidence was considered during the trial.
Well the Romanian Committee submitted the appeal and CAS would not have opened an investigation without evidence? They may not have used that evidence in their official ruling but there was almost certainly evidence provided by Romania to file the appeal. You can’t just file appeals willy nilly
Yes, that’s what I meant but maybe I didn’t phrase it correctly. They provided some evidence they gathered but it was not used to determine the verdict. In fact, the evidence they gathered pointed to 1m24s having passed, most likely because they had no way of knowing exactly when the judge registered the inquiry. But TAS then checked their internal timekeeping and discovered it was in fact 1m4s.
What I’ve heard is that CAS contacted the wrong USA officials which is why they didn’t get a response or this evidence before considering the case. Have not been able to confirm that.
Which, if true, shows a problem in procedure and the USA should be able to submit evidence now.
what counter-evidence? the time was measured the same for both parties. the official footage, timings and so on are all on record.
I am not 100% sure on the precise details but USAG tried to appeal with new evidence showing that Chiles’s orignal appeal was submitted 47 seconds after the score was posted. CAS refused to reconsider the case in light of this evidence thus effectively shutting USAG out of the case.
Also. As far as I am concerned, whatever “official times” they have are questionable at best given that they clearly messed it up one way or the other. Chiles was originally within the time limit and then they came out and said that she wasn’t indicating a lack of precision in the timing of appeals.
Lastly, it appears that the evidence is largely based on third party recordings from television cameras and whatever else which also leads me to question the efficacy of the times. It does not appear that there was a precise way of measuring times after scores were posted otherwise they wouldn’t have missed it up on the first place.
there is an “official source”. it’s the omega system that times the whole competition and all the logs. the initial evidence may have been based on tv recordings, but it was judged upon the official system. the initial suggested time for the us inquiry was around 1.20, the cas coreected it to 1.04 according to this system.
“The time-stamped, video evidence submitted by USA Gymnastics Sunday evening shows Landi first stated her request to file an inquiry at the inquiry table 47 seconds after the score is posted, followed by a second statement 55 seconds after the score was originally posted,” USA Gymnastics said in its statement.
“The video footage provided was not available to USA Gymnastics prior to the tribunal’s decision and thus USAG did not have the opportunity to previously submit it.”
But FIG did admit that the Romanian federation was right.
Hopefully the Swiss court will clear this up.
Yeah it’s one of those times where the process can be infuriating
Reports came out today as well that the head of this arbitration panel has represented Romania for over a decade on other cases
https://www.cpradr.org/news/breakingdid-romanias-lawyer-strip-jordan-chiles-of-her-bronze-medal##
Article 190 specifies that an award can be voided if the tribunal was “improperly constituted.” I don’t know what Swiss jurisprudence says that means. e.g., if one of three panel members had a potential conflict of interest. Appealing that has a 30-day time limit.
Yeah I think the US is gonna be on that within the next week.