The decision outraged U.S. Olympic and gymnastics officials, and led to a torrent of online abuse against both Chiles and Ana Barbosu, the Romanian athlete who ended up with the bronze.
I find it interesting that the CAS even has an allowance in their policies regarding disclosing conflicts of interest that involves justifying why the conflict will not affect the arbiter’s judgement of a case.
Part of my undergrad degree was an ethics course, and part of my professional licensure was passing an ethics examination. Funny enough, I don’t remember learning about different levels of conflict of interest.
It was pretty clear in what I learned: if there’s even a question of conflict of interest the only ethical decision is to recuse yourself.
I’m a state employee and have to fill out COI declarations every year. My state differentiates between what it calls perceived and actual COIs. Actual COIs are more severe and require some kind of plan to eliminate or mitigate. Perceived COIs usually just require you to acknowledge that they exist. With that said, if it’s something as simple as recusing yourself from a decision that any number of alternates could handle, why not recuse yourself even if it is a perceived COI? Not doing so might technically fall in line with the rules/laws, but it sure as hell doesn’t look good.
This very clearly comes under the Red List of IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration. Pretty pathetic that they can’t even stick to basic principles of natural justice.
Arbitrators are not always randomly assigned. It’s not like a judge, because arbitration is fundamentally based on the prior agreement of the parties. In ad hoc cases they are assigned I assume cuz of the time frame. But in regular cases usually each side picks an arbitrator they hope will be favorable to their position. Then the main arbitrator picks the head one. For single arbitrators the parties try to agree on one and if that is not possible they ask for one to be assigned based on certain criteria. I don’t know which cases you’re referring to but if it’s a 3 arbitrator panel it’s entirely possible that he was Romania’s pick.
If you’re a judge and a case comes across your desk involving a woman that was friends with your daughter in elementary school and stayed at your house for sleepovers, you recuse yourself.
Doesn’t matter that it’s been 20 years since you’ve seen her. Your memory of this person is a sweet little girl that meant a lot to your child. Your judgement is biased.
This man is actively working for the Romanian government. It’s a clear conflict of interest.
On his firms website, the Romanian government is a frequent client of his. And he’s been working with the Romanian government for the past ten years. The evidence you’re looking for is in the free article linked above.
I find it interesting that the CAS even has an allowance in their policies regarding disclosing conflicts of interest that involves justifying why the conflict will not affect the arbiter’s judgement of a case.
Part of my undergrad degree was an ethics course, and part of my professional licensure was passing an ethics examination. Funny enough, I don’t remember learning about different levels of conflict of interest.
It was pretty clear in what I learned: if there’s even a question of conflict of interest the only ethical decision is to recuse yourself.
I’m a state employee and have to fill out COI declarations every year. My state differentiates between what it calls perceived and actual COIs. Actual COIs are more severe and require some kind of plan to eliminate or mitigate. Perceived COIs usually just require you to acknowledge that they exist. With that said, if it’s something as simple as recusing yourself from a decision that any number of alternates could handle, why not recuse yourself even if it is a perceived COI? Not doing so might technically fall in line with the rules/laws, but it sure as hell doesn’t look good.
This very clearly comes under the Red List of IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration. Pretty pathetic that they can’t even stick to basic principles of natural justice.
The judge these conspirancy theories consider to be in Romania’s pocket wad also involved in trials agaonst Romania. They get randomly assigned.
Arbitrators are not always randomly assigned. It’s not like a judge, because arbitration is fundamentally based on the prior agreement of the parties. In ad hoc cases they are assigned I assume cuz of the time frame. But in regular cases usually each side picks an arbitrator they hope will be favorable to their position. Then the main arbitrator picks the head one. For single arbitrators the parties try to agree on one and if that is not possible they ask for one to be assigned based on certain criteria. I don’t know which cases you’re referring to but if it’s a 3 arbitrator panel it’s entirely possible that he was Romania’s pick.
Not relevant lol.
If you’re a judge and a case comes across your desk involving a woman that was friends with your daughter in elementary school and stayed at your house for sleepovers, you recuse yourself.
Doesn’t matter that it’s been 20 years since you’ve seen her. Your memory of this person is a sweet little girl that meant a lot to your child. Your judgement is biased.
This man is actively working for the Romanian government. It’s a clear conflict of interest.
You’ll need to provide proof he’s working for the Romanian government.
I totally second that!
On his firms website, the Romanian government is a frequent client of his. And he’s been working with the Romanian government for the past ten years. The evidence you’re looking for is in the free article linked above.