The Court of Arbitration for Sport injected late drama into the gymnastics competition at the 2024 Paris Olympics on Saturday, issuing a ruling that could cost Jordan Chiles a bronze medal.
And there have been so many twists and developments in the time since that it might be getting difficult to keep up.
With the latest update in the case that CAS will not reconsider its original decision, let’s take a minute to break down how we got here, where we stand and what might happen next − particularly with regards to Chiles’ bronze in floor exercise.
How did this Jordan Chiles case come about?
One of the confusing aspects of this case is that it is essentially an appeal of an appeal.
2024 Paris Olympics: Follow USA TODAY’s coverage of the biggest names and stories of the Games.
At the women’s floor exercise final more than a week ago, Chiles’ score increased to 13.766 from 13.666 after her coach, Cecile Landi, appealed a deduction that she had received on one element, known as a tour jete full. The appeal, known as an ‘inquiry’ in gymnastics, wiped away the deduction, moved Chiles into third and knocked Ana Barbosu of Romania off the podium.
When the Romanian Gymnastics Federation filed its case with CAS, it was basically appealing the validity of Landi’s appeal, hoping that Chiles’ score would be reverted back to 13.666.
When CAS agreed, the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) re-adjusted its order of finish for the event and the International Olympic Committee said it would be asking Chiles to return her medal so it could be reallocated to Barbosu.
What is a tour jete full?
Without getting too into the weeds, a tour jete is essentially a split leap − a gymnast doing the splits while rotating in mid-air. The question with Chiles’ tour jete is whether she rotated enough to receive the full difficulty score for it.
‘I was not confident (in the inquiry) but what do you have to lose?’ another one of Chiles’ coaches, Laurent Landi, said immediately after the end of the event. ‘… I was at the same angle as the judge and I felt (her tour jeté full) was way better than all the other meets that she’s done, so what the heck? We may as well try.’
What makes this inquiry so complicated?
In all likelihood, this controversy would not have arisen if Chiles hadn’t gone last of the eight competitors in the floor final. Her luck of the draw meant that whatever happened with her score would effectively decide who would win the bronze medal. (Rebeca Andrade of Brazil and American star Simone Biles had by this point locked up gold and silver, respectively.)
At any other point in the competition, the inquiry process is fairly straightforward. According to the technical rules published by the FIG, a coach can submit an inquiry into their gymnast’s score at any point before the next competitor’s score is shown. The exception: For the last gymnast in a rotation, the inquiry must be submitted within one minute ‘after the score is shown on the scoreboard.’
Who was keeping track of the official time?
According to FIG’s rules, it should’ve been someone on their judging panel.
‘The person designated to receive the verbal inquiry has to record the time of receiving it, either in writing or electronically, and this starts the procedure,’ FIG’s technical rules state.
FIG has not responded to messages from USA TODAY Sports seeking the identity of this designated person at the floor exercise final in Paris.
The lack of clarity on timing has led to dueling narratives from the Romanian Gymnastics Federation and USA Gymnastics. The Romanians claimed to CAS that the inquiry was submitted 64 seconds after Chiles’ score was shown, which is four seconds too late. The Americans said they have found new video evidence of Landi submitting the inquiry 47 seconds after the score was shown, which would be under the allotted time.
What happens next?
According to USA Gymnastics, CAS said it cannot reconsider its ruling, even with the existence of the new evidence. Instead, USAG and the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee have said they plan to challenge that CAS decision by filing an appeal with the Swiss Federal Tribunal, which is the highest court in Switzerland.
In a statement issued Tuesday, CAS explained, in part: ”The CAS confirms that once the final decision is notified to the parties concerned, the case cannot be reopened at the CAS level. The evidence concerning the correctness of the official time when the “Inquiry” was submitted … was discussed at the hearing and the parties had ample opportunities to present their arguments and objections in this regard. If new evidence (i.e. objectively unknown at the time of the CAS hearing) appears after the issuance of the CAS decision, it would be possible to ask the Swiss Federal Tribunal to order that the case be reopened. The CAS would also reopen the case spontaneously if all parties agree.”
The Swiss Federal Tribunal usually only intervenes in CAS decisions in cases where there has been a blatant procedural issue, so it is unclear what the Americans will argue, specifically, or whether their efforts will succeed.
It is also immediately unclear whether Chiles will hold on to her medal while the appeal process unfolds.
Who has the final call on whether Chiles keeps her bronze medal?
Even days later, it’s still not totally clear. And the FIG and IOC are pointing at one another. A FIG spokesperson wrote in an email Saturday that ‘medal reallocation is the responsibility of the IOC.’ Then an IOC spokesperson wrote in an email Monday that ‘it is the International Federations (IFs) which establish the results of the competitions’ and ‘the medal allocation is based on results.’
In practical terms, the final decision would likely come down to the Swiss Federal Tribunal, should an appeal be formally filed there.
For what it’s worth: According to the CAS ruling, the Romanian Gymnastics Federation had not specifically asked that Chiles lose her medal. It asked CAS to place three gymnasts − Chiles, Barbosu and another Romanian gymnast, Sabrina Maneca-Voinea − in third place. (Maneca-Voinea and Barbosu both scored 13.700, but Barbosu won the tiebreaker, which is a higher execution score.)
Contact Tom Schad at tschad@usatoday.com or on social media @Tom_Schad.
This post appeared first on USA TODAY
