The International Olympic Committee and an appeals court have ruled in Romania’s favour, but the battle for Jordan Chiles’ bronze medal is not over yet.
While USA Gymnastics has vowed to take the fight to Switzerland’s highest court, Romania announced Tuesday that it will go ahead with a medal ceremony for gymnast Ana Bărbosu. This comes after the IOC appears to have rejected a Romanian proposal that all three athletes involved in the dispute be awarded bronze medals.
But there is also new information about the three-person panel convened by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which decided to strip Chiles of her medal. The chairman of the panel is said to have active ties to Romania, which would be a clear conflict of interest. However, he was still allowed to participate in a decision that ruled in favor of Romania.
CAS has responded to these reports and issued a statement placing blame for the controversy on the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG).
Below you can read the latest news and most important information about the bronze medals that gymnastics won at the Olympic Games in Paris.
Panel chairman said to have Romanian connections
The chair of the CAS panel that stripped Chiles of her bronze medal, Hamid G. Gharavi, is a lawyer based in France. According to the New York Times, Gharavi is Romania’s legal adviser at the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes and has worked with Romania for nearly a decade.
Although the arbitrators on this panel were required to fill out a conflict of interest form, there is space for panel members to explain why their potential conflict of interest would not affect their ability to make an impartial decision. This appears to be what happened with Gharavi; the court told the Times in an email that Gharavi “had disclosed his work with Romania in writing and that none of the parties involved in the hearing objected to his appointment as chair of the panel.”
However, Gharavi’s close association with Romania outside of sports is seen by the International Bar Association as a clear conflict of interest, according to an expert who spoke to the Times. By those standards, Gharavi should have recused himself from any involvement in the case.
It’s unclear whether this new revelation will have any impact on the case going forward. CAS rarely reopens cases or explains the reasoning behind its rulings, and has already refused to reopen this case despite the discovery of new evidence. But it issued a fiery response Wednesday.
CAS has issued a statement in response to reports of Gharavi’s ties to Romania, which it has described as “scandalous”.
“CAS condemns the scandalous statements published in certain US media outlets alleging, without knowledge of the above and before reviewing the reasoned decision, that the Panel, and in particular its Chair, was biased by other professional commitments or on grounds of nationality,” the statement said. “Since none of the parties to this case challenged any Panelist during the proceedings, it is reasonable to assume that all parties were satisfied with the fact that their cases were heard by this Panel. Any subsequent criticism is without foundation or merit.”
CAS blames gymnastics federation for controversy
In a separate 29-page statement released Wednesday explaining the ruling, CAS said it did not have the authority to reach a conclusion on awarding bronze medals to all three gymnasts embroiled in the controversy — Chiles, Bărbosu and Bărbosu’s Romanian teammate Sabrina Maneca-Voinea. Awarding multiple bronze medals has been widely suggested as the fairest solution.
CAS says it is bound by FIG rules.
“Therefore, it remains the case that the award of three bronze medals in this event would be impossible with the strict application of the FIG rules unless the parties agree to such an award, which FIG opposes,” the CAS statement said.
CAS concluded that its panel would have awarded three bronze medals if it had been able to do so and criticised FIG rules which it said had led to “much heartache”.
“It is not the role of the Panel to apply principles of equity, or to award medals, or to determine that there should be multiple recipients of the bronze medal, as some Parties have suggested,” the statement continued. “Had the Panel been able to apply principles of equity, it would certainly have awarded a bronze medal to all three gymnasts given their performance, good faith and the injustice and hardship to which they have been subjected, in circumstances where the FIG has provided no mechanism or arrangement to implement the one-minute rule it has established under Rule 8.5.”
“If the FIG had put in place such a mechanism or arrangement, much heartache would have been avoided. The Panel expresses its hope that the FIG will draw the consequences of this case in the future, in relation to these three extraordinary athletes and also for other athletes and their support staff, so that this never happens again.”
FIG did not immediately respond to CAS’s statement on Wednesday.
USAG Responds to CAS with Damning Statement
Not surprisingly, USA Gymnastics was not pleased with CAS’s decision. The federation released a statement restating its case and vowing to continue fighting for Chiles.
USA Gymnastics strongly disagrees with the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s detailed decision released today. As noted in the decision, USA Gymnastics was not notified of the case until August 9—three days after it was filed, two days after the deadline to file panelist objections, and less than 24 hours before the hearing. This was due to CAS sending case files to incorrect email addresses. Further, CAS did not send any panelist’s conflict of interest disclosures to USA Gymnastics, and we have not seen the disclosures to date. As previously noted, video evidence later made available to USA Gymnastics and submitted to CAS conclusively shows that head coach Cecile Landi made an oral inquiry 47 seconds after the score was posted, within the 1-minute deadline required by FIG rule.
We will pursue these and other matters on appeal as we continue to seek justice for Jordan Chiles.
Romania says it will go ahead with medal ceremony
The Romanian Olympic and Sports Committee said Tuesday that the disputed bronze medal, initially awarded to Chiles in Paris, will be presented to Bărbosu at a ceremony in Bucharest on Friday.
The ROSC made the announcement in a statement released Tuesday. The IOC previously said the medal would be awarded to Bărbosu in a “redistribution ceremony.” Neither the IOC nor the FIG have addressed or verified Tuesday’s claim by the ROSC.
“Gymnast Ana Maria Barbosu takes home the bronze medal she won in the floor final at the 2024 Paris Olympics,” the ROSC statement said.
“The medal will be presented to him by Octavian Morariu, member of the International Olympic Committee for Romania, and by Mihai Covaliu, President of the Romanian Olympic and Sports Committee, at an event that will take place on the esplanade of the Olympic House in Bucharest, Friday, August 16, from 9:30 am.”
What happens to Chiles’ medal?
If the Romanian ceremony does indeed go ahead, it appears that this will not be the case with the medal awarded to Chiles.
There is no indication from USA Gymnastics that it has returned the medal or plans to do so. On Monday, USAG vowed to continue fighting to keep the medal after the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) rejected an appeal that the medal was lawfully awarded to Chiles in the first place. USAG vowed to take the fight to the Swiss Supreme Court.
“We are deeply disappointed by the notification and will continue to pursue all available avenues and appeals, including through the Swiss Federal Tribunal, to ensure Jordan receives a fair score, placement and medal,” the USAG statement said.
How we got here
Chiles initially finished fifth in the floor exercise final of the final rotation of the gymnastics competition at the Paris Olympics, behind Bărbosu and Maneca-Voinea, who initially tied for third place in the event with scores of 13.700. Bărbosu was initially declared the bronze medal winner via a tiebreaker over Maneca-Voinea.
Chiles’ coach, Cecile Landi, appealed the score of her routine after the event, and the judges ruled that Chiles did not receive full credit for a skill after the event was reviewed. Her score was adjusted from 13.666 to 13.766, allowing her to surpass the Romanian gymnasts and win bronze.
Chiles’ score adjustment overturned due to formality
A few days later, the ROSC appealed this decision and the CAS granted the appeal. CAS did not determine that Chiles’ score adjustment was made in error, but that Landi had filed her appeal of Chiles’ score four seconds after the one-minute deadline to do so at the end of Chiles’ routine. Chiles’ score was reset to 13.666, back to fifth place.
USAG, meanwhile, appealed the CAS decision, citing video evidence showing that Landi filed her appeal within the allotted time. Whatever evidence USAG presented did not compel CAS to change its decision.
The IOC responded to the CAS decision with a own statement on sunday that the medal would be awarded to Bărbosu through a ‘redistribution ceremony’.
“The IOC will re-allocate the bronze medal to Ana Barbosu (Romania),” the IOC statement said. “We are in contact with the NOC of Romania to discuss the re-allocation ceremony and with the USOPC regarding the return of the bronze medal.”
The IOC has not verified whether the ceremony announced by the ROSC on Tuesday is the “redistribution ceremony.”
Should Maneca-Voinea actually get the medal?
In a separate appeal against Chiles’ bronze award, the ROSC argued that Maneca-Voinea was given a 0.1-point penalty for stepping outside the boundaries of her routine when she did not. Video shows she did not.
An additional 0.1 point would bring Maneca-Voinea’s score to 14.8000, passing Bărbosu’s score and Chiles’ adjusted score to bronze. The CAS dismissed the appeal against Maneca-Voinea’s score without explanation, and the ROSC has moved forward with a focus on re-awarding the medal to Bărbosu.
The Romanian Gymnastics Federation has proposed to award three bronze medals, with Chiles keeping her medal. This does not seem to be an option in the eyes of the IOC.
