A Detailed Look at the CAS and Its Rejection of Vinesh Phogat's Petition

Paris Olympics 2024: Vinesh Phogat.

(Photo: PTI)

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) rejected Vinesh Phogat's petition for a joint silver medal in the 2024 Olympics. The operative part of the decision has been released, with the detailed order expected at a later time.

Phogat's plea against her shocking Olympic disqualification was accepted by the ad hoc panel of the CAS in Paris on 8 August. Initially, the hearing was scheduled for 9 August at 10 am local time but postponed to 2 pm local time when the matter was officially referred to the Sole Arbitrator, Dr Annabelle Bennett AC SC (AUS). In a rather peculiar turn of events, the verdict was delayed many times, finally seeing the light of day on 14 August.

While the United World Wrestling (UWW) Chief and seasoned member of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), Nenad Lalovic, had cautioned against raising one’s expectations, Phogat’s camp seemed to continue scrambling for loopholes that may ultimately pave the way for a positive outcome.

The wrestler, who reached the gold medal bout in the women's 50kg Olympic weight category, was disqualified because she was 100 grams overweight during the weigh-in on the day of the final showdown. She was within the permissible weight limit the night before. A day after her heartbreaking disqualification, the 29-year-old athlete announced her retirement from the sport.

The first appeal that Phogat brought before the CAS through the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) requested her to be allowed to compete in the final round based on the argument that she had reached the finals fair and square. The verdict for that appeal came instantly from the CAS and it was, very decisively, a 'No'. With less than 24 hours to act on this, she brought another appeal seeking the annulment of the decision to disqualify her so that she could at least claim a joint silver medal – a plea that showed more promise of succeeding.

Here, the CAS shed light on the fact that “she (Phogat) did not request urgent interim measures. The CAS ad hoc Division procedure is fast, but it was not possible for a decision on the merits to be issued within an hour, bearing in mind that the Respondent (in this appeal), UWW would have had to be heard first.” It remains unclear whether the delay was avoidable and, if it had been, whether it could have altered Phogat’s fate.

What is the CAS? 

The Court of Arbitration for Sport was established in 1984 as an international body dedicated to resolving sports-related disputes through arbitration, a faster, legally binding alternative mechanism to traditional litigation. Headquartered in Switzerland, the CAS also operates courts in New York, Sydney, and Lausanne, and establishes temporary tribunals in cities hosting the Olympics.

One such tribunal is the ad hoc division of CAS, currently located within the Paris Judicial Court in the 17th Arrondissement, responsible for addressing disputes that arise during the Olympic Games. This temporary tribunal has been a fixture at every Summer and Winter Games since 1996, as well as other major sporting events.

The tribunal officially operated till the conclusion of the 2024 Olympics on 11 August. According to an official media release, “The CAS Ad Hoc Division guarantees free access to high-quality dispute resolution services conducted within a timeframe consistent with the competition schedule, with decisions rendered within 24 hours in urgent matters.”

In the initial phase, following the CAS guidelines, Phogat was represented by pro-bono lawyers from the Paris Bar Association: Joëlle Monlouis, Estelle Ivanova, Habbine Estelle Kim, and Charles Amson. However, Former Solicitor General of India Harish Salve and sports law expert Vidhushpat Singhania were then formally briefed by the IOA to lay down the arguments.

What was the Rule Breach?

According to Article 11 of the UWW’s Rule Book, an athlete who fails to make the weight cut will be eliminated from the event. Each weight category's tournament takes place over two days and on the morning of each day, athletes need to stay within the weight limits of their respective categories. As part of their stringent protocol, weigh-ins are performed with wrestlers wearing only their singlets, while officials also check for contagious conditions and ensure that fingernails are properly trimmed.

On the first day, wrestlers have a 30-minute window to make weight, during which they can step on the scale as many times as needed. Similarly, for those advancing to the second day, the weigh-in is limited to only 15 minutes, and failing to stay within the limit during that time shall lead to disqualification. A two kilo weight relaxation is granted for international tournaments and the World Cup, but unfortunately, in the Olympics, stricter weight regulations are enforced.

Phogat initially weighed in just under the 50kg limit at 49.9kg before the matches began. However, by the end of the first day, her weight had risen to 52.7kg. Despite relentlessly skipping, jogging and cycling all night before the next weigh-in and taking drastic measures of cutting her hair and drawing out blood, the wrestler was disqualified when she consistently registered 50.1 kg on the day of the finale.

Confronted with many logistical challenges, the wrestler had decided to compete in the 50kg category for the Olympics instead of her usual 53kg category, which ultimately led to significant challenges in managing her weight and the eventual doom.

IOA’s Submissions and the Latest Statement  

After the disqualification, the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) quickly filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

They contended that the 100g excess was minimal, only around 0.1 to 0.2% of the athlete's weight. This slight increase, they argued, could result from natural factors like water retention during the summer, which the body does as a survival mechanism. The IOA also pointed out that the weight gain could be due to muscle mass increase after competing three times in one day, or from necessary food intake to sustain the athlete's health and stamina for the demanding events.

Since the dismissal of her petition, the IOA has issued a scathing statement that “the operative part of the August 14 decision, which dismisses Vinesh's application to be awarded a shared silver medal women's 50kg category at the Paris Olympic Games 2024, has significant implications for her in particular and the sporting community at large.”

Furthermore, the IOA, in its solidarity, has added, “the marginal discrepancy of 100 grams and the resultant consequences has a profound impact, not only in terms of Phogat's career but also raises serious questions about ambiguous rules and their interpretation”.

Peculiarity of the Proceedings

According to Article 18 of the CAS Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games, the ad hoc panel is required to issue a decision within 24 hours of the application being submitted. In exceptional situations, this time frame may be extended by the Arbitrator of the ad hoc Division if deemed necessary.

Additionally, if the Arbitrator feels additional hearings are needed, a new date may also be set.

Although in a majority of CAS cases, the verdict is typically delivered on the same day, in Phogat’s case there has been an inordinate delay in pronouncing the judgement. Historically speaking, the CAS has always been outrightly reluctant to overturn decisions made on the field of play, unless there is clear evidence that the officials acted in bad faith or with arbitrariness.

Since those defences are not being taken in the matter at hand, it is safe to say that the CAS deviated from its usual style of adjudication in Phogat’s case, triggering the exceptionality clause of Article 18.

Are CAS Decisions Appealable? 

Following the larger jurisprudence that exists on arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism, a dispute can only be brought to the CAS if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties designating CAS as the forum. However, under Rule 61 of the Olympic Charter, any disputes related to the Olympic Games must be submitted to the CAS.

Thus, by acting as per the procedure laid down by the said Charter, Phogat has also submitted to the CAS’ jurisdiction. Additionally, all Olympic International Federations (IFs) have acknowledged the jurisdiction of this court for at least a few types of disputes.

As a Swiss arbitration body, CAS decisions can be appealed to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland. However, such appeals are generally unsuccessful, as the court does not review the merits of the case. Instead, the focus is on whether procedural requirements were adhered to and whether the award aligns with public policy.

In 1992, the CAS made a ruling in the Gundel v La Fédération Equestre Internationale case, which was later appealed to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland on the grounds of CAS impartiality. The Swiss court affirmed the legitimacy of CAS as an arbitration tribunal but pointed out its numerous links with the IOC. In response, CAS implemented reforms to enhance its independence from the IOC, both organizationally and financially.

A key reform was the establishment of the "International Council of Arbitration for Sport" (ICAS), which assumed responsibility for managing and funding CAS, thus diminishing the IOC's influence. Such prompt developments have cemented the reputation of CAS as the end-all of sports adjudication.

Thus, while it is safe to say that the decision (or award, in arbitration terms) has sealed her fate and shattered the hopes of a billion Indians, it may be worthwhile to note that the IOA has summarily deferred in conceding to the decision and remarked that they are “exploring further legal options” and are “committed to ensuring that Vinesh's case is heard.”

(Oiswarjya Basu is an Assistant Professor at the Jindal Global Law School.)