Why CAS rejected Vinesh Phogat's application for silver medal at Paris Olympics 2024

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Paris on August 14 dismissed the application filed by Indian wrestler Vinesh Phogat seeking the award of a silver medal in the 50-kilogram women's wrestling event at the Paris Olympics, 2024..CAS has released a 24-page award on its website detailing the reasons for rejecting Phogat's application.While calling it a "particularly difficult case", sole arbitrator Dr Annabelle Bennett held,"The Athlete (Phogat) passed the weigh-in on the first day, but she was also obliged to pass it on the second day, the day of the final. By reason of the application of Article 11 of the Rules, that meant that she was eliminated from the competition and ranked last, without rank. This precludes the awarding of a silver medal, even though her performance on the first day of the competition ensured that she would have at least achieved a silver medal.".Interestingly, the sole arbitrator said that the consequences of Phogat failing the second weigh-in were "draconian"."A consequence of elimination without ranking from the round for which the Athlete was found ineligible, having been eligible for the rounds for which she competed, would seem to be a fairer solution. However, it bears repeating that neither the formation or validity of UWW policy is before the Sole Arbitrator and there is no evidence or submission as to the reasons for such policy.".After winning three bouts on the first day of the event, Phogat was due to compete in the final against America's Sarah Hildebrandt on the second day. However, she was disqualified from the event after failing to make weight by approximately 100 grams.The decision was made by the United World Wrestling (UWW). Following her disqualification, Phogat filed an application challenging the UWW's decision on August 7..CAS response to submissions of Phogat and Indian Olympic Association (IOA).As per Rule 11 of the United World Wrestling International Wrestling Rules, 2023, if an athlete does not attend or fails the weigh-in, they will be disqualified from the competition and placed last, without a ranking.Phogat's counsel argued that the Rule was unfair and overly harsh.The sole arbitrator held that it was not within its authority to determine UWW policy, and the matter involved interpreting the rules established by the UWW. Further, it was required to apply the Olympic Charter and the applicable regulations, including the Rules.The Indian wrestler also sought the application of general principles of equity as opposed to the UWW Rules. In response to this, it was held,"However, Swiss Law provides that such an approach requires consent of the parties, in that they must authorise the Sole Arbitrator to do so (PILA Article 187(2)). Neither the UWW nor the IOC consents to, or authorises, such an approach.".The IOA contended that if the second weigh-in results in disqualification for the competition on that day, it follows that elimination from the competition and last ranking should apply only to subsequent events, not to events that have already taken place. The CAS, while agreeing to this in principle, said,"Much as the Sole Arbitrator sees the logic in a rule that limits the consequences to the round for which the wrestler is not eligible while maintaining the results of rounds for which she was eligible, the Rules do not provide for such an outcome – to the contrary. The Rules use the words “eliminate” and, further, provide that the wrestler is ranked last, without rank.".According to Article 8 of the UWW Rules, a 2 kg weight tolerance is permitted for World Cup events, UWW Ranking Series tournaments, and international tournaments. The IOA argued that such a tolerance should be allowed for the Olympics, being an "international tournament".However, after going through the Rules, the arbitrator established that "international tournaments," for which weight tolerance is allowed, does not include the Olympic Games..Further, the IOA argued that "broader standards" should apply to the Rules. The finding that Phogat was 100g over the 50kg limit should be disregarded, as it is both unusual and unfair to enforce the Rules for such a small difference.The IOA further highlighted that:- Phogat competed in three challenging bouts on August 6, and needed to eat and drink for her well-being.- The short time between matches, combined with the distance between the venue and the Athletes' Village, left Phogat with limited time to reduce her weight before the second weigh-in the next morning.- Although Phogat did not personally raise the issue of menstruation, evidence suggests she was pre-menstrual, which leads to fluid retention.In response to these contentions, the arbitrator said,"There is no evidence to support the contentions that, somehow, the scales were faulty. The matters raised concerning possible reasons based on biology cannot be an excuse for the failure to comply. They are, as normal biological processes which would include eating and drinking and the menstrual cycle, factors to be taken into account as a matter of course by highly experienced athletes to ensure that they remain below the weight limit. The Athlete herself had attended three Olympic Games. She said that she had to eat something but she was aware that she must not become overweight. She needed to rehydrate and then went into her weight loss procedure as best as she could but did not succeed. As UWW submitted, the Applicant was at the upper limit of her weight category, which was evident at the first weigh-in and it was incumbent on her to be extremely careful of her weight.".Phogat also submitted that there was insufficient training and explanation given to athletes from diverse backgrounds as regards the procedures."However, it is apparent from the Athlete’s evidence that she did understand the need to weigh-in at under 50 kg and that she made efforts to do so, both before presenting for the second weigh-in and on the occasion of the second weigh-in during the 15 minutes available to her to repeat the standing on the scales.".On Phogat's submission that making her comply with the 50 kg restriction undermines her bodily integrity, the CAS held,"...but this is the category that the Applicant freely chose to enter. She could just as easily have chosen category 2, with a higher weight limit. She chose the 50 kg category and had achieved much success in that category, within the mandated weight limit.".In the end, the sole arbitrator said that it does not have the power to award medals. Further, there is no provision in the Rules for award of a second silver medal..Phogat was represented by Habbine Estelle Kim, Joëlle Monlouis, Estelle Ivanova and Charles Amson.IOA was represented by Senior Advocate Harish Salve and Advocates Vidushpat Singhania, Nachiket Yagnik, Arnav Singhal and Saiee Godbole..[Read award]