Sep 2, 2024 22:31 UTC
| Updated:
Sep 7, 2024 at 12:25 UTC
Case Study: Vinesh Phogat v. United World Wrestling & I.O.C.
“C.A.S. Rules Against Vinesh Phogat, Upholds Strict Weight Limit in Olympic Wrestling”
Citation: CAS OG 24/17.
Date of Judgment: 14th August, 2024
Court: Court of Arbitration for Sport
Bench: Annabelle Bennett (Sole Arbitrator)
Facts
- Vinesh Phogat, the applicant, is an Indian female wrestler who was scheduled to compete in the 50 kg Women’s Freestyle event finals at the 2024 Paris Olympics.
- A day before the championship match, she competed in three matches while adhering to her weight division.
- Before the final, Phogat was weighed again on the morning of August 7th. She weighed slightly over the 50 kg limit. According to the United World Wrestling International Wrestling Rules 2023, she was allowed to try again after 15 minutes. She was still over the limit the second time by 100 grams, consequently leading to her disqualification.
- Phogat appealed the disqualification decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (hereinafter referred to as C.A.S.). Phogat contended that the disqualification was unfair and that a small tolerance should be allowed for weight variations. The wrestler cited factors like pre-menstrual fluid retention and the stress of multiple competitions as reasons for the weight gain.
- The applicant filed before the C.A.S. requesting that the decision disqualifying her be reversed and its consequences undone. She also asked to remain eligible for the silver medal, to be weighed again before the finals, and to participate in the finals.
Judgment of the C.A.S. Ad hoc Division
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (C.A.S.) dismissed Vinesh Phogat’s appeal against her disqualification from the 2024 Paris Olympics. The C.A.S. upheld the United World Wrestling’s decision to disqualify Phogat for exceeding the weight limit by 100 grams. There is no tolerance allowed for weight variations in the second weigh-in. The C.A.S. rejected Phogat’s request for a joint silver medal. Furthermore, The C.A.S. confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the case, rejecting arguments that it was a field-of-play decision or that the International Olympic Committee should have handled the matter.
Key legal issues discussed
1. Can a minor weight tolerance be granted?
No
The C.A.S. stated, “There is no dispute that the Applicant failed the second weigh-in, in that her weight was in excess of the 50 kg limit.” The applicant and the Indian Olympic Association (hereinafter referred to as I.O.A.) contended that the wrestler was slightly overweight and that tolerance for the same should be accepted. Meanwhile, the United World Wrestling (hereinafter referred to as U.W.W.) pointed out that as soon as the athlete exceeds the applicable weight limit, such an athlete will be disqualified.
The I.O.A. provided a medical certificate stating that Phogat was in her pre-menstrual phase on August 8th. They also referenced medical studies differentiating between male and female bodies about how body weight can fluctuate during menstruation. The arbitrator ruled that the possible consequences of differences between male and female athletes concerning weigh-ins and weight categories are speculative and not supported by evidence. Therefore, these factors cannot be considered in this case. Furthermore, the applicant objected concerning the weighing scale showing 50 grams when empty. However, the reasoning failed to show that the wrestler’s weight was within permissible limits.
The Sole Arbitrator relied upon Article 8 of the U.W.W. Rules, which explicitly states that no tolerance shall be allowed in case of a second weigh-in. In the 118th para, the arbitrator observed, “The problem for the Athlete is that the Rules are clear as to the weight limit and are the same for all participants. There is no tolerance provided for – it is an upper limit. It does not even allow for the weight of the singlet. It is clearly up to an athlete to ensure that they remain below that limit.”
The I.O.A. argued that the wrestling rules were too strict compared to other sports. The I.O.A. highlighted the minimal weight difference and argued that enforcing such a strict rule was unfair. The arbitrator held that he has no discretion in the matter, and the rules shall be interpreted literally. Furthermore, it was observed that even the most minor differences can determine victory or defeat, eligibility or ineligibility.
2. Can the wrestler be conferred with a joint silver medal?
No
Article 11 of the U.W.W. Rules state that if an athlete fails the weigh-in or fails to attend it, he shall be “eliminated from the competition and ranked last, without rank.” The applicant contended that such a rule is inequitable and should be liberally interpreted. However, the sole arbitrator rejected such a notion and adopted the literal interpretation.
The applicant sought the application of equity in her case. However, as per Swiss law, both the United World Wrestling (U.W.W.) and the International Olympic Committee (I.O.C.) should provide their consent for such an approach to the arbitrator pursuant to P.I.L.A. Article 187(2). Neither the U.W.W. nor the I.O.C. agreed to this approach.
The Sole Arbitrator explored whether the consequences of failing the second weigh-in could be limited to the final round of the competition without affecting the results of the previous rounds. The I.O.C. made a submission in which the arbitrator agreed that the Olympic wrestling tournament is a single event with multiple stages over two days. To qualify for the finals, wrestlers must pass both weigh-ins. The rules define the entire tournament as one competition, even though it spans two days.
Phogat argued that she should not lose the benefits she’d earned before failing the weigh-in, including the silver medal and her ranking points. While answering the matter, the sole arbitrator held that the rules clearly state that a wrestler who fails a weigh-in will be eliminated from the competition and ranked last. The C.A.S. has consistently ruled that it cannot change or modify federation rules. In the 122nd para, the court states, “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.”
Therefore, upon application of Article 11, the Sole Arbitrator cannot grant her a joint silver medal.
3. Does the C.A.S. Ad hoc Division has jurisdiction to hear the case?
Yes
The U.W.W. argued that the decision to disqualify Phogat was a field-of-play decision, meaning it was made during the competition. Therefore, the application before the C.A.S. should be deemed inadmissible. However, the C.A.S. determined it was a decision about eligibility, not a matter related to the competition itself.
The I.O.A. submitted that as per Rule 59 of the Olympic Charter and applicable by-laws, the I.O.C. shall determine the matter pertaining to the athlete’s disqualification and its subsequent application. In its submission, the I.O.A. expressed that the C.A.S. lacks the jurisdiction to hear the case. The court negated this line of reasoning and held that Rule 61 of the Olympic Charter clearly states that the C.A.S. has the authority to handle disputes related to the Olympic Games. All parties involved in this case agreed to this authority, and the applicable regulations are the wrestling rules. Thus, the C.A.S. has jurisdiction to hear and try the case.
