The court of Arbitration for sport (CAS) in Paris dismissed the application filed for award seeking of silver medal in the 50-kilogram women’s wrestling event at Paris Olympics 2024 on 14 August 2024.CAs has broadcast a 24- pages award on its website explaining the reasons for rejecting Phogat’s application.
“Vinesh Phogat passed the weigh-in on the first day,but athlete (Phogat) was also required to pass weigh-in on the second day, means on final day.Due to application of Article 11 of the Rules, that meant that she was eliminated from the contention and ranked last.This prevent the awarding of a silver medal, even her performance on the first day of the contention ensured that she would have at least achieved a silver medal.”
More interestingly, the sole arbitrator told that the consequences of Vinesh Phogat failing the second weigh-in were “draconian”.
“It would seem to be fairer decision that a result of suspension without ranking from the round for which the Athlete was found unqualified, having been eligible for the rounds for which she competed.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.”
Winning three boults on the 1st day of the event, Vinesh Phogat has to compete in the final against America’s Sarah Hildebrandt on the final day.However, she was disqualified from the event due to failing to make weight by only 100 grams.
The final decision was made by the United World Wrestling (UWW). Vinesh Phogat filed an application challenging the United World Wrestling decision on 7th August 2024.
CAS react to submissions of Vinesh Phogat and Indian Olympic Association (IOA)
As per rule 11 of the United World Wrestling International Wrestling Rules, 2023, if any athlete dos not take part in or fail the weigh-in, they will removed from the competition and given him/her at last position, without ranking.
Vinesh Phogat ‘s advise argued that the Rule was unfair and overly harsh.
The sole arbitrator held that it was not within its rights to examine UWW policy and this matter involved explaining the rules established by the UWW.
Vinesh also sought the application of general principals of equity for opposing the UWW Rules.Result of this was held.
” Swiss Law says that such an approach requires consent of the parties, in that they must authorise the sole Arbitrator to do so according to PILA Article 187(2). None of both (UWW and IOC) consents to, or authorises,such an approach.”