By

Morgan Elmore^*

Following the conclusion of the women’s gymnastics floor exercise final of the 2024 Paris Olympic Games, it was not the gold medal recipient people were interested in but the bronze.¹ All eyes were on Jordan Chiles, the recipient of the bronze after The Federation of Romanian Gymnastics contested the timeliness of a score inquiry brought by Chiles’ coach contesting her difficulty score.² The Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique (herein “FIG”), the international governing body for gymnastics, accepted the score inquiry, and the resulting change in score dropped Ana Marie Bărbosu from third to fourth. Chiles improved from fifth to third.³ The Romanians brought a claim against FIG to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (herein “CAS”) that “the inquiry submitted by Ms. Chiles should be dismissed as it was submitted after the end of the 1-minute deadline provided by Article 8.5 of FIG Technical Regulations 2024.”⁴ Chiles, her coach, and USA Gymnastics participated in the case through counsel.⁵ Interestingly, the International Olympic Committee (herein “IOC”) chose to participate but almost solely as an observer, offering little testimony.⁶

CAS is governed by the Code of Sport, which outlines rules and procedures for various international sports.⁷ The Code establishes procedures for arbitration, appeals, mediation, as well as procedures for receiving advisement on disputes prior to any formal procedure.⁸ The CAS does not question scoring or decisions of referees and officials, only technical or procedural issues.⁹ CAS was established by the International Olympic Committee (herein “IOC”) in 1983.¹⁰ Organizations including the IOC and Federation Internationale de Football Association (herein “FIFA”), often see disputes resolved in the CAS.¹¹ Here, neither party challenged the jurisdiction or applicable law used by CAS.¹²

The issue before the Court here was whether the score inquiry was made soon enough after Chiles’ posted score.¹³All associated parties stipulated that the inquiry was submitted after one minute and four seconds.¹⁴ This issue hinged on the interpretation of Article 8.5 of FIG Technical Regulations and whether it allowed for discretion in the timeliness of inquiries.¹⁵ Article 8.5 reads “[f]or the last gymnast or group of a rotation, this limit is one (1) minute after the score is shown on the scoreboard.”¹⁶ It adds that “[l]ate verbal inquiries will be rejected.”¹⁷USA Gymnastics contended that using other Articles in FIG rules in other facets like length of routine, there was some flexibility in timeliness and therefore rule 8.5 could also be understood as flexible.¹⁸The Court noted that in other FIG rules prescribing timeliness, the rule explicitly notes conditions for exceptions while the FIG rule addressing scores inquiries does not.¹⁹The Court interpreted this absence as an intention to keep the time limit strictly to one minute.²⁰

Issues regarding who took the inquiry and the inquiry electronic system were raised however, they did not affect the Court’s decision.²¹ The court concluded that the one-minute time limit was absolute.²² Therefore, the scores were ordered to be reverted to the pre-inquiry results.²³ As a result, Chiles returned to fifth place with Bărbosu returning to third place and awarded the bronze medal.²⁴ Chiles has filed multiple appeals.²⁵

Ultimately, CAS proved to be the best, most widely recognized forum for resolving this dispute in an unbiased manner. CAS fulfilled its aim of interpreting the FIG rules and their application while not straying into the official scoring awarded by the judges for the performance. While the results of the Court have been internationally scrutinized, largely raising political biases, CAS properly adjudicated the issue.²⁶

* Morgan Elmore is a Senior Editor of Arbitration Law Review and a 2025 Juris Doctor Candidate at Penn State Law.