The fight over Jordan Chiles’ bronze medal is not over yet.
Chiles’ attorneys announced Monday that they have filed a formal appeal with the Swiss Federal Tribunal over the results in the women’s floor exercise final at the 2024 Paris Olympics − asking the tribunal to overturn an earlier ruling by the Court of Arbitration for Sport that effectively knocked Chiles off the podium.
Chiles was moved into third place after challenging the judges’ score of one of the elements in her routine, then bumped back down to fifth days later after CAS ruled the challenge was submitted four seconds too late. The International Olympic Committee has since asked Chiles to return her bronze medal and awarded one to Ana Barbosu of Romania, the gymnast who was elevated to third after the CAS ruling.
“Jordan Chiles’ appeals present the international community with an easy legal question − will everyone stand by while an Olympic athlete who has done only the right thing is stripped of her medal because of fundamental unfairness in an ad-hoc arbitration process?” attorney Maurice Suh said in a statement. “The answer to that question should be no. Every part of the Olympics, including the arbitration process, should stand for fair play.”
The statement also said Chiles plans to file an additional petition “seeking additional and alternative relief from the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.”
“Both briefs could result in a retrial of this matter before CAS in order to allow her — for the first time — to prepare a defense and present evidence, including the video footage showing that her coach’s scoring inquiry was submitted on time,” the statement said.
Chiles’ appeal to the tribunal, which is the highest court in Switzerland, marks a significant and relatively rare step. CAS is designed to be the final arbiter of any legal disputes in international sports, so it often has the final word on cases like this one, which was initially filed by the Romanian Gymnastics Federation against the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG).
The Swiss tribunal usually overturns CAS decisions only in cases where there was a blatant procedural violation, lack of jurisdiction or incompatibility with Swiss public policy.
Chiles’ attorneys said in a news release that they are appealing the CAS ruling because it was “procedurally deficient” in two ways. They argue that the American gymnast’s fundamental “right to be heard” was violated when CAS declined to consider new video evidence, obtained after the hearing, that shows her inquiry was submitted on time. And they also say the CAS hearing was unfair because Chiles was not informed that the president of the arbitration panel that heard the case, Hamid Gharavi, has “a serious conflict of interest,” having represented Romania in other proceedings.
“Given these undeniable deficiencies, Chiles asks the Federal Supreme Court to reinstate the score that she rightfully earned at the floor event final,” law firms Gibson Dunn and Homburger AG said in the news release.
The law firms said Chiles’ appeal was accompanied by a letter of support from the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, which has repeatedly criticized CAS’ handling of the case − specifically with regards to the timeline
While CAS attempted to notify all of the relevant parties of the dispute on August 6, the USOPC and national governing body USA Gymnastics have said they were not informed about the case until three days later − and less than 24 hours before the hearing was scheduled to begin. The early notices about the case were sent to incorrect email addresses, USA Gymnastics has said.
The governing bodies have also lamented CAS’ decision not to consider the aforementioned video footage, which they say was discovered after the CAS hearing but conclusively proves that Chiles’ inquiry was submitted on time. CAS declined to re-open the case and consider the new video evidence.
“In collaboration with Jordan’s counsel and USA Gymnastics, we are pursuing a coordinated approach, with Jordan’s team handling the initial appeal,” the USOPC said in a statement. “Due to the egregious errors and oversight by CAS in handling the case and overlooking clear evidence of Jordan’s rightful bronze win, we are determined to ensure she receives the recognition she deserves. Our commitment to truth in this matter remains steadfast.”
USA Gymnastics said it supported Chiles’ appeal and will continue to work with her legal team.
“We will make supportive filings with the court in the continued pursuit of justice for Jordan,” USAG said in a statement.
The dispute itself revolves around slim margins – namely one tenth of a point in the floor exercise final, which is the difference between Chiles or Barbosu earning bronze.
Chiles and her coaches believed the 23-year-old was not given full credit for her split leap, known as a tour jete full. Cecile Landi, who was Chiles’ personal coach as well as coach of the U.S. team in Paris, filed what’s known as an inquiry, triggering a review of that element’s scoring. It was successful, and Chiles was credited with an additional 0.10 points, giving her the bronze and knocking Barbosu, 18, off the podium.
The Romanian Gymnastics Federation later took the matter to CAS, arguing that the inquiry had been filed four seconds past the allotted one-minute deadline. CAS agreed and ordered FIG to revise the order of finish in the event, which prompted the IOC to ask Chiles to return her bronze medal.
The CAS ruling in question was filed by the Romanian Gymnastics Federation and Barbosu against FIG and Donatella Sacchi, the president of FIG’s technical committee for women’s gymnastics. While Chiles, the USOPC and USAG were not named in the dispute, they were involved in the arbitral process as “interested parties,” according to CAS.
Chiles spoke about the ordeal publicly for the first time last week, saying during an appearance at the Forbes Power Women’s Summit that her “heart was broken” by the process. The International Gymnastics Federation acknowledged during the CAS hearing that it did not have a mechanism in place to show if inquiries were submitted in time and accepted Chiles’ because it assumed it had been.
Yet Chiles was the one penalized, through no fault of her own. That is why she’s continuing to fight, Chiles said last week.
This ongoing battle raises significant questions about fairness in Olympic arbitration and the processes athletes must navigate to defend their achievements.
The controversy began during the women’s floor exercise final at the Paris Games, where Chiles, an American gymnast, was initially awarded a bronze medal after her coach, Cecile Landi, successfully challenged the scoring of one of the elements in her routine, a split leap known as the tour jeté full. This challenge earned Chiles an additional 0.10 points, moving her into third place, ahead of Romanian gymnast Ana Barbosu.
However, the celebration was short-lived. Days after Chiles was moved into third place, the Romanian Gymnastics Federation filed a protest, claiming that the inquiry submitted by Chiles’ coach had been filed four seconds past the one-minute deadline allowed for scoring challenges. The CAS agreed with this argument, ruling that the inquiry was indeed submitted too late, and ordered the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) to revise the final rankings. This decision knocked Chiles down to fifth place and elevated Barbosu to the bronze-medal position.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) subsequently asked Chiles to return her bronze medal, an action that sparked outrage among her supporters, including her legal team, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC), and USA Gymnastics (USAG). The situation has since escalated, with Chiles’ attorneys now taking the fight to the Swiss Federal Tribunal, hoping to overturn the CAS ruling and restore Chiles’ place on the podium.
Chiles’ legal team, represented by law firms Gibson Dunn and Homburger AG, is challenging the CAS ruling on two main procedural grounds. they argue that Chiles’ right to a fair hearing was violated when CAS refused to consider new video evidence that, according to her team, proves that the scoring inquiry was submitted on time. This video evidence, which was obtained after the CAS hearing, reportedly shows that the inquiry was filed within the one-minute window allowed for such challenges. Chiles’ attorneys argue that the CAS’s refusal to consider this evidence was a clear violation of her right to be heard.
Chiles’ team contends that the CAS hearing was fundamentally unfair because they were not informed that the president of the arbitration panel, Hamid Gharavi, had a potential conflict of interest. According to Chiles’ attorneys, Gharavi had previously represented Romania in other legal proceedings, raising concerns about his impartiality in a case involving a Romanian gymnast.
Based on these alleged procedural deficiencies, Chiles’ attorneys are asking the Swiss Federal Tribunal to overturn the CAS ruling and reinstate her original score from the floor exercise final, which would restore her bronze-medal finish. The Swiss tribunal, which is the highest court in Switzerland, typically only overturns CAS decisions in cases where there has been a blatant procedural violation, lack of jurisdiction, or a ruling that is incompatible with Swiss public policy. However, Chiles’ legal team believes that the procedural errors in this case are serious enough to warrant a reversal of the CAS decision.
The USOPC and USA Gymnastics have been vocal in their support for Chiles throughout this legal battle, criticizing CAS for what they describe as a mishandling of the case. Both organizations have expressed frustration with the way CAS notified the relevant parties about the dispute, noting that the USOPC and USA Gymnastics were not informed of the case until days after it was filed. According to USA Gymnastics, early notifications about the case were sent to incorrect email addresses, and by the time they were made aware of the hearing, less than 24 hours remained before it was set to begin.
Both organizations have also criticized CAS’s decision not to reopen the case to consider the new video evidence, which they argue conclusively proves that Chiles’ inquiry was submitted on time.
For Chiles, this legal fight has been deeply personal. Speaking publicly about the ordeal for the first time at the Forbes Power Women’s Summit, Chiles said that her “heart was broken” by the way the situation unfolded. She expressed frustration with the fact that she was being penalized for what was essentially an administrative error, noting that the FIG acknowledged during the CAS hearing that it did not have a mechanism in place to accurately track when scoring inquiries were submitted. Despite this, it was Chiles who ultimately suffered the consequences.
Chiles’ legal team has framed the case as a matter of fundamental fairness, arguing that the Olympic arbitration process should reflect the values of fair play that the Games themselves are meant to embody. In a statement, Maurice Suh, one of Chiles’ attorneys, said, “The international community is presented with an easy legal question: Will everyone stand by while an Olympic athlete who has done only the right thing is stripped of her medal because of fundamental unfairness in an ad-hoc arbitration process? The answer to that question should be no.”
Chiles’ appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal marks a significant and relatively rare step, as CAS is generally considered the final arbiter of legal disputes in international sports. While the Swiss tribunal has the power to overturn CAS decisions, it does so only in exceptional cases, and the bar for doing so is high. However, Chiles’ legal team believes that the procedural errors in this case are severe enough to warrant a retrial.
If the Swiss tribunal agrees with Chiles’ arguments, it could order a retrial before CAS, allowing Chiles for the first time to present a full defense and submit the video evidence that her team believes will exonerate her. In addition to the appeal already filed with the Swiss Federal Tribunal, Chiles’ attorneys have indicated that they plan to file an additional petition seeking alternative relief from the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.
As the legal battle continues, the question of who will ultimately stand on the podium remains unresolved. For Chiles and her supporters, however, the fight is about more than just a medal. It’s about ensuring that the principles of fairness and justice are upheld in a process that has profound implications for athletes’ careers and legacies.
Jordan Chiles’ fight for her bronze medal is a testament to the resilience and determination that defines Olympic athletes. While the legal path ahead is uncertain, Chiles and her team remain committed to seeking justice, both for her and for future athletes who may find themselves in similar situations. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for how disputes in international sports are resolved, and for the athletes whose dreams hang in the balance.
