EXPLAINED: Why Was Vinesh Phogat’s Appeal For A Joint Silver Medal Denied By CAS

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) came up with a detailed ruling after dismissing Indian wrestler Vinesh Phogat’s plea to be awarded a joint silver medal at the Paris Olympics 2024 in the wrestling 50kg category. The CAS called the second weigh-in in the event as ‘draconian’ but that wasn’t enough to overturn the decision to disqualify Vinesh for being 100gms over the weight limit on the second day of the competition after she had become the first Indian woman wrestler to qualify for the Olympic final.

The UWW rules state that a wrestler has to clear the weigh-in on both days of the competition. While UWW allows a 2kg weight tolerance in many international competitions such as Ranking Series event, there is no such buffer at the Olympics. “…..the Sole Arbitrator has concluded that the Applicant, of her own free will, entered into the 50 kg wrestling category and well knew that this required her to maintain a weight for competition below 50 kg. Article 7 of the Rules provides, relevantly, that each contestant is deemed to be taking part of her own free will and is responsible for herself and is entitled to compete in only one weight category, the one corresponding to her weight at the time of the official weigh-in,” the detailed CAS order, which was published on Monday, stated.

 

The Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS) sole arbitrator while denying Vinesh Phogat a joint-silver medal at the Paris Olympics 2024, has expressed that the Indian wrestler did not commit any indiscretion leading to her disqualification.
Read more: https://t.co/993CO7Y99Z… pic.twitter.com/ZuE1zciBLW

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) August 20, 2024

Here’s a detailed look at wrestler Vinesh Phogat’s appeal and the decision by CAS…

What did Vinesh Phogat demand in her appeal from CAS?

The Athlete asks that the Appealed Decision be set aside such that the consequences provided in Article 11 of the Rules not be applied or that Article 11 be construed so as to apply only to the final round of competition and not to the competition ab initio. It is not in contest that the Athlete failed the second day weigh-in. Article 11 of the Rules is not challenged. It follows that the decision was validly made and that Article 11 applies.

The Athlete is asking, in effect, that the weight limit provided for in the Rules be varied to accommodate her personal circumstances of the day and that a tolerance be applied to that limit. No quantification of a permissible tolerance was suggested, simply that the Athlete’s weight at the second weigh-in was within a tolerance. The problem for the Applicant is that there is no basis in the Rules for such accommodation. To the contrary: the Rules are clear that the 50 kg weight limit is just that, a limit. There is no personal accommodation or discretion provided for.

What did Vinesh Phogat and her lawyers argue before the the CAS?

There is no dispute that the Applicant failed the second weigh-in, in that her weight was in excess of the 50 kg limit. Her case is, in essence, that this is a small excess and can be explained by factors such as the menstrual cycle, water retention, the need to hydrate and insufficient time to reduce her weight by reason of the travel time to the Athlete’s Village.

There was a short time between bouts, due to the distance between the venue and the Athletes’ Village which left the Applicant with little time for the process of losing weight before the second weigh-in the following morning.”

The Athlete did not herself raise the relevance of menstruation, but there is evidence that she was pre-menstrual and that this results, as a normal biological process, in fluid retention. The IOA submits that “the biological difference in the bodies of male and female wrestlers, particularly in light of the menstruation of women, needs to be taken into account whilst determining the eligibility of female wrestlers on the second day of the weigh-in”. The IOA has produced a medical certificate dated 8 August 2024 to the effect that the Athlete is ‘currently’ in her pre-menstrual phase and cited medical literature on body weight changes during menstruation.

What was the reason for CAS dismissing Vinesh Phogat’s appeal?

The Applicant is an experienced wrestler who had previously competed under the Rules. There is no evidence to the contrary, or any evidence by the Athlete that she did not understand the weight requirements.

She voluntarily entered the 50 kg category and, from the evidence, undertook a regime to keep within that weight limit. Her evidence was that she did not have sufficient time to complete a weight loss program, not that she somehow found it interfered with her bodily rights.

The consequences of the failed second weigh-in, which do not arise from any illegal or wrongful act on the part of the Applicant are, in the opinion of the Sole Arbitrator, 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.

Wrestler Vinesh Phogat returned to India from the Paris Olympics 2024 on Saturday (August 17) and is still unsure whether she wants to continue her international wrestling career.