Explained | Why CAS dismissed Vinesh Phogat’s application for a joint silver medal in Paris Olympics 50 kg wrestling competition

Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), Ad-Hoc Division: While considering the application filed by Indian wrestler Vinesh Phogat wherein she had challenged her disqualification and replacement by the United World Wrestling (UWW) because she failed her second weigh-in, before the gold medal match of the Women’s Freestyle 50kg competition at the Olympic Games Paris 2024 that was due to commence on 7-8-2024; the Bench of Dr. Annabelle Bennette, Sole Arbitrator, dismissed Vinesh’s application concluding that United World Wrestling International Wrestling Rules 2023 (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. The Rules do 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 Sole Arbitrator further concluded that the Rules do not provide for any personal accommodation. “The Rules are clear that the 50 kg weight limit is just that, a limit”.

Furthermore, it was held that it is apparent that the Rules reflect a UWW policy that a wrestler must not only be eligible at the beginning of a competition but must also remain eligible for the whole of the competition, that is- from entry to the finals. Hence, there are no accumulated rights arising from partial eligibility, and this explains why the Rules provide that once a wrestler is ineligible during the competition, the consequences provided in Article 11 apply.

The Sole Arbitrator Observed that Vinesh Phogat entered the field of play and fought and won three rounds and reached the final of the 50 kg wrestling competition at the Paris Olympic Games before she failed the second weigh-in and was ineligible to compete in the final. There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing on her part.

Background- The Weigh-ins and Disqualification: Vinesh Phogat, a female Indian wrestler was due to compete in the final of the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris on 7-8-2024, in the category of Women’s Freestyle 50 kg. This meant that, had she competed, then she would have won either the silver or the gold medal.

On 6-8-2024, at 7:30 am (Paris time), an official weight verification (“weigh-in”) was conducted on the Athlete, with the result being 49.9 kg. Vinesh fought three competitions that day i.e., on 6-8-2024. There was no dispute that she qualified as being under 50 kg for these competitions.

For the purposes of finals, a second weigh-in took place on the morning of 7-8-2024, wherein Vinesh weighed in at 150 g over the weight limit of 50 kg. As permitted by the United World Wrestling International Wrestling Rules 2023, she repeated that weigh-in after another 15 minutes and her weight was 100 g over the 50 kg limit.

Therefore, on the day of finals at 9:11 am (Paris Time), Vinesh received a notice of disqualification by the UWW delegate stating that she was over 50 kg weight and thus had failed the second weigh-in. Pursuant to Article 11 of the Rules, Vinesh was disqualified for the finals, that were to take place on 7-8-2024, at 18:15 pm (Paris time).

The Challenge: Pursuant to the disqualification, the Applicant filed the Application on 7-8-2024, at 16:45 (Paris time) seeking the following relief:

1. the challenged decision and all its effects be set aside.

2. requesting that she remain eligible and qualified to be awarded her silver medal.

3. requesting a re-weighing before the finals.

4. requesting that she be eligible and qualified to participate in the finals.

In the absence of any claim for provisional measures, the Sole Arbitrator was appointed on 8-8-2024. By then the finals had already taken place and medals awarded. The Applicant confirmed, on 8-8-2024, that she no longer sought the 3rd and 4th requests

Contentions: Counsels representing Vinesh Phogat and Indian Olympic Association (IOA) submitted that the applicant had fought 3 difficult competitions on 6-8-2024 and needed to eat and drink for her health. Furthermore, 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 Court also took note of evidence indicating that she was pre-menstrual, and which resulted in fluid retention, which is a normal biological process.

The IOA further asserted that the weighing machine was faulty.

Court’s Assessment: Acknowledging that the instant case was a difficult one, the Sole Arbitrator observed that the facts are not in dispute: the Applicant was above the 50 kg limit for her wrestling category when she weighed-in for the finals at the Paris Olympics. Had she competed, she would have been awarded either the gold or the silver medal. Her success in the competition had led to her being in that position.

Perusing the matter, the Court observed that Article 7 of the Rules provides for the age, weight and competition categories; and Article 8 which provide that how the competitions in the respective weight categories will be organised, medical aspects and weigh-in. The Court also took note of the Competition Procedure is set out in Chapter 3 of the Rules, which includes Article 11 — Weigh-In, which states that “if an athlete does not attend or fail the weigh-in (the 1st or the 2nd weigh-in), he will be eliminated of the competition and ranked last, without rank”. The Court observed that compliance with the Rules regarding the weigh-in is necessary for eligibility to compete. A decision to eliminate an athlete who fails the weigh-in for a category is not a field of play decision but a decision as to eligibility.

It was further observed that the Rules provide for strict compliance with the weight categories. Thus, the only uniform to be worn is the singlet and no weight tolerance is given for that item; that is, the athlete must ensure that her weight, including the singlet, is below the 50 kg limit. While a 2 kg weight tolerance is allowed for International Tournaments, the Rules state that “no more weight tolerance will be allowed for the second weigh-in”, being the weigh-in for the finals. This should be construed as providing that there is no weight tolerance for the second weigh-in; that is, the maximum weight for category 1 is 50 kg.

The Court further pointed out that the Rules are not to be construed by reference to those that apply in other sports. “This case is not about the wisdom or validity of the weigh-in procedures as set out in the Rules. No such relief is sought. The same applies to submissions concerning previous versions of the Rules; this case concerns the application of the present version, which reflects a policy which is not challenged”

Taking note of the contentions raised by the Applicant and IOA, the Court stated that there was no evidence to support the contentions that, somehow, the scales were faulty. The matters raised concerning possible reasons based on biology cannot be an excuse for the failure to comply. “They are as normal biological processes which would include eating and drinking and the menstrual cycle; factors to be considered by highly experienced athletes (such as the Applicant) to ensure they remain below the weight limit. The Athlete herself had attended three Olympic Games. She said that she had to eat something but she was aware that she must not become overweight. She needed to rehydrate and then went into her weight loss procedure as best as she could but did not succeed”.

Vis-a-vis, whether Olympic Games can be construed as International Tournament for the purposes of Article 8 of the Rules, the Court stated that the preferred construction of “the International Tournaments” in Article 8 of the Rules, does not include the Olympic Games and that the Athlete was not entitled to that tolerance on her second weigh-in.

Further interpreting Article 8 of the Rules, the Court concluded that the expression “no more” in “no more weight tolerance” in Article 8 should be read as in effect, ‘weight tolerance will no longer be allowed for the second weigh-in’. The fact that the following sentence refers to specific events that do allow weight tolerance, supports this conclusion.

Interpreting “eliminated of the competition”, in Article 11, the Sole Arbitrator stated that she cannot conclude that the “competition” referred to is the final round. The Wrestling Olympic Tournament constitutes a single competition, with several stages conducted over two days. To be eligible, the wrestlers must pass the initial weigh-in and, if qualified for the second day, the second weigh-in, that is, for as long as the wrestler is in the competition. The Rules use the expression “competition” to encompass events over more than one day.

The Court further stated that as much there is a logic in a rule that limits the consequences to the round for which the wrestler is not eligible while maintaining the results of rounds for which Applicant was eligible; the Rules do not provide for such an outcome — to the contrary. The Rules use the words “eliminate” and, further, provide that the wrestler is ranked last, without rank. CAS case law is replete with the conclusion that it is not the prerogative of CAS Panels or Sole Arbitrators to rewrite federation rules.

Further interpreting Article 11, the Court concluded that the use of the word “he” was not intended to exclude female wrestlers from the application of the Rules or of Article 11; rather it was the use of a pronoun intended to cover all wrestlers, male and female.

The Court further pointed out that Article 11 of the Rules does not impose a sanction for failing a weigh-in. It denotes the consequences of an athlete being rendered ineligible to compete during a competition, which results in elimination from the competition. Article 11 does not distinguish between failing a weigh-in at the beginning of a competition or after a wrestler qualified for several rounds and reached the final.

The Court acknowledged that the Rules could be said to be emphatic with respect to a failed weigh-in: elimination of (sic) the competition, ranked last, without rank. “If the words “of the competition” (which should be read as “from the competition”) were not present, the construction that the elimination would apply only to the final round of competition would be available to the Sole Arbitrator. Unfortunately for the Applicant, those words cannot be ignored”.

The Sole Arbitrator opined that 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 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”.

The Court further pointed out that Article 11 refers to ranks and ranking. It makes no reference to any other accumulated rights that may have accrued to the Athlete by reason of her success in the rounds preceding the final.

Conclusions Drawn:

• 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 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.

• As to questions related to ambiguity, the language of the Rules is, in some parts, infelicitous but not ambiguous or amenable to different constructions, when the provisions are construed according to the meaning of the words in the context of the Article and the Rules.

• There were no such acquired rights under the Rules, which require weight eligibility throughout a competition. The right to compete in an international competition, including in the finals of the Olympic Games, depended on compliance with the Rules. Application of the Rules to the Olympic Games is compulsory (Article 3 of the Rules) and the Rules have as their objective, inter alia, the competition system, methods of victory, classification and elimination of competitors (Article 1 of the Rules). Therefore, any rights that she acquired by reason of competing in the rounds of the competition were, under the Rules, conditional on maintaining eligibility until, and including, the weigh-in for the day on which her rounds took place, including the final round.

• The Sole Arbitrator does not have the power to award medals. That rests with the IOC. By reason of Rule 56(1) of the Olympic Charter, any decision regarding the awarding, withdrawal or reallocation of any victory medal or diploma falls within the sole authority of the IOC. The IOC, in turn, awards medals at the Olympic Games based on rankings established by the International Federations (Rule 46 of the Olympic Charter). The Sole Arbitrator cannot make an order that the IOC give the Applicant an additional silver medal.

• The Applicant passed the weigh-in on the first day, but she was also obliged to pass it on the second day, the day of the final. By the application of Article 11 of the Rules, it meant that she was eliminated from the competition and ranked last, without rank. 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 won a silver medal.

[Vinesh Phogat v. United World Wrestling & IOC, CAS OG 24/17, decided on 14-08.2024]

Award by Sole Arbitrator, Dr. Annabelle Bennett

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For Applicant: Ms Vinesh Phogat, Applicant (in person); Ms Habbine Estelle Kim, legal counsel; Ms Joëlle Monlouis, legal counsel; Ms Estelle Ivanova, legal counsel; Mr Charles Amson, legal counsel; Ms Sureeta Narula, interpreter

For IOA: Mr Harish Salve, Sr. Advocate; Mr Vidushpat Singhania, legal counsel; Mr Nachiket Yagnik, legal counsel; Mr Arnav Singhal, legal counsel and Ms Saiee Godbole, legal counsel