University of St. Thomas Law Journal

Justice on the Floor: Field of Play Doctrine Impact on Jordan Chiles’ Olympic Dream

Adam Revoir*

The XXXIII Olympiad in Paris can be best summarized by a quote from Tom Cruise, “I feel the need—the need for speed!”1 For sixteen days this past summer, the Paris Olympics took center stage and captivated an average thirty million viewers over 329 events.2 Athletes will devote hours of training, with their competition concluding in mere seconds. Take, for example, Noah Lyles’ finish by five-thousandths of a second to win gold for Team USA in the 100-meter sprint,3 Team Netherlands’ thirty-one hundredths of a second win in the mixed four by 400-meter relay that snubbed Team USA from winning the gold,4 or the men’s 100-meter butterfly final where second place finished nine hundredths of a second after first, and third place finished forty-six hundredths of a second after first.5 Seconds are critical in the Olympics.

I. BACKGROUND

a. Field of Play Doctrine Not to be Confused with the Fair Play Principle

The field-of-play doctrine dictates that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) defers to rulings by on-site officials, as these are considered “decisions made on the playing field by judges, referees, umpires and other officials, who are responsible for applying the rules of a particular game.”6 Since “CAS Panels are not sufficiently trained in the rules of any or all sports and do not have the advantage to observe the event,”7 the CAS is cautious about intervening and overturning officials’ decisions. Common field-of-play decisions include “any challenge to the assessment of difficulty in a performance, assessment of artistry and execution.”8 However, the CAS will review the field-of-play decision on any grounds of “fraud, bias, arbitrariness, corruption or bad faith, or equivalent mischief or error of law.”9

In contrast, the fair play principle is a philosophy rooted in the preamble of the Olympic Charter, the constitution-equivalent document for the Olympics. It emphasizes that “[t]he Olympic spirit requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play”10 and charges the International Olympic Committee (IOC) with “ensuring that … the spirit of fair play prevails.”11 While not legally binding, the fair play principle can support arguments within the field-of-play doctrine, helping athletes present a more compelling case for relief from the CAS.

b. CAS Jurisdiction Throughout the Olympic Games

The CAS is the governing “body that resolves international sports-related disputes.”12 During the Olympics, “[a]ny dispute arising on the occasion of, or in connection with, the Olympic Games shall be submitted exclusively to the [CAS],”13 and the CAS creates an “ad hoc Division”14 of arbitrators to review challenges by athletes with them deciding their awards within “24 hours of the lodging of the application.”15 To qualify as an arbitrator, one “must have legal training and possess recognized competence with regard to sport” and “must be independent of the parties and disclose immediately any circumstances likely to compromise their independence.”16 While the CAS awards are “final and binding upon the parties,”17 the Swiss Supreme Court has the ability to “hear actions to set aside CAS awards”18 since they are the “court of competent jurisdiction.”19

II. DISCUSSION

a. Jordan Chiles’ Floor Exercise Final at Paris Olympics

On August 5, 2024, the artistic gymnastic women’s floor exercise final was held at Bercy Arena. Team USA was represented at the final with gymnasts Simone Biles and Jordan Chiles. Chiles was the last to perform, and her Beyoncé-inspired floor routine received a difficulty score of 5.800 and an execution score of 7.866 for a total score of 13.666.20 Immediately after Chiles’ score was revealed, her coach inquired, believing the on-site judges did not award the proper difficulty score.21 Upon review, the on-site judges raised Chiles’ difficulty score by 1 point. Chiles moved into third place, earning a bronze medal with a score of 13.766 and knocked Romanian gymnast Ana Bărbosu out of medal territory into fourth place with a score of 13.700.22

On August 6, the Romanian Gymnastics Federations challenged the scores to the ad hoc Division of CAS.23 The next day, the parties were informed that the president of the panel was Dr. Hamid G. Gharavi, who disclosed his involvement as counsel for Romania in prior international arbitral disputes.24 On August 10, the panel held a hearing, U.S. Gymnastics did not receive notice of such proceedings until a day prior due to a clerical error by the panel, and the panel only extended the deadline to respond by two hours.25 At the conclusion of the hearing, the ad hoc Division issued its award that held the grievance filed by Chiles’ coach for review of the difficulty score exceeded the permissible “one minute deadline provided by Article 8.5 of the 2024 FIG Technical Regulations,”26 constituting a field-of-play decision to which the CAS will not review, so Chiles’ initial score of 13.666 “shall be reinstated.”27

b. Predictions for Chiles’ Appeal to Swiss Supreme Court

The Swiss Supreme Court has not decided whether to hear Chiles’ appeal. Chiles can urge the Court to revise the CAS award on the grounds of a newly discovered video by U.S. Gymnastics showing Chiles’ coach filing the inquiry within the one-minute timeframe, coupled with claims of not adequately being heard in the proceedings with notifications coming at the eleventh hour.28 Alternatively, Chiles can request the Court to challenge the CAS award by citing bias with Dr. Gharavi, president of the panel, not recusing himself for his involvement with Romania in other arbitration cases. Whatever action the Court takes, the world will forever remember August 5, 2024, and the bureaucratic procedure that resulted in the revocation of a bronze medal.

III. CONCLUSION

The CAS decision to reinstate Jordan Chiles’ initial score of 13.666, based on the one-minute allotted time to file a grievance for a gymnast going last on an exercise, underscores the complexities and challenges inherent in the field-of-play doctrine. Chiles’ case illuminates the critical need for precise and timely procedural adherence. Moving forward, it is imperative that the IOC and the local Olympic committees empower organizers to have resources to adequately record and address procedural inquiries. The focus should remain on the athletes’ performance and the nail-biting tenths of a second that define Olympic champions, rather than technical oversights. By prioritizing fairness and transparency, future Olympics can better honor the spirit of competition and the dedication of athletes globally.

* Adam Revoir, J.D. Candidate, University of St. Thomas School of Law Class of 2025, Membership Editor of the University of St. Thomas Law Journal.

  1. Top Gun, at 00:55:38–00:55:42 (Paramount Pictures 1986). ↩︎
  2. Brad Adgate, The Paris Olympics Averaged 30.6 Million Viewers Across NBCU Platforms, Forbes (Aug. 13, 2024, 02:17 PM EDT), https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2024/08/13/the-paris-olympics-averaged-306-million-viewers-across-nbcu-platforms/ [https://perma.cc/WQ9F-VBLX]. ↩︎
  3. Eddie Pells, Noah Lyles wins a historically close Olympic 100-meter sprint by five-thousandths of a second, AP (Aug. 4, 2024, 05:52 PM CDT), https://apnews.com/article/2024-olympics-100m-lyles-thompson-ccf37184afc2f3318271d4c495d2a16b [https://perma.cc/J4HR-K7JP]. ↩︎
  4. Taylor Dutch, The Netherlands Shocks Team USA to Win Gold in the Mixed 4×400, Runner’s World (Aug. 3, 2024, 03:32 PM EDT), https://www.runnersworld.com/races-places/a61781837/netherlands-team-usa-mixed-4×400/ [https://perma.cc/496Q-68NY] ↩︎
  5. Men’s 100M Butterfly Final Results, Olympics (Aug. 3, 2024, 20:30 PM), https://olympics.com/en/paris-2024/results/swimming/men-s-100m-butterfly/fnl-000100– [https://perma.cc/QAV4-USQX]. ↩︎
  6. Fed’n Romanian Gymnastics v. Donatella Sacchi, CAS OG 24-15/CAS OG 24-16, Arbitral Award, at 105 (The ad hoc Div. of the Ct. of Arb. for Sport, 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted), https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_OG_15-16__for_publication_.pdf [https://perma.cc/Q5MS-GS6F] (citing Alexandra Kiroi-Bogatyreva v. Gymnastics Austl., CAS 2021/A/8119, award (Ct. of Arb. for Sport, 2021)). ↩︎
  7. Id. at 106 (internal quotation marks omitted). ↩︎
  8. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). ↩︎
  9. Fed’n Romanian Gymnastics v. Donatella Sacchi, CAS OG 24-15/CAS OG 24-16, Arbitral Award, at 108 (The ad hoc Div. of the Ct. of Arb. for Sport, 2024), https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_OG_15-16__for_publication_.pdf (citing Aino-Kaisa Saarinen v. Fed’n Int’l de Ski, CAS 2010/A/2090, award (Ct. of Arb. for Sport, 2011)). ↩︎
  10. Olympic Charter, Int’l Olympic Comm. (July 23, 2024), Fundamental Principles of Olympism, https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/International-Olympic-Committee/IOC-Publications/EN-Olympic-Charter.pdf [https://perma.cc/K64Z-K72F] [hereinafter Olympic Charter]. ↩︎
  11. Olympic Charter, supra note 10, at art. 2. ↩︎
  12. The Olympic Charter, ABA (Nov. 27, 2018), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/teaching-legal-docs/the-olympic-charter/ [https://perma.cc/E8S8-J7DU]. ↩︎
  13. Olympic Charter, supra note 10, at r.61.2. ↩︎
  14. Ct. of Arb. for Sport, Arb. Rules for the Olympic Games art. 2, https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Arbitration_Rules_Olympic_Games__EN_.pdf [https://perma.cc/CT7X-ET4R] [hereinafter CAS Rules for Olympics]. ↩︎
  15. CAS Rules for Olympics, supra note 14, at art. 18. ↩︎
  16. CAS Rules for Olympics, supra note 14, at art. 12. ↩︎
  17. CAS Rules for Olympics, supra note 14, at art. 21. ↩︎
  18. Antonio Rigozzi, Challenging Awards of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, 1 J. Int’l Disp. Settlement 217, 220 (2010). ↩︎
  19. Id. ↩︎
  20. Women’s Floor Exercise Final Results, Olympics (Aug. 5, 2024, 14:23 PM), https://olympics.com/en/paris-2024/results/artistic-gymnastics/women-s-floor-exercise/fnl-000001– [https://perma.cc/BTG2-CQP9]. ↩︎
  21. Fed’n Romanian Gymnastics v. Donatella Sacchi, CAS OG 24-15/CAS OG 24-16, Arbitral Award, at 9 (The ad hoc Div. of the Ct. of Arb. for Sport, 2024), https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_OG_15-16__for_publication_.pdf [hereinafter CAS Decision to Strip Chiles of Bronze Medal]. ↩︎
  22. Women’s Floor Exercise Final Results, supra note 20. ↩︎
  23. CAS Decision to Strip Chiles of Bronze Medal, supra note 21, at 12. ↩︎
  24. CAS Decision to Strip Chiles of Bronze Medal, supra note 21, at 15. ↩︎
  25. CAS Decision to Strip Chiles of Bronze Medal, supra note 21, at 35. ↩︎
  26. CAS Decision to Strip Chiles of Bronze Medal, supra note 21, at 151. ↩︎
  27. CAS Decision to Strip Chiles of Bronze Medal, supra note 21, at 151. ↩︎
  28. See Nancy Armour & Tom Schad, Jordan Chiles files second appeal to get her Olympic bronze medal back, USA Today (Sept. 24, 2024, 02:44 PM ET), https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2024/09/24/jordan-chiles-appeal-olympic-bronze-medal/75294251007/ [https://perma.cc/NN2P-8DWN]. ↩︎

Posted

in

by

USTLawJournal

Tags:

Comments

Leave a comment