Consequences of failed 2nd weigh-in draconian: CAS

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, August 19

Vinesh Phogat’s last ditch effort to wrest at least a silver medal after her disqualification from the Paris Olympics with an appeal in the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) was always going to fail. In a detailed judgement, the CAS ad hoc division’s sole arbitrator, Annabelle Bennett, who had dismissed Vinesh’s petition on August 14, has punched holes in the arguments put forward by her team of pro bono lawyers.

Joelle Monlouis, Estelle Ivanova, Habbine Estelle Kim and Charles Amson were representing Vinesh, while the Indian Olympic Association was represented by Harish Salve and Vidhusphat Singhania.

While rejecting Vinesh’s plea, the sole arbitrator cited Article 11 of the United World Wrestling (UWW) Rules. “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,” Bennett wrote in the verdict.

“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,” Bennett added.

“The Athlete acknowledges that, under the Rules, she was replaced in the final round of the competition by the wrestler who lost against her in the semi-final and that both gold and silver medals were awarded. She does not ask that any other wrestler lose her medal but seeks a second silver medal. There is no basis on which the Sole Arbitrator can grant the relief sought to award a silver medal to the Applicant,” the sole arbitrator added.

The 24-page document also points to the fact that Vinesh tried twice to make the weight on August 7 before being disqualified. At the first time of asking, Vinesh weighed in 150g over the permissible limit of 50kg. Fifteen minutes later she was still 100g over and she was disqualified by the UWW delegate.

Interestingly, Vinesh’s representatives first questioned the UWW documentation and procedures as Vinesh’s signatures were missing but did not press on the matter further after Vinesh in her oral submission conceded she was overweight.

From needing to eat and rehydrate on the first day when she fought her bouts to enter the final to the short time between bouts and also the distance between the competition venue and the Athletes Village was also cited in her appeal as reasons that made it difficult for her to make the weight.

The IOA counsels in their submission said that there were biological differences between the bodies of male and female wrestlers in light of “menstruation of women” and that the CAS needed to take that into account. It backed this claim with a medical certificate and submitted medical literature to support the claim. The arbitrator dismissed it as speculative and not supported by any evidence.

Further, the sole arbitrator said that Vinesh’s assertion that weight compliance in her 50kg category undermined her bodily integrity was wrong as she freely chose this category. “She could just as easily have chosen category 2, with a higher weight limit. She chose the 50 kg category and had achieved much success in that category, within the mandated weight limit,” she said in her report.

Funnily, the IOA representatives also asserted that UWW’s weighing machine was faulty as it showed 50g in measurement when empty. This assertion was dismissed as the sole arbitrator said that even so Vinesh was still found to have exceeded the weight limit.

“The IOA also asserts that the weighing machine when empty showed a measurement of 50 g, being half of the Athlete’s excess weight. Even if this was the case, it does not answer the problem that the Athlete’s weight exceeded the permissible weight limit. Further, UWW’s evidence is that officials from the Paris 2024 Organising Committee calibrated all of the scales immediately before the weigh-in on each day. The IOA also postulates “minor discrepancies” arising from factors such as temperature, humidity, airflow, vibrations and electrostatic changes which, it says, “albeit nearly imperceptible, can have devastating effects on the eligibility and future of the Applicant”. This is speculative and unsupported by evidence or any attempt at quantification,” she added.

The sole arbitrator termed as “draconian” the consequence of failing the weigh-in on the second day.

“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,” she wrote.