FIG Created This Mess

One of the most memorable images of the Paris Games was that iconic picture of silver medalist Simone Biles and bronze medalist Jordan Chiles bowing down to gold medalist Rebeca Andrade on the medals stand after the women's floor exercise final.  The scene was surreal, and not just because of what that powerful photo represented.  It was also surreal because of how everything went down.  Chiles originally finished fifth, only to be upgraded to the bronze after having her score changed...while the Romanian who thought she had finished third was already celebrating with a flag.  As it turns out, that was just the start of the mess.

Chiles, who was the last gymnast to go, was given a score of 13.666.  However, her coaches thought that her difficulty score should've been higher and appealed.  Her coach, Cecile Landie even admitted that she didn't think it would be successful and that she only did it because they had nothing to lose.  To her surprise, the appeal was accepted and Chiles had .1 added to her difficulty score.  That brought her total score to 13.766, placing her third over Romanian Ana Barbosu, who scored 13.700.

It's crazy to think that had the FIG simply just declined the appeal (which they were well within their rights to do), none of what happened next would've gone down at all, let alone the way it did.  Chiles wouldn't have been upgraded to bronze, she wouldn't have stood on the medals stand, there wouldn't have been a Romanian appeal, and the FIG wouldn't be making itself look very bad.  But I can't feel to bad for them.  Because they brought this mess on themselves.

After Chiles' score was changed, the Romanians appealed that decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.  Which they were well within their rights to do.  I don't blame or begrudge the Romanians for this at all.  They were acting on behalf of their athlete.  Just like the American coaches were.  Had it been the other way around, American fans would want Chiles' coaches to do the exact same thing Barbosu's did.  Their appeal had nothing to with Jordan Chiles.  It had everything to do with Ana Barbosu. 

The Romanians, in fact, empathized with Jordan Chiles.  They didn't want her medal taken away.  They even proposed a solution where Chiles, Barbosu and Sabrina Maneca-Voinea (who finished with the same score as Barbosu, but ranked behind her on a tiebreaker) all receive bronze medals.

There's precedent for that in Olympic history.  In 2002, there was a massive scandal in the pairs figure skating competition.  The French judge admitted that she had been pressured to place the Russian pair first no matter what (allegedly as part of a reciprocal agreement where the Russian judge would vote for the French ice dancing team).  Ultimately, that's what she did, and her vote was the deciding one that gave the Russians the gold over the Canadians.  After all this was discovered, the IOC stepped in, threw out the French judge's scores, and upgraded the Canadians to the gold medal.  They even had a second medals ceremony a few days later, with the Russians and Canadians as co-gold medalists, no silver medal, and China bronze.

Unfortunately, that's not what happened here.  The CAS accepted Romania's appeal and ordered the original results restored.  The IOC and FIG had no choice but to follow suit.  The results were changed, Barbosu was upgraded to the bronze medal and Chiles was dropped to fifth in the official standings.  Citing new evidence, the U.S. sought to appeal the ruling, but it was declined since CAS regarded the matter closed and their decision final.  There is one legal option left, an appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal, which oversees the CAS, which will almost certainly happen.

Taken in a bottle, the CAS decision makes sense and their explanation is reasonable.  There's a one-minute time limit to launch an appeal, and according to the evidence presented at the CAS hearing, the Americans' appeal came four seconds too late.  As such, it shouldn't have been granted.  OK, that's fair.  Except there are way too many inconsistencies that bring the decision into question and make the American counterappeal not just reasonable, but necessary.

Perhaps the biggest issue with the CAS hearing is that one of the judges on the panel has represented Romania in numerous legal cases.  While no one had an issue with him serving as head of the panel, that's because the U.S. wasn't aware of that obvious conflict of interest.  Whether the U.S. was aware of it or not, the CAS certainly was.  He never should've been on the panel to begin with.

Communication is also an issue here.  The notification about the hearing was sent to the wrong email.  As a result, the Americans only found out about it the day before it happened.  That's obviously not enough time to properly prepare their case, which leads me to my next point.

While the crux of the CAS decision is based on their finding that it took 64 seconds for the appeal to be filed on the floor, the U.S. has additional evidence that shows the appeal was actually first declared after only 49 seconds, well before the one-minute deadline.  Armed with this new evidence, the U.S. launched its counterappeal.  The CAS said that it couldn't revisit its decision, though, even if there was new evidence.

That's not the only communication problem, either.  The latest twist in this saga is the discovery that FIG can't even identify who accepted the inquiry regarding Chiles' score.  If they don't know who accepted the inquiry, how do they know it came too late?  Likewise, isn't it possible that the inquiry was accepted before the one-minute deadline, but just wasn't entered into the system until four seconds after?  FIG has also admitted that they didn't have a person on the floor keeping track of how long it took for appeals to come in.  (That's something I'm sure will change in LA.)  So, if FIG doesn't actually know how long the appeal took, how can CAS possibly say for certain it took 64 seconds?  Where'd they even come up with that number?

They even gave examples of other appeals at the Olympics were submitted after the one-minute deadline.  Andrade submitted one after 1:24, while it took 1:35 for an appeal on behalf of Maneca-Voinea to be submitted.  Both of those appeals were declined, while Chiles' was accepted.  And one of the reasons it was accepted was because the FIG thought it was submitted in time.  If it wasn't, that's on them, not Cecile Landi.

Jordan Chiles, who's (rightly) called this entire situation "unfair," still hasn't returned her medal and has no plans to. I don't blame her.  As long as the appeals process plays out, she has no reason to, especially since the end result could be her getting it back anyway.  If, after all of the appeals, the final decision is that the original results stand, then Chiles should return the medal.  Then and only then should she return it.

Despite Chiles still being in possession of her medal, Barbosu was awarded one during a special ceremony in Bucharest last week.  I have no problem with that, either.  Frankly, I'm just as upset for Barbosu, who has somehow become the villain here.  Beyond that, though, she had to suffer the embarrassment of celebrating with the Romanian flag, thinking she won bronze, only to find out she didn't, then was deprived of taking part in the medals ceremony on the actual Olympic podium.

Neither Jordan Chiles nor Ana Barbosu has done anything wrong here.  Nor have their coaches.  This is all on the FIG and the CAS.  They created this mess and have left these two athletes in the middle.  Two athletes who haven't done anything wrong and who both reasonably believe they're the rightful Olympic bronze medalist.