Five days after rejecting Vinesh Phogat’s petition, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) released a detailed 24-page order on Monday, explaining its decision. Annabelle Bennett, the sole arbitrator who heard Vinesh’s appeal at CAS’s Ad Hoc division in Paris, acknowledged that “the consequences of the failed second weigh-in were draconian.” However, she also affirmed that Vinesh’s disqualification was in accordance with the existing rules set by United World Wrestling (UWW), the international governing body for wrestling. Bennett noted in her verdict that “a consequence of elimination without ranking from the round for which the athlete was found ineligible, despite being eligible for the rounds in which she competed, would seem to be a fairer solution.”
Before delving further, it’s important to clarify the parties involved: Vinesh was the applicant, the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) was an interested party, while UWW and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) were the respondents. Vinesh was disqualified for failing to meet the 50kg weight requirement, as she was 100 grams over the limit. She appealed to CAS for a joint silver, arguing that she had reached the women’s 50kg freestyle wrestling final fairly, which CAS also recognized. In their plea, Vinesh and the IOA cited several factors, including the short time between bouts, UWW’s 2kg allowance in ‘International Tournaments,’ her pre-menstrual phase, and issues with the weighing machine, among others.
Why didn’t CAS consider Vinesh’s Day 1 results and award her a joint silver? Here’s a breakdown of the key points from CAS’s full verdict:
Vinesh competed in three bouts on August 6, during which she needed to eat and drink for her health. The “short time between bouts” and the distance between the venue and the Games Village left Vinesh with very little time “to lose weight before the second weigh-in the following morning.”
The Indian Olympic Association (IOA) also presented a medical certificate dated August 8, 2024, stating that Vinesh was in her “pre-menstrual phase” and cited medical literature on how body weight can fluctuate during menstruation.
The IOA argued, “The biological differences between male and female wrestlers, particularly in light of women’s menstruation, should be considered when determining the eligibility of female wrestlers on the second day of the weigh-in.”
However, CAS responded, “The evidence regarding the effects of the menstrual cycle does not distinguish between the first weigh-in, when she met the weight requirement, and the second weigh-in, when she did not. While it’s possible that the athlete experienced bloating and water retention, these effects are unquantified. As conditions that may occur during the menstrual cycle, they should have been managed to ensure the athlete remained below the weight limit.”
CAS further added, “There is no evidence in this case showing the impact of differences between male and female athletes regarding weigh-ins and weight categories. The existing weight categories, including the 50 kg category for the applicant as a female wrestler, are not being contested. Any potential effects of these differences, and measures to mitigate them, are speculative and unsupported by evidence, and thus cannot be considered in this application.”
Faulty Weighing Machine
The IOA claimed that the weighing machine “showed a measurement of 50g even when empty.”
CAS responded: “Even if this were true, it does not address the issue that the athlete’s weight exceeded the permissible limit. Moreover, UWW provided evidence that officials from the Paris 2024 Organising Committee calibrated all scales immediately before the weigh-in each day.”
Insufficient Explanation to Athletes from Diverse Backgrounds
Vinesh argued that athletes from diverse backgrounds received “insufficient explanation and understanding of the procedures.”
CAS countered: “The athlete’s evidence indicates that she understood the need to weigh in at under 50 kg and made efforts to do so, both before presenting for the second weigh-in and during the 15-minute window allowed for re-weighing.”
2kg Tolerance for International Tournaments
The verdict clarified: “A 2kg weight tolerance is allowed for World Cup, UWW Ranking Series Tournaments, and International Tournaments (excluding UWW Ranking Events).” It further specified: “Medical control and a first weigh-in occur on the morning of the relevant weight category. Qualified athletes for the finals and repechages undergo a second weigh-in the following morning, with no weight tolerance allowed for the second weigh-in.”
While Vinesh exceeded the weight limit in her second weigh-in, CAS made it clear: “Article 8, which provides for the 2kg tolerance, does not apply to international competitions but to ‘the International Tournaments.’ These words follow a reference to ‘UWW Ranking Series Tournaments.’ It is evident that there is a distinction between ‘competitions’ and ‘Tournaments.’ The UWW website lists International Tournaments in a separate calendar, excluding the Olympic Games, which are distinctly identified.” The verdict added: “Article 8 explicitly states that ‘no more weight tolerance will be allowed for the second weigh-in’ right after mentioning the 2kg tolerance for certain events, including ‘the International Tournaments.'”
Why Vinesh’s Day 1 Performance Was Not Considered for a Joint Silver
Vinesh appealed to CAS, arguing that “she should not be deprived of the rights she had earned before her failed second weigh-in, for which she had been eligible. This should entitle her to a silver medal along with all rankings, scores, and points, based on her ‘legitimate expectation.'”
CAS responded: “The Applicant is not seeking to overturn or invalidate the Rules but is challenging their application to her situation. Many of her arguments pertain to the validity of the Rules, but this is not the relief she seeks. Similarly, the personal impact of the decision on the Applicant and its effect on India’s ranking at the Paris 2024 Olympic Games, as highlighted by the Applicant, are not relevant to this application. These issues are common in elite sports and the Olympic Games.”
“While the Sole Arbitrator acknowledges the logic in a rule that would limit the consequences to the round for which the wrestler is ineligible while preserving the results of the rounds for which she was eligible, the Rules do not support such an outcome. The Rules explicitly state that the wrestler should be ‘eliminated’ and ranked last, without rank. CAS case law consistently holds that CAS Panels or Sole Arbitrators do not have the authority to rewrite federation rules.”
