The judging panel used the wrong point value for a particular skill performed by Chiles. This incorrect value lowered Chiles total score by 0.1 thus taking her out of the bronze medal. The judging made an error. It was not a question of whether Chiles did or did not correctly perform the skill. She did it correctly. Everyone agrees she did it and that she did it correctly. But, the judging panel - for some reason - valued the skill 0.1 points lower than its assigned value.
Do the skill you get X. There is no “judging” aspect to consider if the skill is performed correctly. And, again, there is no question the skill was performed correctly. The panel was just wrong. Why they were wrong is unknown. But no one disputes that they were wrong.
Under the gymnastics competition rules, scoring errors can be challenging if raised within 1 minute after the scores officially being posted. It is a very short time period. But, the short time period makes sense when you are talking about a traditional competition rather than an Olympic single apparatus event.
Think about it. Gymnast X is 0.1 ahead of Gymnasts Y going into the next apparatus event, or in the same apparatus event. In order to get ahead of Gymnast X and “win”, Gymnast Y may elect to do a more difficult and risky skill to gain the necessary fraction of a point. But, Gymnast Y will take a bigger risk of failing on that skill and fall out of contention for a win.
Here it is a very different issue.
Rather than take the time to see if the US properly and timely challenged the point assessment the review panel took the Romanian submitted video and assumed that it
showed the first US challenge to the scoring coming in 4 seconds too late. The huge problem now is that the Romanian video showed the third US conversation and not the first or second ones. Why Romania had video of the third conversation only is a question that must be answered. The US has contended all along that they knew they timely challenged the score. And - the US coaching staff is right. There is video of the first US challenge presented 47 seconds after the Chiles score was posted. And, an additional protest with supporting values was presented to the judges by the US team 55 seconds after the Chiles score was posted.
So - lots of errors and possibly just corruption here. The scoring panel “errored” in assessing the value of a skill. There is zero chance that happens accidentally. The scores are not blank sheets. The judging panel knows what the gymnasts are doing in advance including possible changes (eg if a higher difficulty score were needed to medal). The gymnasts are not making it up as they go along. Why did the panel make such an error? That has to be determined.
Second - why did the review panel not consider other video? The US claimed it timely questioned the score. Apparently, the only video reviewed was submitted by Romania showing only the 3rd conversation at 1:04 after the score is posted, and not the first two at 47 seconds and again at 55 seconds after the score is posted.
So - the judging panel got it right. The medals were properly awarded and the timing challenge was wrong. And, frankly, unless the camera used by Romaina was suddenly turned on between 56 seconds after the score was posted and 64 seconds claimed by Romania, they knew the challenge was wrong when they submitted it and left out the key evidence to mislead the review panel.
This summary contains many incorrect statements about the evidence and the initial judging. I can't address all of them, but it's absolutely not true that no one disputes that Jordan completed the skill in question. Many, many people, including the initial panel of judges, think that the skill was not completed. There is a judging aspect of the skill and room for debate. You don't get credit for a difficult skill if you don't actually do it according to the requirements (or within a set margin). The same skill was in the routines Jordan performed during qualifications and team finals, and she didn't get credit for it then, just as she initially didn't get credit for it during floor finals. I don't have the data, but I wonder if she had ever gotten credit for it in competition? Most gymnasts don't.
However, her coaches thought that Jordan did it better during team finals, so they inquired. Here is what her coach said:
“She was out of the podium already, so even if they drop the score, [it’s] nothing worse,” said Laurent Landi, who coaches Chiles alongside his wife. “I was [at] the same angle as the judge. And I felt it was way better than all the other meets that she’s done, so what the heck? We might as well try.”
That's hardly a ringing endorsement. In truth, I think that the coaches probably also thought she didn't complete it, or at least they knew that it was borderline. Otherwise, why did they wait around for more than 40 seconds doing nothing? I can't speak to the timing of the inquiry or the decision of the Superior Jury (a different panel of judges), who changed the score. But the situation with the score is nowhere near as clear cut as everyone is claiming. Quite frankly, I take issue with USAG suggesting that not giving Jordan credit for the skill was egregious or unfair. Reasonable minds can disagree without any corruption involved. If USAG is going to attack the judging panel for not crediting a skill that Jordan rarely, if ever, has performed adequately to get credit for, I'd ask why the skill is even in her routine?
In any event, the score itself is not something that can be disputed at this point. The Superior Jury changed it to credit the skill, so that aspect of the decision stands. She gets credit for the difficulty. The only issue that can be reviewed is whether proper procedures were followed in terms of whether the inquiry was made in time. Given that fact, again, I take issue with USAG making any statements about the D score assigned by the judging panel.
The whole situation has been botched beyond belief, but much of what is being said on social media is not accurate. I hate that this happened because Jordan Chiles is an exciting gymnast and an even better human being who doesn't deserve any of this.
Also, if there is anyone who knows more about FIG rules than I do, can you tell me whether the Superior Jury could have tried to get the judges to change the score before it was posted if it was completely off base? I thought that they could.
I don't think this is fair. My understanding is that the coaches had to make the call whether to file an inquiry based on what they saw live from where they were standing (i.e., did she complete 360 degrees) and, from what they could see, they thought it was better than what she had done previously and was likely sufficient. Any doubt by the coaches at the time of the challenge could very much be based on their viewing angle and the fact that they were watching for a bunch of different elements while watching a live performance. My understanding is that the judges looked at the replay and found that she'd completed the element. I haven't heard anyone--including the Romanians or other experts--challenge whether this was the correct call. There seems to be broad based consensus that she did indeed complete the element and deserved the 0.1 increase in difficulty. Comments about doubts by the US coaches were about the short time period that they had to file an inquiry (without time to review a replay) and have since been resolved by watching a replay.
It's completely insane to say that the US coaches must not have been confident because they waited 40 seconds before filing their inquiry. That's barely time to discuss one element in the routine, let alone other scoring elements that they were also considering and whether the judges had potentially missed any scoring deductions that would drop her score.
It's "completely insane" to say that a coach saying, "what the hell, we have nothing to lose, let's file an inquiry," is a demonstration of confidence?
Also, different judges—elected officials at FIG—reviewed the skill in a matter of seconds and found that she completed it, which they are allowed to do. But that doesn't mean that the original decision was egregious—that's all I'm saying.
Yes, because the coaches were viewing from one angle and didn't know if the judges would find another deduction. You can't use their reasoning in that 40 seconds to say that we don't know now whether Jordan completed the element. There's consensus that she did complete the element.
You can't concede that there can be any dispute as to whether she completed the skill? To be fair, it was probably the best one she ever did!!
Show me a single statement by someone with gymnastics credentials arguing that Jordan didn't complete the element. I haven't see one. Even the Romanians haven't argued that she didn't complete the element--to the contrary, they conceded that she was deserving suggested that she share in the bronze medal. Their only challenge of her score related to the timing of the US inquiry, not the merit.
There's lots to dispute here, but you've picked an element that isn't in dispute.
They can't challenge field-of-play decisions—no one can. They are what they are, including the decision on the inquiry. If the inquiry stands, Jordan gets credit for it. So yes, the element is not in dispute at this point.
I just disagree with USAG's decision to issue press releases complaining about the judging panel's decision to downgrade the skill. It isn't an issue now and should not be talked about by USAG at this point, given that the completion of the skill was borderline at best. They are misleading the public by suggesting that the original decision by the judging panel was a clear error, creating public outcry that the judges were incompetent. Hell, we have members of Congress writing to CAS claiming that Jordan's score original score was "miscalculated" and people writing to FIG wanting the judges banned.
Here are photos of the skill Jordan was found by the Superior Jury, not the judging panel, to have completed within 30 degrees of 1 1/2 rotations.
The judges didn't miscalculate—they saw an underrotation. The Superior Jury disagreed. There was no clear error on either's part, but at best, it was extremely close.
Ok random person on a message board. No one with any credentials seem in doubt of this call. You are taking sketchy screenshots to support an argument that only you are making.
OK, so here's a quote from an article in the Washington Post yesterday. Chelsie Memmel, who is the technical lead of the USAG high performance staff and is also a Brevet judge qualified to judge elite competitions, said that she watched Jordan's performance in real time and thought to herself, "Hm, she could get that one." I guess she also doesn't know what she's talking about because she, too, didn't characterize the skill as clearly meeting the requirements. It was close but not obvious.
So that comment was in real time. No one with credentials has questioned it after watching a replay. Not even the Romanians.
You are proving my point. I'm not disputing the decision of the Superior Jury on the inquiry. How could I? They made the call to award the skill, and it can't be challenged. I'm pushing back against the narrative being furthered by USAG's vague statements that this all started by the D score judging panel getting it wrong, making an error, or however you want to put it. Neither Jordan's coaches nor a USAG official were sure in real time that Jordan completed the skill, so why are they issuing statements that incite public sentiment about the judging panel (not the Superior Jury), making it seem as though they were incompetent? Inquires are part of the sport and having one upheld is not evidence that the original judges should be banned from the Olympics forever.
By the way, judges watch the gymnasts' routines and know what to look for. Judging decisions are subjective. Before you brand a particular D score to be some sort of conspiracy, ask about the overall quality of the skill. If the judges have seen the gymnast performing the skill regularly, they are more likely to get the benefit of the doubt. That's just how it is. They may be less likely to go the gymnast's way if they perform the skill for the first time ever in competition in a way that approaches meeting the requirements.
This procedure has been a debacle, and it's totally unfair to Jordan. I love that people are supporting her. If you have followed her career, as I have, she's an incredible gymnast and the most supportive teammate you could ever hope to have. There's a part of me that wishes she could see that the love and support she's getting is worth more than a medal. F-the scores and the process. She deserves the world, not this complete and utter mess.
I just hate how false or misleading statements are driving the narrative to suggest a conspiracy or incompetence on the part of the judges who didn't initially award a borderline skill that almost never meets the requirements. When you keep a questionable skill in a routine, you risk not getting credit. It's a choice. Jordan's coaches took that risk, so to imply that the judges didn't know what they were doing because they didn't count it initially is, in my mind, unprofessional.
Poor Jordan. Let's not mention the Romanian who thought she won, and not actually won, but never got her podium moment. Or the other Romanian who actually should have won, but will still finish last. Jordan got to be on the podium and she still has the medal (there is no chance she returns it and the IOC has no way of making her return it)
I feel terrible for her too. I watched in real-time, and as happy as I was for Jordan, the whole thing felt terrible. Can't they both be victims? If the Superior Jury accepted a late inquiry, this situation is 100% their fault. Neither Jordan nor her coaches are to blame.
Regardless of when the inquiry was lodged, the video shows that they had started announcing the winner, Rebeca Andrade, before information about the inquiry was put on the scoreboard. So either the inquiry was late, or someone messed up by beginning the announcements too early. I think that contributed to Ana thinking the scores were final.
In fairness, though, all competitors know about the inquiry process, so in a perfect world, they should wait until they are absolutely certain that scores are final before celebrating.
There was a PP who said that they don't want to give out three medals. I think it's either that or that not giving Sabrina (who should have won, but has a non-appealable issue and thus cannot win) a medal, but giving one to Jordan (who won at the event, but is now 5th) and Ana (who won on appeal) would look really bad.
Anonymous wrote:No matter what happens, we will always have this photo.
I think it's regrettable that this photo was made into a big race-based story instead of respect between individual tough competititors or the US team laying off the "US = #1" long enough to respect another nation's winner.
By setting this photo up as a racial moment, now the judging controversy has extra bad feelings tied to it. None of this was necessary. Should have been pitched as two individuals respecting a tough competitor that they know well.
This is getting off topic, but I haven't see any stories representing this as race-based. I've only seen a lot of really positive coverage of the US team showing respect and sportsmanship for a strong competitor achieving a great first for her country.
Those stories may exist but I don't think they're the dominant media narrative, nor are they related to the judging controversy.
Anonymous wrote:No matter what happens, we will always have this photo.
I think it's regrettable that this photo was made into a big race-based story instead of respect between individual tough competititors or the US team laying off the "US = #1" long enough to respect another nation's winner.
By setting this photo up as a racial moment, now the judging controversy has extra bad feelings tied to it. None of this was necessary. Should have been pitched as two individuals respecting a tough competitor that they know well.
This is getting off topic, but I haven't see any stories representing this as race-based. I've only seen a lot of really positive coverage of the US team showing respect and sportsmanship for a strong competitor achieving a great first for her country.
Those stories may exist but I don't think they're the dominant media narrative, nor are they related to the judging controversy.
Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it really matters at this point. whomever gets it - Sabrina, Ana, or Jordyn - will always feel like there is an “asterisk” by that win. How unfortunate.
The judging panel used the wrong point value for a particular skill performed by Chiles. This incorrect value lowered Chiles total score by 0.1 thus taking her out of the bronze medal. The judging made an error. It was not a question of whether Chiles did or did not correctly perform the skill. She did it correctly. Everyone agrees she did it and that she did it correctly. But, the judging panel - for some reason - valued the skill 0.1 points lower than its assigned value.
Do the skill you get X. There is no “judging” aspect to consider if the skill is performed correctly. And, again, there is no question the skill was performed correctly. The panel was just wrong. Why they were wrong is unknown. But no one disputes that they were wrong.
Under the gymnastics competition rules, scoring errors can be challenging if raised within 1 minute after the scores officially being posted. It is a very short time period. But, the short time period makes sense when you are talking about a traditional competition rather than an Olympic single apparatus event.
Think about it. Gymnast X is 0.1 ahead of Gymnasts Y going into the next apparatus event, or in the same apparatus event. In order to get ahead of Gymnast X and “win”, Gymnast Y may elect to do a more difficult and risky skill to gain the necessary fraction of a point. But, Gymnast Y will take a bigger risk of failing on that skill and fall out of contention for a win.
Here it is a very different issue.
Rather than take the time to see if the US properly and timely challenged the point assessment the review panel took the Romanian submitted video and assumed that it
showed the first US challenge to the scoring coming in 4 seconds too late. The huge problem now is that the Romanian video showed the third US conversation and not the first or second ones. Why Romania had video of the third conversation only is a question that must be answered. The US has contended all along that they knew they timely challenged the score. And - the US coaching staff is right. There is video of the first US challenge presented 47 seconds after the Chiles score was posted. And, an additional protest with supporting values was presented to the judges by the US team 55 seconds after the Chiles score was posted.
So - lots of errors and possibly just corruption here. The scoring panel “errored” in assessing the value of a skill. There is zero chance that happens accidentally. The scores are not blank sheets. The judging panel knows what the gymnasts are doing in advance including possible changes (eg if a higher difficulty score were needed to medal). The gymnasts are not making it up as they go along. Why did the panel make such an error? That has to be determined.
Second - why did the review panel not consider other video? The US claimed it timely questioned the score. Apparently, the only video reviewed was submitted by Romania showing only the 3rd conversation at 1:04 after the score is posted, and not the first two at 47 seconds and again at 55 seconds after the score is posted.
So - the judging panel got it right. The medals were properly awarded and the timing challenge was wrong. And, frankly, unless the camera used by Romaina was suddenly turned on between 56 seconds after the score was posted and 64 seconds claimed by Romania, they knew the challenge was wrong when they submitted it and left out the key evidence to mislead the review panel.
This summary contains many incorrect statements about the evidence and the initial judging. I can't address all of them, but it's absolutely not true that no one disputes that Jordan completed the skill in question. Many, many people, including the initial panel of judges, think that the skill was not completed. There is a judging aspect of the skill and room for debate. You don't get credit for a difficult skill if you don't actually do it according to the requirements (or within a set margin). The same skill was in the routines Jordan performed during qualifications and team finals, and she didn't get credit for it then, just as she initially didn't get credit for it during floor finals. I don't have the data, but I wonder if she had ever gotten credit for it in competition? Most gymnasts don't.
However, her coaches thought that Jordan did it better during team finals, so they inquired. Here is what her coach said:
“She was out of the podium already, so even if they drop the score, [it’s] nothing worse,” said Laurent Landi, who coaches Chiles alongside his wife. “I was [at] the same angle as the judge. And I felt it was way better than all the other meets that she’s done, so what the heck? We might as well try.”
That's hardly a ringing endorsement. In truth, I think that the coaches probably also thought she didn't complete it, or at least they knew that it was borderline. Otherwise, why did they wait around for more than 40 seconds doing nothing? I can't speak to the timing of the inquiry or the decision of the Superior Jury (a different panel of judges), who changed the score. But the situation with the score is nowhere near as clear cut as everyone is claiming. Quite frankly, I take issue with USAG suggesting that not giving Jordan credit for the skill was egregious or unfair. Reasonable minds can disagree without any corruption involved. If USAG is going to attack the judging panel for not crediting a skill that Jordan rarely, if ever, has performed adequately to get credit for, I'd ask why the skill is even in her routine?
In any event, the score itself is not something that can be disputed at this point. The Superior Jury changed it to credit the skill, so that aspect of the decision stands. She gets credit for the difficulty. The only issue that can be reviewed is whether proper procedures were followed in terms of whether the inquiry was made in time. Given that fact, again, I take issue with USAG making any statements about the D score assigned by the judging panel.
The whole situation has been botched beyond belief, but much of what is being said on social media is not accurate. I hate that this happened because Jordan Chiles is an exciting gymnast and an even better human being who doesn't deserve any of this.
Also, if there is anyone who knows more about FIG rules than I do, can you tell me whether the Superior Jury could have tried to get the judges to change the score before it was posted if it was completely off base? I thought that they could.
I don't think this is fair. My understanding is that the coaches had to make the call whether to file an inquiry based on what they saw live from where they were standing (i.e., did she complete 360 degrees) and, from what they could see, they thought it was better than what she had done previously and was likely sufficient. Any doubt by the coaches at the time of the challenge could very much be based on their viewing angle and the fact that they were watching for a bunch of different elements while watching a live performance. My understanding is that the judges looked at the replay and found that she'd completed the element. I haven't heard anyone--including the Romanians or other experts--challenge whether this was the correct call. There seems to be broad based consensus that she did indeed complete the element and deserved the 0.1 increase in difficulty. Comments about doubts by the US coaches were about the short time period that they had to file an inquiry (without time to review a replay) and have since been resolved by watching a replay.
It's completely insane to say that the US coaches must not have been confident because they waited 40 seconds before filing their inquiry. That's barely time to discuss one element in the routine, let alone other scoring elements that they were also considering and whether the judges had potentially missed any scoring deductions that would drop her score.
It's "completely insane" to say that a coach saying, "what the hell, we have nothing to lose, let's file an inquiry," is a demonstration of confidence?
Also, different judges—elected officials at FIG—reviewed the skill in a matter of seconds and found that she completed it, which they are allowed to do. But that doesn't mean that the original decision was egregious—that's all I'm saying.
Yes, because the coaches were viewing from one angle and didn't know if the judges would find another deduction. You can't use their reasoning in that 40 seconds to say that we don't know now whether Jordan completed the element. There's consensus that she did complete the element.
You can't concede that there can be any dispute as to whether she completed the skill? To be fair, it was probably the best one she ever did!!
Show me a single statement by someone with gymnastics credentials arguing that Jordan didn't complete the element. I haven't see one. Even the Romanians haven't argued that she didn't complete the element--to the contrary, they conceded that she was deserving suggested that she share in the bronze medal. Their only challenge of her score related to the timing of the US inquiry, not the merit.
There's lots to dispute here, but you've picked an element that isn't in dispute.
They can't challenge field-of-play decisions—no one can. They are what they are, including the decision on the inquiry. If the inquiry stands, Jordan gets credit for it. So yes, the element is not in dispute at this point.
I just disagree with USAG's decision to issue press releases complaining about the judging panel's decision to downgrade the skill. It isn't an issue now and should not be talked about by USAG at this point, given that the completion of the skill was borderline at best. They are misleading the public by suggesting that the original decision by the judging panel was a clear error, creating public outcry that the judges were incompetent. Hell, we have members of Congress writing to CAS claiming that Jordan's score original score was "miscalculated" and people writing to FIG wanting the judges banned.
Here are photos of the skill Jordan was found by the Superior Jury, not the judging panel, to have completed within 30 degrees of 1 1/2 rotations.
The judges didn't miscalculate—they saw an underrotation. The Superior Jury disagreed. There was no clear error on either's part, but at best, it was extremely close.
Ok random person on a message board. No one with any credentials seem in doubt of this call. You are taking sketchy screenshots to support an argument that only you are making.
OK, so here's a quote from an article in the Washington Post yesterday. Chelsie Memmel, who is the technical lead of the USAG high performance staff and is also a Brevet judge qualified to judge elite competitions, said that she watched Jordan's performance in real time and thought to herself, "Hm, she could get that one." I guess she also doesn't know what she's talking about because she, too, didn't characterize the skill as clearly meeting the requirements. It was close but not obvious.
So that comment was in real time. No one with credentials has questioned it after watching a replay. Not even the Romanians.
You are proving my point. I'm not disputing the decision of the Superior Jury on the inquiry. How could I? They made the call to award the skill, and it can't be challenged. I'm pushing back against the narrative being furthered by USAG's vague statements that this all started by the D score judging panel getting it wrong, making an error, or however you want to put it. Neither Jordan's coaches nor a USAG official were sure in real time that Jordan completed the skill, so why are they issuing statements that incite public sentiment about the judging panel (not the Superior Jury), making it seem as though they were incompetent? Inquires are part of the sport and having one upheld is not evidence that the original judges should be banned from the Olympics forever.
By the way, judges watch the gymnasts' routines and know what to look for. Judging decisions are subjective. Before you brand a particular D score to be some sort of conspiracy, ask about the overall quality of the skill. If the judges have seen the gymnast performing the skill regularly, they are more likely to get the benefit of the doubt. That's just how it is. They may be less likely to go the gymnast's way if they perform the skill for the first time ever in competition in a way that approaches meeting the requirements.
This procedure has been a debacle, and it's totally unfair to Jordan. I love that people are supporting her. If you have followed her career, as I have, she's an incredible gymnast and the most supportive teammate you could ever hope to have. There's a part of me that wishes she could see that the love and support she's getting is worth more than a medal. F-the scores and the process. She deserves the world, not this complete and utter mess.
I just hate how false or misleading statements are driving the narrative to suggest a conspiracy or incompetence on the part of the judges who didn't initially award a borderline skill that almost never meets the requirements. When you keep a questionable skill in a routine, you risk not getting credit. It's a choice. Jordan's coaches took that risk, so to imply that the judges didn't know what they were doing because they didn't count it initially is, in my mind, unprofessional.
Poor Jordan. Let's not mention the Romanian who thought she won, and not actually won, but never got her podium moment. Or the other Romanian who actually should have won, but will still finish last. Jordan got to be on the podium and she still has the medal (there is no chance she returns it and the IOC has no way of making her return it)
I feel terrible for her too. I watched in real-time, and as happy as I was for Jordan, the whole thing felt terrible. Can't they both be victims? If the Superior Jury accepted a late inquiry, this situation is 100% their fault. Neither Jordan nor her coaches are to blame.
Regardless of when the inquiry was lodged, the video shows that they had started announcing the winner, Rebeca Andrade, before information about the inquiry was put on the scoreboard. So either the inquiry was late, or someone messed up by beginning the announcements too early. I think that contributed to Ana thinking the scores were final.
In fairness, though, all competitors know about the inquiry process, so in a perfect world, they should wait until they are absolutely certain that scores are final before celebrating.
There was a PP who said that they don't want to give out three medals. I think it's either that or that not giving Sabrina (who should have won, but has a non-appealable issue and thus cannot win) a medal, but giving one to Jordan (who won at the event, but is now 5th) and Ana (who won on appeal) would look really bad.
I don't know. I think there is a way to save face and award two bronzes. At first, I agreed that it would be awkward to have the third and fifth-place gymnasts get bronze but not award a third. However, field-of-play decisions can't be challenged. Initially, Ana Barbosu was the third-place finisher. Based on the inquiry, Jordan was the third-place finisher. Given the hypertechnical application of the rules that resulted in CAS finding that the inquiry was too late, why not award an additional bronze to Ana based on the placements after the CAS decision and allow Jordan to keep hers, as it was awarded in the field of play. That prevents further trauma to Ana and Jordan, although to a large extent, the damage is done. Ana gets a medal because she finished third that day now that the inquiry is off the table. Jordan gets a medal because the judge's decision that day was that she had the third-highest score.
Sabrina's OOB deduction was not the subject of an inquiry and, therefore, cannot be considered.
Anonymous wrote:Here comes the corruption. Apparently the head arbitrator for CAS, which ruled that the US was 4 seconds too late, is a lawyer whose main client is Romania. That's a huge non-waivable conflict of interest and potentially grounds for the Swiss court to throw out the CAS ruling.
If you keep on reading, it was disclosed at the time to all parties and none objected. Whether it isnon-waivable is not an easy question. He represented the Romanian government which was not a party to the arbitration.
The Romanian prime minister, the head of the government, has been very vocal on this. It would be easy to argue influence.
It would be easy to argue, and the time was after the conflict was disclosed not after the judgment was announced
Given that we don't have access to the filings and whether he was transparent on his disclosure form, I'll wait to see what happens.
"The court said in an email that Mr. Gharavi had disclosed his work with Romania in writing and that none of the parties involved in the hearing had objected to his appointment as the panel’s chair."
So says an email. Let's see what happens.
What happens probably depends on how much USOC wants to put their thumb on the scale. We're hosting 2028 and Romania is just Romania.
Anonymous wrote:WAS the inquiry too late? upthread there was proof that it was not. so what it it?
The US says it has irrefutable video evidence that the inquiry was lodged before the 1 minute deadline. The court says it won't consider that evidence.
Anonymous wrote:WAS the inquiry too late? upthread there was proof that it was not. so what it it?
The US says it has irrefutable video evidence that the inquiry was lodged before the 1 minute deadline. The court says it won't consider that evidence.
Oh. Well thank you for that! Isn't that a load of bulltikky.
“The head of a panel that ruled that the American gymnast Jordan Chiles had to give up her Olympic bronze medal in favor of a Romanian athlete has represented Romania for almost a decade in arbitration cases, documents show.
…
The decision to reallocate the medals in the floor exercise outraged U.S. Olympic and gymnastics officials, who have threatened to take their fight to the Swiss courts. The revelation that Hamid G. Gharavi chaired the panel that resolved the dispute in favor of a Romanian athlete despite having a long relationship with Romania’s government is sure to inflame the case further.
Very little is known about the deliberation and how the panel reached its verdict, with the court publishing just a one-page statement confirming the decisions it made. A detailed document outlining the full reasoning behind the outcome will eventually be sent to all the parties involved.”
Details first published by The International Institute for Conflict Resolution and Prevention, a nonprofit organization, show that Mr. Gharavi, the presiding arbitrator in the hearing and a lawyer based in France, is currently serving as legal counsel to Romania in disputes at the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes. Mr. Gharavi’s work on behalf of Romania dates back almost a decade.
Under the sports court’s rules, arbitrators are required to complete conflict of interest declarations before every hearing.
“The issue is whether an Olympic arbitrator who currently represents a country on the global stage can decide a case involving a gymnast of that country, in an unbiased manner,” three arbitration experts wrote in an opinion published on the institute for conflict resolution’s website. “Is it realistic to expect such arbitrator can decide against the interests of that country or of that country’s gymnast, who in this case is represented by the Federation of Romanian Gymnasts?”
Anonymous wrote:So the judges gave Jordan the wrong score
US was seconds late asking for a rescore
Jordan's real score is 3rd place but 5th due to a technicality
Is that right?
Jordan's real score was 4th if you also ignore the technicality that cost Sabrina the medal. If you count technicalities, Chiles is 5th, if you count what the gymnasts should have scored with competent judging, she's 4th. She's only 3rd if you count her appeal and continue to discount Sabrina's appeal.
The crazy part is that Ana is getting the medal with the 5th best performance.
The judges have never actually looked at Sabrina's appeal and they have the potential to find other deductions if they rescore her (the performance is reconsidered as a whole and scores can go up or down in an inquirt) so it's not clear where she'd place if her appeal was granted. Romania argues that she'd gain 0.1, but that's not been decided by the judges.
They said she stepped out of bounds, she didn't. That is even more cut and dry than chiles claiming an additional skill
And had she followed the rules and challenged it, then it would be a conversation. But she didn’t, so if we are strictly going by the rules, it doesn’t matter. She could have equally availed herself of the challenge process and did not.
Anonymous wrote:So the judges gave Jordan the wrong score
US was seconds late asking for a rescore
Jordan's real score is 3rd place but 5th due to a technicality
Is that right?
Jordan's real score was 4th if you also ignore the technicality that cost Sabrina the medal. If you count technicalities, Chiles is 5th, if you count what the gymnasts should have scored with competent judging, she's 4th. She's only 3rd if you count her appeal and continue to discount Sabrina's appeal.
The crazy part is that Ana is getting the medal with the 5th best performance.
The judges have never actually looked at Sabrina's appeal and they have the potential to find other deductions if they rescore her (the performance is reconsidered as a whole and scores can go up or down in an inquirt) so it's not clear where she'd place if her appeal was granted. Romania argues that she'd gain 0.1, but that's not been decided by the judges.
They said she stepped out of bounds, she didn't. That is even more cut and dry than chiles claiming an additional skill
And had she followed the rules and challenged it, then it would be a conversation. But she didn’t, so if we are strictly going by the rules, it doesn’t matter. She could have equally availed herself of the challenge process and did not.
When a gymnast files an inquiry, the judge rescore the whole routine so it's possible her score would go down instead of up if they consider that there was another mistake. No one knows the outcome beyond conjecture.
Anonymous wrote:Details first published by The International Institute for Conflict Resolution and Prevention, a nonprofit organization, show that Mr. Gharavi, the presiding arbitrator in the hearing and a lawyer based in France, is currently serving as legal counsel to Romania in disputes at the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes. Mr. Gharavi’s work on behalf of Romania dates back almost a decade.
Under the sports court’s rules, arbitrators are required to complete conflict of interest declarations before every hearing.
“The issue is whether an Olympic arbitrator who currently represents a country on the global stage can decide a case involving a gymnast of that country, in an unbiased manner,” three arbitration experts wrote in an opinion published on the institute for conflict resolution’s website. “Is it realistic to expect such arbitrator can decide against the interests of that country or of that country’s gymnast, who in this case is represented by the Federation of Romanian Gymnasts?”
According to a WaPo article, the other judges were a Chinese and an Anglo-French lawyer with a history of being very pro-Russia and overturning Russian doping convictions.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
