Anonymous wrote:Romanian bronze medal received by Barbosu who expressed hope that all the gymnasts could share the bronze

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5705001/2024/08/16/ana-barbosu-bronze-medal-jordan-chiles-olympics/

Good to see IOC rushing forward even when the legal challenges are ongoing.

Romanian bronze medal received by Barbosu who expressed hope that all the gymnasts could share the bronze

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5705001/2024/08/16/ana-barbosu-bronze-medal-jordan-chiles-olympics/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds even more botched than expected. The US team wasn't notified because of bad email addresses, FIG couldn't explain how it handled inquiries, and CAS had no evidence of the official time for filing the inquiry because it was kept by a sponsor, OMEGA (and that data exists, but no one had it at the hearing). Totally ridiculous.

Arbitration results usually hold up on challenge at a court, but this may certainly be an exception.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2024/08/14/jordan-chiles-gymnastics-medal-ruling/74803693007/

DoJ should investigate. International sporting bodies just love it when the DoJ decides to care about their corruption

It also seriously calls into question the statements from CAS to the press that the US was given the opportunity to object to arbitrators based on the conflicts of interest, but didn't do so. It sounds like those emails were going to a bad email address. So the US never had an opportunity after all. Super fishy, as they must be aware of the email issue.

Wouldn't you call to say "watch out for an email" over something like this?

In most legal proceedings there isn't usually a phone call, as that could be considered inappropriate ex parte contact, but there is usually a formal process for providing notice. And CAS would expect the US attorneys to enter an appearance, identifying them as the ones who should receive notices.

Could they ask for immediate confirmation of receipt?

It's arbitration so the required process should in an agreement.

Immediate confirmation of receipt isn't a standard term in such proceedings, so that would be unusual.

I would not be surprised if USOC never updated their e-mail address for service. If so, that's on the US.

Complete sham hearing that they rushed through and tried their best to keep the US in the dark about. All white panel and Nadia leading the mob.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds even more botched than expected. The US team wasn't notified because of bad email addresses, FIG couldn't explain how it handled inquiries, and CAS had no evidence of the official time for filing the inquiry because it was kept by a sponsor, OMEGA (and that data exists, but no one had it at the hearing). Totally ridiculous.

Arbitration results usually hold up on challenge at a court, but this may certainly be an exception.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2024/08/14/jordan-chiles-gymnastics-medal-ruling/74803693007/

DoJ should investigate. International sporting bodies just love it when the DoJ decides to care about their corruption

It also seriously calls into question the statements from CAS to the press that the US was given the opportunity to object to arbitrators based on the conflicts of interest, but didn't do so. It sounds like those emails were going to a bad email address. So the US never had an opportunity after all. Super fishy, as they must be aware of the email issue.

Wouldn't you call to say "watch out for an email" over something like this?

In most legal proceedings there isn't usually a phone call, as that could be considered inappropriate ex parte contact, but there is usually a formal process for providing notice. And CAS would expect the US attorneys to enter an appearance, identifying them as the ones who should receive notices.

Could they ask for immediate confirmation of receipt?

It's arbitration so the required process should in an agreement.

Immediate confirmation of receipt isn't a standard term in such proceedings, so that would be unusual.

I would not be surprised if USOC never updated their e-mail address for service. If so, that's on the US.

CAS also hears doping cases, so I'd be surprised if it didn't have updated info for US officials.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds even more botched than expected. The US team wasn't notified because of bad email addresses, FIG couldn't explain how it handled inquiries, and CAS had no evidence of the official time for filing the inquiry because it was kept by a sponsor, OMEGA (and that data exists, but no one had it at the hearing). Totally ridiculous.

Arbitration results usually hold up on challenge at a court, but this may certainly be an exception.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2024/08/14/jordan-chiles-gymnastics-medal-ruling/74803693007/

DoJ should investigate. International sporting bodies just love it when the DoJ decides to care about their corruption

It also seriously calls into question the statements from CAS to the press that the US was given the opportunity to object to arbitrators based on the conflicts of interest, but didn't do so. It sounds like those emails were going to a bad email address. So the US never had an opportunity after all. Super fishy, as they must be aware of the email issue.

Wouldn't you call to say "watch out for an email" over something like this?

In most legal proceedings there isn't usually a phone call, as that could be considered inappropriate ex parte contact, but there is usually a formal process for providing notice. And CAS would expect the US attorneys to enter an appearance, identifying them as the ones who should receive notices.

Could they ask for immediate confirmation of receipt?

It's arbitration so the required process should in an agreement.

Immediate confirmation of receipt isn't a standard term in such proceedings, so that would be unusual.

I would not be surprised if USOC never updated their e-mail address for service. If so, that's on the US.

Anonymous wrote:I participated in a judged sport and sometimes the judges at international meets didn't seem like the best because the organizers were bending over backwards to have international representation on the panel. Sometimes the judges were there because they were senior officials within a country, but not necessarily the best technically.

It seems that gymnastics has tried to reduce the arbitrariness of scores, but there must still be a fair amount of fuzziness in the execution score.

The execution score is subjective, by definition. As to the difficulty scores, while most skills can be assessed objectively, leap/dance skills like the one in question in Jordan's routine are more open to subjective interpretation, especially when they are reviewed by the judges in real-time. That's why I find it annoying that people are claiming that the original judges missed one of her skills as if it was some egregious error. They didn't exactly miss her skill; they determined that she didn't meet the requirements. The Superior Jury disagreed and gave her credit, perhaps after reviewing the video. That is not proof of bias, incompetence, or any other major error on the part of the original judges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds even more botched than expected. The US team wasn't notified because of bad email addresses, FIG couldn't explain how it handled inquiries, and CAS had no evidence of the official time for filing the inquiry because it was kept by a sponsor, OMEGA (and that data exists, but no one had it at the hearing). Totally ridiculous.

Arbitration results usually hold up on challenge at a court, but this may certainly be an exception.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2024/08/14/jordan-chiles-gymnastics-medal-ruling/74803693007/

DoJ should investigate. International sporting bodies just love it when the DoJ decides to care about their corruption

It also seriously calls into question the statements from CAS to the press that the US was given the opportunity to object to arbitrators based on the conflicts of interest, but didn't do so. It sounds like those emails were going to a bad email address. So the US never had an opportunity after all. Super fishy, as they must be aware of the email issue.

Wouldn't you call to say "watch out for an email" over something like this?

In most legal proceedings there isn't usually a phone call, as that could be considered inappropriate ex parte contact, but there is usually a formal process for providing notice. And CAS would expect the US attorneys to enter an appearance, identifying them as the ones who should receive notices.

Could they ask for immediate confirmation of receipt?

It's arbitration so the required process should in an agreement.

Immediate confirmation of receipt isn't a standard term in such proceedings, so that would be unusual.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds even more botched than expected. The US team wasn't notified because of bad email addresses, FIG couldn't explain how it handled inquiries, and CAS had no evidence of the official time for filing the inquiry because it was kept by a sponsor, OMEGA (and that data exists, but no one had it at the hearing). Totally ridiculous.

Arbitration results usually hold up on challenge at a court, but this may certainly be an exception.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2024/08/14/jordan-chiles-gymnastics-medal-ruling/74803693007/

DoJ should investigate. International sporting bodies just love it when the DoJ decides to care about their corruption

It also seriously calls into question the statements from CAS to the press that the US was given the opportunity to object to arbitrators based on the conflicts of interest, but didn't do so. It sounds like those emails were going to a bad email address. So the US never had an opportunity after all. Super fishy, as they must be aware of the email issue.

Wouldn't you call to say "watch out for an email" over something like this?

In most legal proceedings there isn't usually a phone call, as that could be considered inappropriate ex parte contact, but there is usually a formal process for providing notice. And CAS would expect the US attorneys to enter an appearance, identifying them as the ones who should receive notices.

Could they ask for immediate confirmation of receipt?

I participated in a judged sport and sometimes the judges at international meets didn't seem like the best because the organizers were bending over backwards to have international representation on the panel. Sometimes the judges were there because they were senior officials within a country, but not necessarily the best technically.

It seems that gymnastics has tried to reduce the arbitrariness of scores, but there must still be a fair amount of fuzziness in the execution score.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds even more botched than expected. The US team wasn't notified because of bad email addresses, FIG couldn't explain how it handled inquiries, and CAS had no evidence of the official time for filing the inquiry because it was kept by a sponsor, OMEGA (and that data exists, but no one had it at the hearing). Totally ridiculous.

Arbitration results usually hold up on challenge at a court, but this may certainly be an exception.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2024/08/14/jordan-chiles-gymnastics-medal-ruling/74803693007/

DoJ should investigate. International sporting bodies just love it when the DoJ decides to care about their corruption

It also seriously calls into question the statements from CAS to the press that the US was given the opportunity to object to arbitrators based on the conflicts of interest, but didn't do so. It sounds like those emails were going to a bad email address. So the US never had an opportunity after all. Super fishy, as they must be aware of the email issue.

Wouldn't you call to say "watch out for an email" over something like this?

In most legal proceedings there isn't usually a phone call, as that could be considered inappropriate ex parte contact, but there is usually a formal process for providing notice. And CAS would expect the US attorneys to enter an appearance, identifying them as the ones who should receive notices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds even more botched than expected. The US team wasn't notified because of bad email addresses, FIG couldn't explain how it handled inquiries, and CAS had no evidence of the official time for filing the inquiry because it was kept by a sponsor, OMEGA (and that data exists, but no one had it at the hearing). Totally ridiculous.

Arbitration results usually hold up on challenge at a court, but this may certainly be an exception.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2024/08/14/jordan-chiles-gymnastics-medal-ruling/74803693007/

DoJ should investigate. International sporting bodies just love it when the DoJ decides to care about their corruption

It also seriously calls into question the statements from CAS to the press that the US was given the opportunity to object to arbitrators based on the conflicts of interest, but didn't do so. It sounds like those emails were going to a bad email address. So the US never had an opportunity after all. Super fishy, as they must be aware of the email issue.

Wouldn't you call to say "watch out for an email" over something like this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds even more botched than expected. The US team wasn't notified because of bad email addresses, FIG couldn't explain how it handled inquiries, and CAS had no evidence of the official time for filing the inquiry because it was kept by a sponsor, OMEGA (and that data exists, but no one had it at the hearing). Totally ridiculous.

Arbitration results usually hold up on challenge at a court, but this may certainly be an exception.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2024/08/14/jordan-chiles-gymnastics-medal-ruling/74803693007/

DoJ should investigate. International sporting bodies just love it when the DoJ decides to care about their corruption

It also seriously calls into question the statements from CAS to the press that the US was given the opportunity to object to arbitrators based on the conflicts of interest, but didn't do so. It sounds like those emails were going to a bad email address. So the US never had an opportunity after all. Super fishy, as they must be aware of the email issue.

Anonymous wrote:This sounds even more botched than expected. The US team wasn't notified because of bad email addresses, FIG couldn't explain how it handled inquiries, and CAS had no evidence of the official time for filing the inquiry because it was kept by a sponsor, OMEGA (and that data exists, but no one had it at the hearing). Totally ridiculous.

Arbitration results usually hold up on challenge at a court, but this may certainly be an exception.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2024/08/14/jordan-chiles-gymnastics-medal-ruling/74803693007/

DoJ should investigate. International sporting bodies just love it when the DoJ decides to care about their corruption

This sounds even more botched than expected. The US team wasn't notified because of bad email addresses, FIG couldn't explain how it handled inquiries, and CAS had no evidence of the official time for filing the inquiry because it was kept by a sponsor, OMEGA (and that data exists, but no one had it at the hearing). Totally ridiculous.

Arbitration results usually hold up on challenge at a court, but this may certainly be an exception.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2024/08/14/jordan-chiles-gymnastics-medal-ruling/74803693007/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/13/world/europe/olympics-jordan-chiles.html

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.

They appear to be biased in favor of the Romanian gymnasts.