Our law firm specialized in sports law, Gherdan & Associates, represented the Romanian Gymnastics Federation and athletes Ana Maria Bărbosu and Sabrina Maneca Voinea before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), Ad-Hoc Division, which was based in Paris during the 33rd edition of the Olympic Games held in the French capital. The representation was led by the managing attorney, Sabin Gherdan, and attorneys Călina Oana Tejan and Raul Ștefan Celmare.
The dispute before the CAS concerned the results recorded by the International Gymnastics Federation during the women’s floor exercise final on August 5, 2024. According to the podium results at the Bercy Arena in Paris, the third place and bronze medal were awarded to the American gymnast Jordan Chiles following a protest lodged at the end of the competition, which was upheld by the competition’s head judge. This decision elevated her from fifth place to the podium, ahead of our clients, Ana Maria Bărbosu and Sabrina Maneca Voinea. Additionally, video footage showed that Sabrina Maneca Voinea was erroneously penalized by 0.1 points for allegedly stepping out of bounds.
Our arguments before the CAS focused on the inadmissibility of Jordan Chiles’ protest due to her failure to comply with a strict one-minute time limit, as well as the unlawful penalty imposed on Sabrina Maneca Voinea for a violation she did not commit. Alternatively, due to the evident technical issues faced by the International Gymnastics Federation, we requested the awarding of three bronze medals, one to each gymnast.
The hearing took place on the morning of August 10 and lasted six hours, during which several key witnesses present at the event were heard. The arbitral decision was issued later that day, in which the appeal against Jordan Chiles’ protest was upheld, while the arguments submitted on behalf of Sabrina Maneca Voinea were rejected. On August 14, the panel of three arbitrators provided the reasoning behind their decision, which can be accessed via this link.
From a legal standpoint, the decision pronounced by the panel consisting of Dr. Hamid G. Gharavi (President), Prof. Philippe Sands KC, and Prof. Song Lu represents a dual precedent. Firstly, it is the first decision in the extensive 40-year jurisprudence of the CAS to review a decision that falls under the “field of play” doctrine, and secondly, it is the first ruling to award an Olympic medal to another athlete outside the context of a doping case.
According to the “field of play” doctrine, if a decision is demonstrated to be a “decision made on the playing field by judges, referees, and other officials responsible for applying the rules of a particular game” (as per CAS 2021/A/8119), it should not be reviewed by CAS judges. This doctrine seeks to prevent a situation where judges are asked to substitute their judgment for that of a referee or other official regarding a decision made during a competition governed by the rules of a particular sport.
It was established in the CAS 2021/A/8119 jurisprudence that the rationale behind the “field of play” doctrine is that CAS panels are not sufficiently trained in the rules of any sport and do not have the advantage of observing the event in real time. All arguments by a party concerning the judging and scoring of a competition fall within the scope of the “field of play” doctrine and cannot be reviewed by CAS judges. Consequently, any challenge to the evaluation of the difficulty of a performance, artistic assessment, and execution—including the results—falls within the doctrine’s scope, and any challenge to technical breaches in athletes’ performances always requires the expertise and judgment of those experts within the “field of play.” According to this jurisprudence, if a video recording was a procedural aspect that led to a decision under the “field of play,” its use is not open to review.
There are several exceptions to this doctrine, which had not been applied by CAS until this case, namely error of law, fraud, arbitrariness, corruption, or bad faith. In the present case, our law firm based its arguments on the arbitrary nature of the entire technical procedure established by the International Gymnastics Federation, which could not provide sufficient guarantees regarding the legitimacy of the results, as well as the bad faith of the head judge.
In the final closing statements, following the arguments and evidence presented at our request, the International Gymnastics Federation, through its representative, acknowledged the existence of technical issues during the women’s floor exercise final, leading to a discussion on our alternative request to award three bronze medals, one to each gymnast. Since the negotiations were not agreed upon by all parties, the CAS panel issued a ruling that found Jordan Chiles had filed her protest 4 seconds past the 1-minute time limit.
To address this aspect related to the “rules of the game,” CAS considered that exceptions were applicable, namely arbitrariness or an error of law, given that the International Gymnastics Federation failed to implement a system to protect the gymnasts and apply its own mandatory, clear, and unambiguous rule, a rule that was acknowledged and, in any case, proven to have been violated.
Regarding gymnast Sabrina Maneca Voinea, the panel ruled that no exception could be applied to the decision affecting her, as it falls under the “rules of the game” doctrine, which does not permit the review of decisions made by referees during the final. From our perspective, we disagree with this extremely brief reasoning, as it does not address the technical issues that the witnesses detailed unequivocally, namely the lack of a camera system that could provide clear images to the referees regarding whether or not the gymnasts stepped out of bounds.
According to the Federal Act on Private International Law (PILA), the decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne can be challenged with an action for annulment within 30 days of communication, or with a request for revision within 90 days of communication.
