Navigating the Boundaries of Fairness and Regulation: The CAS Ruling on Vinesh Phogat's Disqualification and Its Ethical Conundrums

Introduction

A sense of happiness pervaded across the nation when Vinesh Phogat entered the final rounds of women’s 50 kg wrestling event in the Paris Olympics 2024. But both - the certainty of Vinesh becoming the second woman from India, after Sakshi Malik’s 2016 bronze in the 58kg category,  to bag a medal in a Women’s wrestling event in the Olympics, and the hope of her bagging a gold medal – were tarnished as she got disqualified for exceeding the weight limit by 100 grams. Her disqualification came before her gold medal bout with the US' Sarah Hildebrandt, and a day after her historic victory against Japan’s Yui Susaki, ending the latter’s 82-0 streak at the Olympics, and marking the Japanese grappler’s first international loss.

The tussle until Paris Olympics, 2024

The Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) had modified the trials regulations for the Olympics in 2022, adding a wrestle-off to determine the individual who would contest in the Olympics. Since the quota is for a country, not a specific individual, players who met the quota did not automatically qualify for the Olympics; instead, a fair chance was granted to all players and the player in the best form went to the games. It was claimed that this was done to ensure optimal performance and prevent accidents  resulting from weight reductions.

While Vinesh was engaged in demonstrations against Bhushan, another grappler from India, Antim Panghal, managed to qualify for the Olympics in Paris under quota in the 53kg category. Subsequently, Vinesh requested the ad-hoc committee overseeing the WFI to hold a final selection trial for the 53kg division. The committee declined to provide Phogat with a written copy of their decision, despite assuring her that the top four wrestlers in each class—including the women's 53kg category—would compete to pick a challenger for the quota-winners to decide on the individual to whom the Olympic slot would go. The ad hoc committee was then dissolved, and the head of the WFI announced that there would be no trials for quota winners.

Therefore, a step was taken back from the rationale based on health and fairness – resulting in Vinesh Phogat being required to drastically reduce her weight from 57 kg to 50 kg in just two months following a difficult knee surgery!

CAS: Its purpose and jurisdiction

The Court of Arbitration for Sport was founded in 1984 as an international organization tasked with using arbitration—a quicker, more legally binding process than traditional litigation—to settle disputes pertaining to sports. With the creation of the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS), the management and financial oversight of CAS was taken over by it, leading to significant reduction of the IOC's power over the CAS, and strengthening the CAS's standing as the gold standard for sports adjudication. The CAS, which has its headquarters in Switzerland, sets up makeshift courts in Olympic host towns. One such tribunal that handles issues that occur during the Olympic Games is the ad hoc section of CAS, which was housed in the 17th Arrondissement of the Paris Judicial Court.

Only when there is an arbitration agreement between the parties naming the CAS as the forum may a dispute be brought before the CAS. Nonetheless, any disagreements pertaining to the Olympic Games have to be brought before the CAS in accordance with Rule 61 of the Olympic Charter. Furthermore, this court's jurisdiction is recognized by all Olympic International Federations (IFs) for at least a few categories of disputes. The tribunal remained in operation until August 11, 2024, when the Olympics came to an end. "The CAS Ad Hoc Division guarantees free access to high-quality dispute resolution services conducted within a timeframe consistent with the competition schedule, with decisions rendered within 24 hours in urgent matters" reads an official press release.

Phogat was represented in the first round by pro bono attorneys from the Paris Bar Association, in accordance with the rules set down by the CAS. But the IOA formally briefed former Indian Solicitor General Harish Salve and sports law specialist Vidhushpat Singhania to set out the points. The IOA has summarily deferred in acknowledging the decision and stated that they are "exploring further legal options", but who is the appellate authority for decisions of the CAS? The Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland is the appellate tribunal for decisions rendered by CAS, a Swiss arbitration body. Nevertheless, since the court does not consider the case's merits, these appeals usually fail. Rather, the emphasis is on whether the award is in line with public policy and whether procedural requirements were met.

What was the rule that got breached?

The United World Wrestling modified its rules of competition in 2017, deciding that instead of all bouts in a weight class being competed on the same day, international events like the Olympics and World Championships would be contested over two days for each weight category. Wrestlers weighing in on two different days was one of the sporting developments that would occur from holding wrestling as a two-day event, despite its commercial attractiveness. It made sense that an athlete would have to be considerably closer to the natural weight of their class if they were required to compete in a given weight category for two days, as it would be more difficult to cut weight twice in a row.

An athlete will be disqualified from the competition if they don't meet the weight cut, under Article 11 of the UWW Rule Book. The event for each weight group is held over two days, and athletes have to keep under the weight restrictions of their respective categories each morning. Wrestlers only wear their singlets at weigh-ins as part of their strict routine. Wrestlers can walk on the scale as many times as necessary during the 30 minutes allotted for making weight on the first day. Similarly, weigh-ins for those moving on to the second day are restricted to 15 minutes, and exceeding that time will result in disqualification.

International competitions like the World Cup allow for a two-kilogram weight relaxation; sadly, heavier weight restrictions apply during the Olympics. Phogat weighed 49.9 kg when the contests started, which was just under the 50 kg limit. She weighed 52.7 kg at the conclusion of the first day, nevertheless. The wrestler was disqualified after she constantly registered 50.1 kg on the day of the finale, despite her extreme methods of cutting her hair and bleeding blood, as well as her rigorous skipping, jogging, and cycling all night before the next weigh-in.

Phogat’s appeal against disqualification

In the first appeal Phogat filed with the CAS via the Indian Olympic Association (IOA), she argued that she had qualified for the finals fairly, and requested to be allowed to compete in the round of sixteen – but, the CAS categorically declined the request. She filed a second appeal, having less than 24 hours remaining, requesting for the judgment that had disqualified her to be overturned so that she might at least be eligible for a joint silver medal.

In the second appeal, which remained in the limelight, the UWW stated that the application is inadmissible since the problem at hand "is a pure field of play decision." The sole arbitrator disagreed, believing that this was not a decision made during play, unlike one made by a referee or umpire. Instead, the CAS stated that it is a determination that an athlete does not meet the weight requirements to compete in a certain weight group. In determining its jurisdiction over the matter, it noted that Rule 61.2 of the Olympic Charter makes it abundantly evident that the CAS Ad hoc Division is empowered to hear any dispute (even on the field of play) that arises during or in relation to the Olympic Games.

The IOA argued that the athlete's 100g excess was rather small—between 0.1 and 0.2% of their total weight. They contended that the body's natural tendency to retain water in the heat as a survival tactic could be the cause of this modest rise. The IOA further noted that the weight gain might result from an increase in muscle mass brought on by competing three times in a single day or from the food required to maintain the athlete's health and endurance during the strenuous events. Moreover, the IOA's legal team presented proof that “she was pre-menstrual and that this results, as a normal biological process, in fluid retention,” according to the order. But the arbitrator said that "The evidence regarding the effects of the menstrual cycle does not distinguish between the first weigh-in, when she was compliant, and the second weigh-in, when she was not,". It also noted that “Possible reasons based on biology cannot be an excuse for the failure to comply. They are, as normal biological processes which would include eating and drinking and the menstrual cycle, factors to be taken into account as a matter of course by highly experienced athletes”. 

The CAS verdict observed that “It is apparent that the Rules reflect a UWW policy that a wrestler must not only be eligible at the beginning of a competition but must also remain eligible for the whole of the competition, that is, from entry to the finals. Accordingly, there are no accumulated rights arising from partial eligibility and this explains why the Rules provide that once a wrestler is ineligible during the course of the competition, the consequences provided in Article 11 apply.” – thus, dismissing the argument that Phogat shall not be disqualified from the entire event, and shall rather be disqualified only from the final rounds. Further, it stated that “The problem for the Athlete is that the Rules are clear as to the weight limit and are the same for all participants. There is no tolerance provided for – it is an upper limit. It does not even allow for the weight of the singlet. It is clearly up to an athlete to ensure that they remain below that limit.” – making any accommodation on the grounds of a slight excess of the weighing limit impossible. Furthermore, the ruling stated that "The applicant does not seek orders that the rules be declared unenforceable in any other way or to be overturned." Rather, it stated, her issue is with their application and implementation to her position. Additionally, the verdict stated that the Sole Arbitrator does not have any authority to award any medals – as the same is under the authority of the IOC, and that every individual competing in the Olympic games does so with their consent – justifying the applicability of the rules to which they consented.

Further, it is important to note that the CAS stated that although "that is not the relief that the applicant seeks,... many of her (Vinesh Phogat's) submissions would be relevant" if she contested the rules. It went on to say that a "fairer solution" would have been to stick with the results from the first day and "limit the consequences" to the 50-kg gold medal match, in which the wrestler lost because of a 100-gram weight gain. 

Conclusion

Vinesh Phogat travelled a long distance to reach the final rounds of the Olympics, but the CAS is a body bound by its limited authority - and cannot allow relaxing any regulation for specific cases. But, why could the regulations themselves not be challenged? While Phogat gave her consent to contest in the games, abiding with the existing rules and regulations – was the consent truly free? When the Olympics – the zenith of all avenues of sports – offer a take-it-all or leave-it-all deal – could the consent to take-it-all be truly be considered as free consent? While Vinesh stands disqualified, her efforts might not go in vain if a dialogue begins on who shall set the rules and regulations of the Olympics, how they shall be set, and what degree – if at all – of scope of accommodation shall they provide.