JORDAN CHILES STRIPPED OF OLYMPIC MEDAL: A NEED FOR UPHOLDING LEGAL ETHICS IN PROFESSIONAL GYMNASTICS

Author: Catherine Prell, Associate Editor

On August 5, 2024, Jordan Chiles was awarded the bronze medal in the Individual Women’s Artistic Gymnastics Floor Exercise for the 2024 Olympic Games held in Paris, France.[i] Originally, Chiles had not been awarded the correct difficulty score for her performance due to the judges’ error in scoring a particular leap.[ii] Chiles’ coach, Cecile Canqueteau-Landi, filed the appropriate inquiry with the judges and the International Gymnastics Federation (“FIG”), the governing board of gymnastics.[iii] The FIG agreed with the claims of Coach Canqueteau-Landi and increased Chiles’ difficulty score accordingly.[iv] Chiles was awarded the bronze medal after the change in her difficulty score, kicking the Romanian gymnast, Ana Barbosu, out of her medal-winning position.[v]

After the conclusion of the women’s Floor Exercise, Romania lodged an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) in the following days.[vi] Article 8.5 of FIG Technical Regulations states:

“Inquires for the Difficulty score are allowed, provided that they are made verbally immediately after the publication of the score or at the very latest before the score of the following gymnast/athlete or group is shown . . . . For the last gymnast or group of a rotation, this limit is one (1) minute after the score is shown on the scoreboard.” [vii]

The CAS concluded that the inquiry submitted by Chiles’ coaches was four seconds past the one-minute deadline set in the gymnastics rules.[viii] Due to this few second delay, Chiles was stripped of her bronze medal, and it was awarded to Barbosu instead.[ix] The United States then submitted video evidence to prove that the inquiry was submitted well within the one minute rule; however, the CAS stated that it would not consider the new evidence and that its previous decision would stand.[x]

The lead arbitrator for the CAS panel was Dr. Hamid G. Gharavi.[xi] Dr. Gharavi is a lawyer with French and Iranian citizenship with many ties to the Romanian government.[xii] Dr. Gharavi was originally hired by Romania in 2016 to represent them at the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes[xiii] and as of 2024 is representing Romania on two separate cases in differing stages of arbitration.[xiv] As Romania is a current client of Dr. Gharavi’s,[xv] he owes Romania a legal duty to represent them in their best interest.[xvi] Despite Dr. Gharavi’s vast experience serving as an arbitrator in international conflicts, there is the question of whether it was ethical for Dr. Gharavi to be the lead arbitrator for this case due to his conflicting interests.[xvii]

The International Bar Association (“IBA”) is an international membership organization for legal practitioners.[xviii] It was established in 1947, following the formation of the United Nations.[xix] The IBA has rules on ethical and legal conduct for lawyers practicing on the international stage, called the IBA International Principles on Conduct for the Legal Profession (“IBA Principles”).[xx] The IBA Principles established a set of rules the govern a lawyer’s honesty, integrity, and unbiased representation.[xxi] Section 2.2 of the IBA Principles states that every member of the legal profession must show fairness.[xxii] Section 3.2 notes that, as a general matter, a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a conflict of interest.[xxiii]

With Dr. Ghavari’s extensive ties to Romania and his current representation of the country in several arbitration cases, how can it be assumed that Dr. Gharavi would rule fairly in his role as lead arbitrator for the CAS in the United States and Romania conflict? He cannot. Section 3.2 should be applied more broadly to prohibit people from serving as impartial committee members when a client of theirs is a party in the case. The current narrow application of this Section allows for committee members to serve on boards when their clients are parties to the litigation they are presiding over.

It was clearly unethical for Dr. Gharavi to serve as the lead arbitrator, especially since the winning party was Dr. Gharvai’s own client. This is important not only to the international athletic community, but also to the international legal community because it shows a clear unjust flaw within the international legal system. The CAS should have appointed another lead arbitrator that does not have biases favoring one party over another. Due to the failure of the CAS and Dr. Gharavi to abide by the applicable rules of legal ethics, the CAS should select a new lead arbitrator to redecide this matter between Romania and the United States.

[i]  Juliet Macur, Jordan Chiles Lost a Bronze Medal Because an Appeals Was Four Seconds Late, THE NEW YORK TIMES (August 11, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/11/world/olympics/jordan-chiles-gymnastics-medal.html.

[ii] James Dator, Jordan Chiles Had Her Medal Stripped By A Lawyer Currently Working For Romania, SBNATION (August 14, 2024, 10:53 AM), https://www.sbnation.com/2024/8/14/24220233/jordan-chiles-bronze-stripped-cas-romania

[iii] Id.

[iv] Id.

[v] Id.

[vi] Id.

[vii] FEDERATION INTERNATALE DE GYMNASTIQUE: TECHNICAL REGULATIONS 2024 (FIG 2024) Section 1, Article 8.5 Inquires of the Score https://www.gymnastics.sport/publicdir/rules/files/en_1.1%20-%20Technical%20Regulations%202024.pdf.

[viii] Macur, supra note i.

[ix] Datur, supra note ii.

[x] Khush Kotecha, Inquires at the Olympics: the Shifting Podium of Olympic Medals, A&O SHEARMAN (August 15, 2024), https://www.aoshearman.com/en/insights/inquiries-at-the-olympics-the-shifting-podium-of-olympic-medals.

[xi] Id.

[xii] Id.

[xiii] Id.

[xiv] Id.

[xv] Id.

[xvi] IBA INT’L PRINCIPLES ON CONDUCT FOR THE LEGAL PRO.: INTRODUCTION (INT’L. BAR ASS’N. 2011),  https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/IBA_International_Principles_on_Conduct_for_the_legal_prof.pdf.

[xvii] Id.

[xviii] About the IBA, INT’L BAR ASS’N, https://www.ibanet.org/About-the-IBA

[xix] Id.

[xx] IBA INT’L PRINCIPLES ON CONDUCT FOR THE LEGAL PRO.: INTRODUCTION (INT’L BAR ASS’N 2011), https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/IBA_International_Principles_on_Conduct_for_the_legal_prof.pdf

[xxi] Id.

[xxii] IBA INT’L PRINCIPLES ON CONDUCT FOR THE LEGAL PRO.: HONESTY, INTEGRITY, AND FAIRNESS § 2.2 (INT’L BAR ASS’N 2011), https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/IBA_International_Principles_on_Conduct_for_the_legal_prof.pdf

[xxiii]  IBA INT’L PRINCIPLES ON CONDUCT FOR THE LEGAL PRO.: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST § 3.2 (INT’L BAR ASS’N 2011), https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/IBA_International_Principles_on_Conduct_for_the_legal_prof.pdf