Vinesh Phogat verdict: CAS judgement says rules are draconian, fairer to ‘limit consequences’ to final bout

In her appeal against the UWW and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), Vinesh Phogat had demanded that the decision to disqualify her should be set aside and she should be awarded a joint silver medal.

UWW president Nenad Lalovic had said “rules are rules”.

In her order, Bennett said she saw “logic in a rule” that would ensure the results of Vinesh Phogat’s first-day bouts would be upheld and that “limits the consequences to the round for which the wrestler is not eligible”.

“The rules do not provide for such an outcome… The rules use the words ‘eliminate’ and, further, provide that the wrestler is ranked last, without rank. CAS case law is replete with the conclusion that it is not the prerogative of CAS panels or sole arbitrators to rewrite federation rules,” she noted.

“The consequences of the failed second weigh-in, which do not arise from any illegal or wrongful act on the part of the applicant are, in the opinion of the sole arbitrator, draconian. A consequence of elimination without ranking from the round for which the athlete was found ineligible, having been eligible for the rounds for which she competed, would seem to be a fairer solution. However, it bears repeating that neither the formation or validity of UWW policy is before the sole arbitrator and there is no evidence or submission as to the reasons for such policy,” she said.

The Indian Olympic Association (IOA), represented by counsel Harish Salve and Vidushpath Singhania, and Vinesh Phogat’s legal team had cited multiple reasons for the failed second weigh-in.

They cited the need for Vinesh Phogat to “eat and drink for her health” after three “difficult competitions on August 6” and “the distance between the venue and the Athletes’ Village which left the applicant with little time for the process of losing weight before the second weigh-in the following morning”.

According to the order, while Vinesh Phogat herself did not raise the issue, the IOA’s legal team provided evidence that “she was pre-menstrual and that this results, as a normal biological process, in fluid retention”. The arbitrator, however, observed 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.”

“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,” she said.

The IOA even went on to contest that the weighing-scales were faulty. However, those allegations were dismissed for lack of evidence. The IOA’s lawyers also challenged the language of the UWW’s rules.

The arbitrator said “many of her (Vinesh Phogat’s) submissions would be relevant” if she challenged the rules “but that is not the relief that the applicant seeks”. “The applicant does not seek orders that the rules be overturned or otherwise declared unenforceable. Her challenge is to their implementation and application to her situation,” the order stated.

Following the dismissal of Vinesh Phogat’s appeal, the IOA had said it was exploring “further legal options”.