Federation Romanian Gymnastics (FRG), Ana Maria Bărbosu, Sabrina Maneca-Voinea v. Donatella Sacchi, Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG)

At a glance

Parties

Federation Romanian Gymnastics (FRG), Ana Maria Bărbosu and Sabrina Maneca-Voinea v. Donatella Sacchi and Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG); interested parties: Romanian Olympic and Sports Committee, Jordan Chiles, USOPC, USA Gymnastics, IOC

Case no.

CAS OG 24/015 & 24/016 (consolidated)

Forum and rules

CAS ad hoc Division, Paris 2024 Olympic Games; CAS Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games; seat Lausanne

Treaty

None; Olympic Charter Rule 61.2, FIG Technical Regulations 2024, FIG Code of Points 2022-2024

Tribunal

Hamid Gharavi (President), Philippe Sands, Song Lu

Sector

Sport – artistic gymnastics

Outcome

Bărbosu's application partly upheld: Chiles' late inquiry is without effect, her original score of 13.666 is reinstated, and FIG is to fix the ranking and medals. Maneca-Voinea's application dismissed. No jurisdiction over Ms Sacchi.

Amount

No monetary claims. No order as to costs; the ad hoc Division's services are free of charge.

The dispute

The dispute arose from the Women's Floor Exercise Final at the Paris 2024 Olympic Games on 5 August 2024. Romanian gymnasts Ana Maria Bărbosu and Sabrina Maneca-Voinea both scored 13.700. U.S. gymnast Jordan Chiles first scored 13.666. Her coach then made a verbal inquiry on her D Score 1 minute and 4 seconds after the score was shown. The inquiry raised Chiles' score to 13.766 and moved her to third place. The Romanian federation and the two gymnasts argued four points: (1) the inquiry was late under the one-minute rule of Article 8.5 of the FIG Technical Regulations 2024; (2) the inquiry had been reviewed in bad faith; (3) the 0.1 line deduction given to Maneca-Voinea was unjustified; and (4) in the alternative, all three athletes should share third place on the basis of fair play. FIG and Ms Sacchi relied on four defences: the field-of-play doctrine, a claimed tolerance in the time limit, the Applicants' lack of standing to complain about another federation's gymnast, and the coach's failure to ask for a timely review of the line deduction.

Key holdings

1. Jurisdiction exists only over FIG. The Applicants offered no legal basis for jurisdiction over Ms Sacchi, either personally or as a referee. The amended application adding the two gymnasts as Applicants and FIG as Respondent was accepted. ¶¶ 91–95
2. The 0.1 line deduction given to Maneca-Voinea is a textbook field-of-play decision and cannot be reviewed. In any event her coach did not ask for a review under Articles 3.1 and 4.1 of the Code of Points, and there was no evidence of bad faith. ¶¶ 110–114
3. The Applicants have standing to challenge whether another gymnast's inquiry was made in time. The one-minute limit in Article 8.5 is clear and mandatory and allows no tolerance: 'one minute' means one minute, and late inquiries 'will be rejected'. Chiles' inquiry came 4 seconds late. ¶¶ 116–121
4. FIG had no mechanism to monitor compliance with the one-minute rule. This failure is FIG's default, not a field-of-play decision, and FIG conceded at the hearing that such a default could be challenged. Even if the doctrine applied, the failure amounts to an error of law or de facto arbitrariness. The inquiry is therefore without effect. The Panel found that Ms Sacchi acted reasonably. ¶¶ 134–138
5. The bad-faith allegation against Ms Sacchi is dismissed entirely. It rested only on circumstantial evidence about how long the review took, and the Panel said it should never have been made. ¶¶ 139–142
6. The request to award third place to all three gymnasts on the basis of 'fair play' is dismissed. The Panel must apply rules of law, not equity, unless the parties agree otherwise, and FIG refused a consent award. ¶¶ 143–145
7. Chiles' initial score of 13.666 is reinstated. The parties agreed that this would place Bărbosu third, and FIG is to determine the ranking and assign the medal(s). No order as to costs. ¶¶ 146, 150; operative part

Procedural history

1. 5 August 2024Women's Floor Exercise Final held at Bercy Arena, Paris. Chiles' inquiry raised her to third place.
2. 6 August 2024FRG filed two applications naming only Ms Sacchi as respondent.
3. 7 August 2024Proceedings consolidated and the Panel constituted. Ms Gharavi's role as counsel for Romania in ICSID cases was disclosed; no objection was raised.
4. 8 August 2024Amended application added the two gymnasts as Applicants and FIG as Respondent. FIG maintained its objection formally but accepted review of the amended application.
5. 9 August 2024FIG filed the Omega report on inquiry timings. The Panel declined to refer the case to the CAS Appeals Division.
6. 10 August 2024Virtual hearing held, followed by the operative part of the award.
7. 14 August 2024Reasoned award issued.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Hamid G. Gharavi President, CAS ad hoc Division Panel (disclosed acting as counsel for Romania in ICSID cases; no objection)
• Philippe Sands Co-arbitrator, CAS ad hoc Division Panel
• Song Lu Co-arbitrator, CAS ad hoc Division Panel

For the claimant

Calina Tejan · Sabin Gherdan

For the respondent

Riccardo Coppa

For other participants

USA Gymnastics / Jordan Chiles counsel · IOC counsel

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• field of play doctrine
• Olympic Games Paris 2024
• CAS ad hoc Division
• artistic gymnastics
• floor exercise
• Jordan Chiles
• bronze medal
• FIG Technical Regulations Article 8.5
• one-minute rule
• inquiry time limit
• Omega timing
• error of law
• arbitrariness
• bad faith
• fair play principle
• equity
• line deduction
• jurisdiction over referee

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.