Vinesh Phoghat Paris Olympics Case Analysis

FACTS OF THE CASE

Vinesh Phogat, an Indian wrestler, was set to compete in the final of the Women’s Freestyle 50 kg category at the 2024 Paris Olympics on August 7. This bout would have determined whether she won a gold or a silver medal at the 2024 Paris Olympics. On August 6, the wrestler in her first weigh-in was successful with a weight of 49.9 kg and thus participated in three matches bouts, which booked her a place in the final bout.

However, on the morning of August 7, Vinesh was due for a second weigh-in which she was found to be just 150 grams over the 50 kg limit. After a 15-minute break, she was weighed again, but still exceeded the limit by 100 grams. Due to this, she was disqualified, and the decision was quickly formalized by the officials.

Vinesh accepted that she was slightly over the limit but argued that such a small excess, possibly due to natural factors like water retention or drinking water, should have been tolerated. Despite this, she was disqualified under the strict rules of United World Wrestling governing the sport.

Later that day, she filed an appeal, hoping to overturn the decision, remain eligible for her silver medal, and have another chance to weigh-in before the final. However, by the time her case was reviewed on August 8, the finals had already taken place, and she no longer sought to compete or be re-weighed. Instead, she limited her pleas to the following points:

• The athlete requests that the challenged decision and all of its effects be set aside.
• The athlete requests that she remain eligible and qualified to be awarded her silver medal.

The weigh-in process is enunciated in Article 11 of the United World Wrestling International Wrestling Rules 2023 (“the Rules”) and it clearly states that if an athlete does not attend or fail the weigh-in (the 1st or the 2nd weigh-in), “he will be eliminated of the competition and ranked last, without rank.”

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ATHLETE AND INDIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION

Arguments were advanced on 2 issues majorly, which were:

• Reasons for failure to comply with the weight limit in the second weigh-in.
• Interpretation and Construction of various provisions
• Additional Arguments

Reasons for failure to comply with the weight limit in the second weigh-in

• On August 6, after battling through three tough matches, she needed to eat and drink to keep her strength up, which contributed to her slight weight gain.
• The time between her bouts was short, and the distance between the competition venue and the Athletes’ Village left her with little opportunity to lose the extra weight before the weigh-in the next morning.
• Although Vinesh didn’t bring it up herself, IOA argued that she was in a pre-menstrual phase, a time when women naturally retain more fluid and might gain a little weight. The Indian Olympic Association (IOA) argued that these natural biological differences, particularly around menstruation, should be considered when assessing a female wrestler’s eligibility during weigh-ins. They even provided a medical certificate and supporting research to back this up.
• Vinesh did express that strictly enforcing the 50 kg limit felt like it was compromising her bodily integrity. However, it was pointed out that she had chosen to compete in this category, where she had previously excelled and met the weight requirements.
• She also felt that athletes, especially those from different backgrounds, weren’t given enough training or clear explanations about the weigh-in procedures, which added to the difficulty of staying within the required limits.

Interpretation and Construction of various provisions

1. Whether the Olympic Games qualify as an “International Tournament” under Article 8 of the United World Wrestling (UWW) Rules?

The Indian Olympic Association (IOA) contended that under Article 8 of the Rules a 2 kg weight tolerance is permitted for “International Tournaments” and that the same should also apply to the Olympic Games since the Olympics are an international event. If this interpretation were accepted, Vinesh Phogat’s weight would fall within the allowed range, making her eligible to compete.

2. The consequences of failing the weigh-in as provided in Article 11

The Applicant argued that the rule requiring an athlete to be eliminated and ranked last without rank for failing or missing the weigh-in is too harsh and unjust. Instead, there should be a fairer interpretation of the rules, suggesting that they should be applied more flexibly, especially given her small weight excess of just 100 grams. She proposed that the rule should allow for either elimination or ranking last, not both.

She also argued claimed that the rounds on different days should be treated as separate competitions because there are two weigh-ins, one for each day. She argued that failing the second weigh-in should only impact the final round, not the earlier ones and thereby she should keep the rights and rankings she earned before failing the second weigh-in.

3. Use of the word “he” in Article 11 means that the consequences of failing the second weigh-in does not apply to a female wrestler

The Indian Olympic Association argued that because Article 11 uses “he” it should only apply to male wrestlers. They highlighted that there isn’t a corresponding rule that uses “she” or a separate set of rules for female wrestlers. The Rules inconsistently use “he” and “he/she” across different sections. They argued that this inconsistency suggests that the rules were not meant to cover female wrestlers when “he” is used.

Additional Arguments

Vinesh argued that Article 11 doesn’t distinguish between failing a weigh-in at the start of the competition versus after advancing to the final round. If a wrestler fails the weigh-in for the final day, the consequences should only affect that specific round, not the entire competition. Essentially, the Athlete should be considered to have reached the final but not competed in it, meaning she should be ranked last for that round but could still potentially receive a silver medal.

Vinesh further argued that if the second weigh-in disqualifies her from competing that day, it should only affect her standing for the events on that day, not those from earlier rounds. The second day of competition should be viewed as a separate event from the first day, and therefore, the consequences should be limited to the second day’s events.

Additionally, the terms “elimination,” “ranked last,” and “without rank” are used inconsistently and unclearly in the rules, leading to confusion and lack of precision

FINDINGS OF THE ARBITRATOR

Reasons for failure to comply with the weight limit in the second weigh-in

The Sole Arbitrator acknowledged the Athlete’s explanations for missing the weight limit but found that these reasons didn’t excuse the fact that her weight was still over 50 kg at the second weigh-in. Factors like three bouts on the previous day and menstruation were considered, but were not relevant in light of the Rules

It was clear to the Arbitrator that the Athlete was an experienced Wrestler having participated in multiple Olympics and International Tournaments. Therefore, she was well aware of the various procedures and also understood the importance of weighing under 50 kg and made efforts to comply. However, despite this understanding, she failed to meet the weight requirement, which led to the consequences outlined in the rules.

 Interpretation and Construction of various provisions

1. Whether the Olympic Games qualify as an “International Tournament” under Article 8 of the United World Wrestling (UWW) Rules?

The Sole Arbitrator noted that the Rules clearly differentiate between “international competitions” and “International Tournaments.” While the Olympics are listed under “international competitions,” “International Tournaments” refers to specific events in the UWW calendar. The Arbitrator found that the term “International Tournaments” does not include the Olympic Games. According to Article 8, the 2 kg weight tolerance is specified for “International Tournaments,” not for all international events. Since the Olympics are not listed as one of these tournaments, the Arbitrator concluded that the 2 kg tolerance does not apply to the Olympic Games. Therefore, the Athlete was not entitled to this tolerance for her second weigh-in.

2. The consequences of failing the weigh-in as provided in Article 11

The Sole Arbitrator explained that the rules are clear: if an athlete fails the weigh-in, they must be both eliminated from the competition and ranked last without rank. The Sole Arbitrator noted that applying principles of fairness would require the consent of all involved parties, which wasn’t given. As a result, the Arbitrator is bound to follow the rules exactly as they are written.

The Sole Arbitrator disagreed with the idea that rounds on different days should be treated as separate competitions. According to the rules, the Olympic Wrestling Tournament is one continuous competition, and failing the second weigh-in means elimination from the entire event. Also, that the rules do not allow an athlete to keep their rankings or awards after failing the second weigh-in. The elimination applies to the entire competition.

3. Use of the word “he” in Article 11 means that the consequences of failing the second weigh-in does not apply to a female wrestler

The Sole Arbitrator noted that despite the inconsistent use of “he” and “he/she” in the Rules, the intent was to cover all wrestlers, regardless of gender. The Sole Arbitrator concluded that “he” was not meant to exclude female wrestlers but was a general term intended to apply to both male and female wrestlers. Therefore, the consequences of Article 11 for failing the weigh-in also apply to female wrestlers, including the Applicant.

Additional Arguments

The Athlete voluntarily chose to compete in the 50 kg weight category and was aware that this required her to stay under 50 kg. According to Article 7 of the Rules, each contestant is responsible for maintaining their weight within their chosen category at the time of the official weigh-in. The Athlete, being experienced, should have understood these requirements and made efforts to adhere to them.

Although the Sole Arbitrator acknowledged that some parts of the Rules may be poorly worded, they are not ambiguous. The language and provisions are clear when understood in their proper context.

The Arbitrator noted that there are no “acquired rights” under the Rules that guarantee a competitor’s status if they fail to meet the weight requirements. The right to compete in any part of the competition, including the finals, is contingent upon ongoing compliance with the weight rules. The Rules are compulsory for all international competitions, including the Olympic Games, and maintaining weight eligibility throughout the competition is a condition for continuing participation.

Arbitrator recorded:

“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.”

She also recorded that she does not have the power to award a join-silver medal to Vinesh and recorded as follows:

“By reason of Rule 56(1) of the Olympic Charter, any decision regarding the awarding, withdrawal or reallocation of any victory medal or diploma falls within the sole authority of the IOC. The IOC, in turn, awards medals at the Olympic Games on the basis of rankings established by the International Federations (Rule 46 of the Olympic Charter). The Sole Arbitrator cannot make an order that the IOC give the Applicant an additional silver medal.”

ARBITRATION AWARD

Vinesh Phoghat entered the Games in the 50 kg wrestling competition. She fought and won three bouts on the first day of the competition. Prior to the second day of the Competition, she failed the weigh-in and was thus rendered ineligible to compete in the final. There is no scope for weight tolerance under Article 11 of the Rules in the Olympics. Article 11 of the Rules themselves are not challenged before the Tribunal. Arbitrator records that there is no suggestion of any wrongdoing on the part of the Athlete.

The Sole Arbitrator declines to grant the relief sought and the Application was dismissed.