Sports Litigation Update - November 2025

The Jordan Chiles Olympic Medal Case: Procedural Justice in International Sports Arbitration

Background

On August 5, 2024, American gymnast Jordan Chiles competed in the women’s floor exercise final at the Paris Olympics. She initially finished fifth, but after her coach Cecile Landi submitted a scoring inquiry, judges increased her difficulty score by 0.1 points, raising her total to 13.766 and moving her to third place for the bronze medal. The moment was historic, marking the first time an all-Black podium appeared in Olympic gymnastics history, with Chiles joining Simone Biles (USA) and Rebeca Andrade (Brazil).

The celebration proved premature. Days later, the Romanian Gymnastics Federation appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that Coach Landi’s inquiry had been submitted four seconds beyond the one-minute deadline established by International Gymnastics Federation rules. On August 10, 2024, a three-person CAS panel ruled in Romania’s favor, ordering Chiles’ original fifth-place score reinstated. The panel never disputed the merits of the scoring inquiry itself—only its timing. The International Olympic Committee subsequently reallocated the bronze medal to Romania’s Ana Barbosu.

The controversy intensified when USA Gymnastics submitted timestamped video evidence purporting to show that Coach Landi’s inquiry was filed 47 seconds after Chiles’ score was posted, well within the required one-minute window. CAS refused to reconsider its decision based on this new evidence, leaving Chiles with only one remaining option: bring the matter to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.

Pending Proceedings Before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court

Jordan Chiles has initiated two distinct legal actions before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, each addressing different aspects of the CAS decision. The two proceedings utilize different legal mechanisms available under Swiss law.

The Setting-Aside Application

On September 16, 2024, Chiles’ legal team filed an application to set aside the CAS arbitral award. This is the traditional appeal mechanism under Swiss law for challenging international arbitration decisions. The setting-aside application presents two principal arguments.

First, the application argues that CAS violated Chiles’ right to be heard—a fundamental principle in Swiss law and international arbitration—by disregarding video evidence concerning whether the inquiry was filed within the time limit. The “right to be heard” is a procedural guarantee that parties may present relevant evidence and have it considered by the tribunal. The application contends that CAS failed to adequately consider this evidence.

Second, the application alleges that the CAS panel was improperly constituted because its president, Hamid G. Gharavi, had a conflict of interest due to ongoing legal ties with Romania that were not disclosed to Chiles during the CAS proceedings. The application raises questions about whether these alleged undisclosed relationships affected arbitrator independence.

The Swiss Federal Supreme Court’s review of this setting-aside application is limited in nature. Unlike typical appeals courts, it does not reassess factual findings or substitute its judgment for that of the arbitration panel. Instead, the Court examines whether the arbitration violated fundamental principles of Swiss law, including procedural fairness, arbitrator independence, and public policy.

The Request for Revision

Eight days later, on September 24, 2024, Chiles’ legal team filed a separate request for revision with the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. In the revision request, Chiles submits that video evidence that emerged after the CAS proceedings shows that the inquiry was filed within the one-minute time limit.

A request for revision is the procedural tool used when newly discovered facts might have led to a different outcome had they been available during the original proceeding. This mechanism allows the court to reopen an arbitration award based on evidence that was not previously available. For the revision request, the Court must determine whether the submitted evidence qualifies as “new” in the legal sense and whether it would have materially affected the outcome.

As of October 2025, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court has not issued decisions on either the setting-aside application or the request for revision. No timeline has been established for when rulings will be rendered.

Implications of an Eventual Decision

The Jordan Chiles case has catalyzed critical conversations about the structure and accountability of international sports arbitration. CAS, established in 1984, functions as the de facto final arbiter for virtually all international sports disputes, with athletes typically required to accept CAS jurisdiction as a condition of Olympic participation. The case raises questions about several aspects of the sports arbitration system: the scope of appellate review in international arbitration, arbitrator disclosure requirements and conflict of interest standards, the balance between procedural efficiency and evidentiary completeness in time-sensitive Olympic disputes, and the consideration of evidence that emerges after arbitral proceedings conclude. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court’s decisions will address these procedural and substantive questions, with implications for future dispute resolution in international sport.