Head of sporting panel, which gave Jordan Chiles’ bronze to Romanian athlete, is Romania’s legal counsel

One of the those on the Court of Arbitration for Sport panel has represented Romania for years

The head of a panel, that stripped American gymnast Jordan Chiles of her Olympic bronze and awarded the medal to a Romanian athlete instead, has represented Romania for years in international legal disputes, prompting questions over a potential conflict of interest in the controversial decision.

After Chiles’ routine at the women’s floor exercise final on August 5, Team USA’s head coach submitted an inquiry suggesting the gymnast had been scored incorrectly. After a review, the judges raised her score and placed Chiles in third place.

But the decision was then reviewed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) - an independent body that resolves international sports disputes - which ruled that the coach filed her appeal after the deadline. The decision bumped Chiles down to fifth place and moved Romanian gymnast, Ana Barbosu, up to third. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) upheld this decision and ordered Chiles to return her bronze medal.

Now, CAS’s ruling is under scrutiny as documents revealed that one member of its three-person arbitration panel, Hamid Gharavi, has had ties to the Romanian government for over a decade. The International Institute for Conflict Resolution and Prevention, a nonprofit, first reported the revelation.

Gymnast Jordan Chiles, of Team USA, pictured at the Paris Olympics on August 5. After a panel stripped Chiles of her bronze medal, a nonprofit suggested there was a conflict of interest with one of the panelists (Getty Images)

Gharavi serves as legal counsel to Romania in its disputes before the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, according to an article by the nonprofit. Gharavi’s bio on CAS’s website also reveals his years of experience representing Romania.

The International Institute for Conflict Resolution and Prevention argued that Gharavi’s presence on the panel could be a conflict of interest.

“The issue is whether an Olympic arbitrator who currently represents a country on the global stage can decide a case involving a gymnast of that country, in an unbiased manner,” the nonprofit said.

“Is it realistic to expect such [an] arbitrator can decide against the interests of that country or of that country’s gymnast, who in this case is represented by the Federation of Romanian Gymnasts?”

Ana Barbosu competed in the artistic gymnastics women's floor exercise final during the Paris 2024 Olympic Games and was later bumped up to third place (AFP via Getty Images)

One of the article’s authors, Katherine Simpson, who is also an international arbitrator, told the New York Times: “I don’t understand — especially given the visibility of the case — why he was proposed for this case and why he did not refuse the case when it was offered.”

Gharavi told The Independent that he was not allowed to comment on matters related to his role as arbitrator in this or any other case and directed the inquiry to CAS.

A spokesperson for CAS told The Independent: “Dr Gharavi made the disclosure in writing during the proceedings and his disclosure was sent to all parties and interested parties involved in the proceedings. None of the parties or interested parties (i.e. including USOPC, USA Gymnastics and Jordan Chiles) objected to his appointment as Panel chair during the CAS proceedings.” CAS has no reason to remove an arbitrator if no parties object, the spokesperson added.

After Chiles lost the medal, the 23-year-old posted four broken heart emojis on her Instagram story and indicated that she would be taking a break from social media for her mental health.

Following CAS’s ruling, the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee released a statement announcing it planned to launch an appeal: “We firmly believe that Jordan rightfully earned the bronze medal, and there were critical errors in both the initial scoring by the International Gymnastics Federation and the subsequent CAS appeal process that need to be addressed.”

Editor’s note: This article was updated on August 14, 2024 to reflect the response of the Court of Arbitration for Sport.