Vinesh Phogat v. United World Wrestling & IOC

Vinesh Phogat normally competed at 53kg, but moved down to the 50kg category for Paris 2024 after fellow Indian Antim Panghal qualified in the 53kg division. On 6 August 2024 she won three consecutive bouts to reach the final, weighing 49.9kg at that morning's weigh-in but 52.7kg by the end of the day's competition — a weight gain between weigh-in and the day's later bouts that is a normal, permitted part of competition. Facing a second weigh-in the next morning ahead of the final itself, she took drastic measures overnight after a sleepless night to cut the weight back down. At the morning weigh-in on 7 August, she registered 150 grams over the 50kg limit; under United World Wrestling rules she was given a second attempt 15 minutes later, at which point she was still 100 grams over. She was disqualified from the final under UWW's rule that any athlete failing the second weigh-in is eliminated from the competition. Cuban wrestler Yusneylis Guzman Lopez, whom Phogat had beaten in the semi-final, was promoted into the final in her place; the gold medal was won by Sarah Hildebrandt of the USA.

Phogat applied to the CAS Ad Hoc Division at the Games seeking a joint silver medal alongside Guzman Lopez despite the disqualification, represented by a group of pro bono French lawyers, with the Indian Olympic Association separately involved as an interested party represented by Harish Salve and Vidushpat Singhania. The case was heard by Sole Arbitrator Dr. Annabelle Bennett of Australia; with the hearing concluded, the arbitrator's decision was deferred to 13 August and the dismissal was ultimately announced on 14 August 2024 and the full 24-page written verdict released five days later, on 19 August.

The verdict is notable for what it found in Phogat's favour as much as what it denied her. The Sole Arbitrator was explicit that the 100-gram excess did not arise from "any illegal or wrongful act" on Phogat's part, and expressly described the consequence of the failed second weigh-in as "draconian." She went further, stating she saw force in the argument that the fairer outcome would have been to eliminate Phogat only from the round she had actually failed to make weight for — the final itself — while preserving her results from the earlier rounds she had legitimately competed in and won. But she held there was no UWW policy providing for that kind of partial, round-specific elimination, and "no discretion provided in the Rules which the Sole Arbitrator is bound to apply" to create one. Phogat's argument that a tolerance should apply for a small, physiologically explicable excess — citing water retention, particularly during the pre-menstrual phase — was rejected on the same basis: the rules simply did not allow for any tolerance, regardless of cause. The Sole Arbitrator also noted that Phogat's side had not sought urgent interim measures to freeze the disqualification while the appeal was pending, a procedural choice that may have narrowed what relief was practically available by the time the case was heard.

The application was dismissed and Phogat received no medal. The case is a rare example of a sporting tribunal ruling against an athlete while simultaneously stating, in its own reasoning, that the rule producing that result was excessively harsh — illustrating that CAS arbitrators can find a rule's consequences unjust without having any power to depart from an unambiguous rule that leaves no room for discretion.