'There Is No Dispute': CAS' Blunt Take On Turning Down Vinesh Phogat's Plea For Joint Olympic Silver

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has ruled that athletes will have to ensure that they remain below their wight limit and no exception can be provided under any circumstance, while giving reasons for its rejection of Indian wrestler Vinesh Phogat's appeal against her disqualification from the Paris Olympics final.An ad-hoc division of the CAS had on August 14 rejected her appeal against a gut-wrenching disqualification from the final for being 100gm overweight, a decision that evoked a sharp reaction from the Indian Olympic Association (IOA).The CAS on Monday published a detailed decision, furnishing reasons why Vinesh's appeal was rejected."The problem for the Athlete is that the Rules are clear as to the weight limit and are the same for all participants. There is no tolerance provided for -– it is an upper limit. It does not even allow for the weight of the singlet. It is clearly up to an athlete to ensure that they remain below that limit," the CAS said."There is no dispute that the Applicant was above the weight limit. She gave the above evidence clearly and directly at the hearing. Her case is that the amount of excess was 100g and that a tolerance should apply as this is a small excess and explicable for reasons such as drinking water and water retention, in particular during the pre-menstrual phase." The 29-year-old Vinesh was disqualified on the morning of the women's 50kg freestyle final.The decision on her appeal was rendered after three postponements.In her appeal, Vinesh had demanded that she be given a joint silver with Cuban wrestler Yusneylis Guzman Lopez, who lost to her in the semifinals but was promoted to the summit clash following the Indian's disqualification. The gold was claimed by American Sarah Ann Hildebrandt.

Advertisement

'There Is No Dispute': CAS' Blunt Take On Turning Down Vinesh Phogat's Plea For Joint Olympic Silver

The CAS on Monday published a detailed decision, furnishing reasons why Vinesh's appeal was rejected. The decision on her appeal was rendered after three postponements

Advertisement