One year later, the fate of Jordan Chiles’ bronze medal at the 2024 Paris Olympics remains in limbo.
Sunday marks the one-year anniversary of the controversial ruling handed down by the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which effectively lowered Chiles’ score in the floor exercise final and bumped her off the medal podium. The ruling drew swift backlash from Team USA, prompted the international gymnastics federation to revise its rules and has sparked an ongoing legal battle at one of the highest levels of the international justice system.
Chiles’ multi-pronged appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal remains pending, and it is unclear when the court — which is the top judicial authority in Switzerland — will render a decision.
But as Chiles waits, here’s an update on the state of the case, the key players involved and what could happen next.
What started all of this?
Jordan Chiles was forced into this protracted fight for her medal through no fault of her own.
Chiles initially finished fifth in the floor exercise final, her score of 13.666 putting her behind Romanians Ana Barbosu and Sabrina Maneca-Voineau. (Barbosu and Maneca-Voineau had identical scores of 13.7, but Barbosu’s higher execution score gave her the tiebreak.) Chiles’ coach Cecile Landi appealed, arguing Chiles had not been given full credit for a tour jete, a leap.
A review panel agreed, and the 0.100 that was added to her score put the American on the podium ahead of the Romanians.
The Romanians appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, finally settling on the timing of Chiles’ inquiry as their reason. CAS ruled in their favor, finding Chiles’ inquiry had been filed four seconds after the 60-second deadline.
But there appear to be multiple flaws with CAS’ decision.
First, Chiles didn’t even learn she was party to the case until less than 24 hours before the hearing because CAS was sending emails to the wrong addresses. That left her almost no time to mount a defense or find evidence to back her claim — a significant detail.
Chiles also did not know that the head of the CAS panel had a potential conflict of interest because he’d done work for the Romanian government.
‘CAS argued that Ms. Chiles should have submitted additional evidence regarding the timeliness of the inquiry and objected to (the head of the CAS panel) before the hearing,’ Chiles’ attorneys said in a March statement after filing additional information to rebut CAS’ arguments.
‘But these arguments do not take in to account the fact that CAS itself failed to provide sufficient notice to Ms. Chiles … And further, once Ms. Chiles was finally notified, she had only a matter of hours to find representation to put forward her case. Even then, Ms. Chiles was only provided an incomplete record of the proceedings to that point.’
Perhaps most importantly, CAS’ decision was based on the incorrect assumption that making an inquiry and logging it occurred simultaneously. Sure enough, video discovered after the CAS ruling clearly showed Landi making the inquiry within the allotted time. Three times, in fact.
Chiles asked CAS to reconsider its decision after that video was found, but it refused. She then appealed to the Swiss Federal Tribunal, arguing CAS’ decision was ‘procedurally deficient.’
“Jordan will not give up her effort to make clear to the world that the procedures governing her case were one-sided and to fight so that truth will prevail,” Maurice M. Suh, one of Chiles’ attorneys, said in March.
Where does Jordan Chiles’ appeal stand?
Very little has changed since Chiles filed her appeal with the Swiss Federal Tribunal last September. Publicly, at least.
‘It’s still playing out overseas,’ USA Gymnastics president Li Li Leung said earlier this week. ‘It has taken longer than we expected for the Swiss Tribunal to come out with a decision, but we’re still waiting for that decision. Just like everyone else is.’
The last public update came in March, when Chiles’ attorneys released a copy of their filing rebutting claims by CAS and the Romanians.
‘The way in which (they) safeguard their interests in the comments of February 19, 2025, unfortunately require (Chiles) to comment on this very briefly within the framework of its constitutionally guaranteed right of reply,’ Chiles’ attorneys wrote in their brief.
In the brief, Chiles’ attorneys said both CAS and the Romanians tried to introduce defenses that were either outdated or irrelevant. This included CAS’ claim that everyone at the hearing agreed to use a report by Omega to resolve the question of when the inquiry was filed.
Landi and Chiles’ attorney at the hearing had disputed the report, Chiles’ attorneys wrote. Also, the FIG said Omega did not record when a verbal inquiry was made, only when it was logged.
‘Even the CAS Panel came to the conclusion that the Omega Report as evidence was `not fully responsive to the information the Panel had sought,’ Chiles’ attorneys wrote in the brief. ‘The CAS Panel obviously felt compelled to rely on the Omega Report (wrongly and without any reason) solely because of the lack of evidence, even though the Omega Report did not address the question posed to the arbitral tribunal.’
Chiles’ attorneys also criticized CAS and the Romanians’ assertion that Chiles should somehow have known about the head of the CAS panel’s potential conflict of interest.
‘This … argument is not only belated and should therefore be dismissed out of hand, but is simply untenable,’ her attorneys wrote. ‘According to (CAS and the Romanians), Olympic athletes always before the start of the Olympic Games would have to carry out comprehensive investigations into the vested interests of all arbitrators on the CAS list – prophylactically, abstractly and without the existence of a concrete dispute.’
What has Jordan Chiles been up to since?
Jordan Chiles has been busy since the Paris Olympics. She was part of Simone Biles’ G.O.A.T. tour. She published her memoir, ‘I’m That Girl’. She got her own Barbie. She walked the red carpet and was in Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit edition. She appeared in Nike’s powerful Super Bowl ad. She traveled. She competed for UCLA.
But the saga surrounding her medal weighed heavily, Chiles acknowledged. In an Instagram post last week, she said, ‘This year had its highs, but the lows hit different.
‘Every setback and every disappointment made me dig deeper and showed me what I’m truly made of. It also showed me who’s really in my corner,’ Chiles wrote. ‘Even when something’s taken from you- your truth and your worth is…Untouchable.
‘To everyone who held me down this past year, who sent prayers, messages, and love when I needed it most- you reminded me I’m never on this journey alone. I love y’all for real. You kept me standing when I didn’t even know how to take the next step,’ she added.
‘Still here. Still fighting. Still that girl.’
Is Jordan Chiles still competing?
“I’m ready. I’m definitely ready to go into next season,” Chiles told the Big Ten Network in April. “Yes, I’m coming back. I’m not leaving the Bruins. I definitely can’t wait to see how my senior year turns out and, you know, bring back that natty for real for real this time.”
After doing Biles’ G.O.A.T. tour last fall, Chiles competed for UCLA in the spring. She helped lead the Bruins to the Final Four, where they finished second to Oklahoma at the NCAA championships. She also won the uneven bars title, her third individual NCAA title overall, and was fifth in the all-around.
Are the Romanian gymnasts still competing?
Yes, both Ana Barbosu and Sabrina Maneca-Voinea are still competing. Both were part of the Romanian team that just missed a medal at the European championships in May, finishing 0.497 behind bronze-medalist France.
Barbosu also won four individual medals at Europeans: a gold on floor exercise; silver on balance beam; and bronzes in the all-around and on uneven bars.
Barbosu announced in January that she will compete for Stanford, beginning this season.
How has gymnastics’ governing body reacted?
The only good thing to come out of this debacle is that it forced the International Gymnastics Federation to change its rules to ensure it never happens again.
According to rules issued in June, decisions on inquiries are final and cannot be challenged ‘including appeals to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which has no jurisdiction over any challenge.’
The new rules also state that inquiries are to be made electronically or, if no electronic device is available, through an official inquiry form. The inquiry officer is required to note the time the inquiry was submitted, verifying that it was made within the deadline.
What could happen next?
If the Swiss Federal Tribunal rules in Chiles’ favor, the case will be sent back to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. If it rejects her appeal, she will technically be required to return her medal. But good luck with that.
Follow USA TODAY Sports columnist Nancy Armour on social media @nrarmour.
The USA TODAY app gets you to the heart of the news — fast. Download for award-winning coverage, crosswords, audio storytelling, the eNewspaper and more.
