FX EF INQUIRY (Jordan Chiles Stripped Of Bronze Medal/USAG launches appeal)

[Ginger]

View attachment 11084
I can't access Twitter. Is this a real tweet? It would just US is planning an appeal.

I believe so. It was this poster

 

[rlayt]

 

[Ginger]

Thread

 

[Laura722]

The WCC account is giving me a headache. If Chiles had been in Barbosu's position initially, they would have felt like they were cheated too.

 

[phoenix7]

All those timestamped photos prove is that the enquiry was filed within two minutes. I don't understand why anyone is bringing that to Cecile when the time limit is one minute.

 

[rlayt]

Omg I went to Twitter for this. Horrible. I need a brain cleanse.

 

[phoenix7]

I don't understand why the WCC account is pretending that the existence of a Court of Appeal in sport is a new thing or a Pandora's Box.

 

[Passion]

View attachment 11086

This screen shot is from a post on August 7th.

"You don't have to like it but you do have to respect the outcome."

The irony.

 

[tempest]

All those timestamped photos prove is that the enquiry was filed within two minutes. I don't understand why anyone is bringing that to Cecile when the time limit is one minute.

Yet every other competitor had 2 minutes…

 

[Ginger]

I don't think I can agree with you there about Romania needing to protest on the spot.

There are rules about when you can submit an inquiry, but the rule for accusing FIG of breaking its own rules is that you use any internal procedures available and then may bring a case to CAS. Not everything can be done straight away.

What internal procedures available did Romanians use before they brought the case to CAS regarding whether Americans filled the inquiry in a timely manner or not? I may be wrong, but IIRC nobody mentioned that maybe Landis filled the inquiry too late, until the next day.
Judges made multiple mistakes that day, but once the medals were awarded, the results should stand and nobody should be allowed to appeal the judges decisions anymore.

(also, I rewatched FX EF, so between the moment Maneca-Voinea's score was flashed and the moment the next athlete's (Chiles) score was flashed, 4 minutes 57 seconds passed. That's how long Maneca-Voinea had to file her inquiry.)

 

[Ginger]

Yet every other competitor had 2 minutes…

nope. "Until the next competitor's score is shown", or something along the lines.
Maneca-Voinea got almost 5 minutes to file hers. See my post above.

 

[Lisaelaine80]

How do coaches know what to appeal? Do they just assume it’s for the skills that prob shouldn’t be in the routine?

Why can’t NDs be reported on the scoreboard? For ex. Purple dot means OOB.

It seems to be like the coaches have to play guessing games with the “pros” who should know how to score.

If the judges review the routine after the inquiry, how did no one see that the ND wasn’t there?

 

[Doug1233]

Because there are already 4 stages of checks-and-balances already built into the E-score.

.333 + .333 + .333 = X

 

[Doug1233]

nope. "Until the next competitor's score is shown", or something along the lines.
Maneca-Voinea got almost 5 minutes to file hers. See my post above.

the irony is that the “1 minute” rule for the last competitor is presumably to stop gymnasts celebrating on the podium only for a score to be subsequently appealed…

 

[Doug1233]

Could the same be said for Sabrina who never went OOBs?

Not being facetious. Educating myself.

I believe they’re treating “accepting a late inquiry” as a different category of decision than a “her foot went oob” decision .

the latter is a “field of play” type decision. the former is a more “we broke our process” type decision

 

[Ginger]

I am wondering, after Maneca-Voinea's D inquiry was rejected, could she then file ND inquiry?
I suppose the first inquiry was rejected within 2 minutes, so she had enough time to file the second one.
I am starting to wonder if she actually KNEW she brushed the OOB mat with her big toe when she turned before her second pass. We can only speculate, but there must be something that made the line judges think she went OOB (or whatever, no one actually officially confirmed the ND was for OOB, maybe she just didn't salute nicely enough).

 

[Passion]

There were multiple wrong line calls this Olympics, Voinea wasn't the only one.

 

[Caledi]

(also, I rewatched FX EF, so between the moment Maneca-Voinea's score was flashed and the moment the next athlete's (Chiles) score was flashed, 4 minutes 57 seconds passed. That's how long Maneca-Voinea had to file her inquiry.)

I thought if there was an inquiry in they evaluated that before flashing the next score? So that's why it took 5 minutes between the two?

In any case, I agree that 1 minute is a very short time and that I wouldn't have necessarily interpreted that as "exactly 60 seconds". But those were the rules on the day the competition was held, and changing them after the fact would also be unfair.

 

[Lisaelaine80]

Maybe the three of them should compete floor again. Those on this board can judge them and award the best routine the bronze medal. This sounds less contentious than the current policy.

 

[phoenix7]

What internal procedures available did Romanians use before they brought the case to CAS regarding whether Americans filled the inquiry in a timely manner or not? I may be wrong, but IIRC nobody mentioned that maybe Landis filled the inquiry too late, until the next day.
Judges made multiple mistakes that day, but once the medals were awarded, the results should stand and nobody should be allowed to appeal the judges decisions anymore.

(also, I rewatched FX EF, so between the moment Maneca-Voinea's score was flashed and the moment the next athlete's (Chiles) score was flashed, 4 minutes 57 seconds passed. That's how long Maneca-Voinea had to file her inquiry.)

If there was anything they should have done internally and didn't do, CAS wouldn't be able to hear the case.

So I don't think there is any rule that they had to bring this up straight away. But if there is, they must have done it or CAS wouldn't have taken the case.

The one minute rule does seem very short but it's also very clear, and it's just for the verbal enquiry.