In the final order from Dr Annabelle Bennett, sole arbitrator of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad-hoc division which confirmed that Vinesh Phogat would leave Paris without a medal, a few key notations could not be ignored. Section 10.107 said, “it bears repeating that neither the formation nor validity of UWW policy is before the Sole Arbitrator and there is no evidence or submission as to the reason for such policy.”

Bennett also called the second day weigh-in list which disqualified Vinesh from her final “cryptic”. She also commented that the language of the UWW’s rules was “infelicitous” – it means “defective” or “not appropriate in application”. Her most widely distributed word in India was this: that the consequences of the failed second weigh-in were “draconian”. Bennett wrote, “a consequence of elimination without ranking from the round for which the Athlete was found ineligible… would seem to be a fairer solution.”

A fairer solution compared to what had happened: Vinesh being punished for the rounds in which she had won as an eligible competitor. But like was written in 10.107, Bennett found no challenge to or issue raised over the validity or reasoning behind the ‘draconian’ consequences placed before CAS.

Being wise after an event could be dismissed as smartass-ness but was this not the whole point of the situation Vinesh found herself in? Of the essential unfairness and disproportionality of the rules that scratched her three rounds of competition on day one over the failed weigh-in on day two?

And not the series of time-waster arguments that are found in the order. That 100gms-is-too-tiny-an-amount. Or pedantry over ‘he’ not meaning ‘she’. Or the pointlessness of the words ‘international competition’ including or excluding the Olympics. Going by the CAS order there is no mention of UWW being asked to explain what was the reasoning and/or scientific argument behind their two-day weight-cut rule and the corresponding consequence. The order does not refer to any emphatic or forceful challenge against the rule that punished Vinesh.

UWW is a sports federation. Global or otherwise, the majority of these are not streamlined, industrial conglomerates with loophole-free paperwork. The UWW rules are said to be far too loosely drafted. At the Paris Olympics, UWW’s team leader guide given to heads of national teams cited its 2019 rules rather than the updated Jan 2023 version. Cryptic, infelicitous, draconian and sloppy.

UWW should have been asked to present what Bennett called the “formation or validity” of its rules. What was the reasoning behind a 2kg tolerance for other events but not the Olympics? Why do weigh-ins on day one last 30 minutes and those on day two 15 minutes? How would UWW have responded to the charge that its weight-cut rules or penalties were arbitrary and/or against athletes’ health? This is not to say that Bennett would have changed her final decision. But it may have at least led to UWW re-assessing its policy.

There is another question. Why did it take so long for there to be a legal response by Indians in positions of authority to the disqualification of an Indian athlete in Paris? Vinesh was disqualified at around 8am Paris time, her final was due to be held around 10 hours later, at 6.15pm. Her legal protest by the pro bono French lawyers made its way to the CAS ad hoc division at 4.45pm with IOA listed as Interested Party.

Think of how many headlines we’ve read about National Sports Federation (NSF) officials rushing to court at top speed for interim orders to ‘stay’ an election result? Or overturn lower court decisions over governance? Or reversals over office-bearer appointments? In the last 12 months, chess, wrestling, volleyball, equestrian, football, handball to name a few have been rushing to court.

Yet, the first reaction of anyone with the power to act in Vinesh’s interests after the disqualification – the Indian Olympic delegation, IOA top bosses, Wrestling Federation of India reps and/or the union sports ministry, everyone with legal eagles on call – was nothing for hours. Their intentions and reaction statements were well-intentioned, but there was no speed of response. No legal move to stop the final from happening. No urgency to ensure that an Indian athlete’s chance to compete in an Olympic final could be pushed for as much as possible. Even if it would not have succeeded, at least everything had been tried. By the time the legal application reached CAS, it was too late to stop the final.

Do keep this number in mind: eight hours, 45 minutes. The time between Vinesh’s disqualification and the first legal response by IOA as interested party. And will there be any follow up around this CAS verdict? Of either IOA or the ministry looking for additional legal recourse? Our breaths are best not held.

The anomaly around Vinesh’s Olympics does not end here. The official Paris 2024 website has Vinesh listed second from bottom with LFO (lost by forfeit) against her name. Vinesh’s total points are listed as follows: Classification points 9, technical points won 15 and points conceded 7.

UWW’s Paris Olympics final results book also offers no logical notation about Vinesh’s absence off the brackets ladder from semi-final to final. It lists neither forfeit nor disqualification. Under the column Weight-II it marks an X for all the wrestlers in the competition, except for Yui Susaki and Oksana Livach. The silver and gold medallists too are marked as X. If you knew nothing about what happened in the 50kg category, these documents make no sense.

Vinesh’s erasure between the semis and finals contains another conundrum. If her first day of competition could be disqualified, then how did the wrestlers she beat turn up for repechage? Could not UWW been asked how could a rule both ghost and un-ghost the same fighter? This extraordinary fighter, our fighter?

Read Also: 'Har ball pe chillata hai. He keeps jumping like a pigeon': Umpire Anil Chaudhary's 'loser' take on Rizwan's appeals