It was a solitary statement that sealed Vinesh Phogat's fate last Wednesday over the weigh-in fiasco in the Paris Olympics 2024, but the Court Of Arbitration For Sport (CAS), on Monday, released a detailed report revealing the reason behind the court dismissing the Indian wrestler's plea for a joint silver medal after she was disqualified from the women's 50kg freestyle final for being overweight.

Earlier this month, at the Paris Games, Vinesh became the first Indian woman wrestler to reach an Olympic final. However, on the following morning, during the customary weigh-in, she was found overweight by 100 grams, and hence was disqualified and denied a medal.

The 29-year-old later challenged the decision and appealed to the CAS, pleading for a joint silver medal in the discipline. However, after a long wait, her appeal was rejected last week, with the CAS ruling in favour of the International Olympic Committee and the United World Wrestling. The court, on Monday, released a 24-page document explaining the reason behind its verdict.

The court ruled that wrestlers will have to ensure that they remain below their permissible weight limit and no exception can be provided under any circumstance

Here's the conclusion portion of CAS's verdict:

1. There is no dispute that the Applicant failed the second weigh-in, in that her weight was in excess of the 50 kg limit. Her case is, in essence, that this is a small excess and can be explained by factors such as the menstrual cycle, water retention, the need to hydrate and insufficient time to reduce her weight by reason of the travel time to the Athlete’s Village.
2. 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.
3. There is no discretion provided in the Rules, which the Sole Arbitrator is bound to apply. The Sole Arbitrator sees the force in the submissions that the consequences of failure of the second weigh-in should be restricted to ineligibility for the event that followed the second weigh-in, namely the finals, but unfortunately for the Applicant, this is not the consequence provided in the Rules.
4. The Athlete asks that the Appealed Decision be set aside such that the consequences provided in Article 11 of the Rules not be applied or that Article 11 be construed so as to apply only to the final round of competition and not to the competition ab initio. It is not in contest that the Athlete failed the second day weigh-in. Article 11 of the Rules is not challenged. It follows that the decision was validly made and that Article 11 applies.
5. The Athlete is asking, in effect, that the weight limit provided for in the Rules be varied to accommodate her personal circumstances of the day and that a tolerance be applied to that limit. No quantification of a permissible tolerance was suggested, simply that the Athlete’s weight at the second weigh-in was within a tolerance. The problem for the Applicant is that there is no basis in the Rules for such accommodation. To the contrary: the Rules are clear that the 50 kg weight limit is just that, a limit. There is no personal accommodation or discretion provided for.
6. The Athlete passed the weigh-in on the first day, but she was also obliged to pass it on the second day, the day of the final. By reason of the application of Article 11 of the Rules, that meant that she was eliminated from the competition and ranked last, without rank. This precludes the awarding of a silver medal, even though her performance on the first day of the competition ensured that she would have at least achieved a silver medal. She maintains that she remained eligible and qualified to be awarded her silver medal and that her successful weigh-in on the morning of 6 August 2024 was also applicable to the competition the next day.
7. The Athlete acknowledges that, under the Rules, she was replaced in the final round of the competition by the wrestler who lost against her in the semi-final and that both gold and silver medals were awarded. She does not ask that any other wrestler lose her medal but seeks a second silver medal. There is no basis on which the Sole Arbitrator can grant the relief sought to award a silver medal to the Applicant.
8. It is apparent that the Rules reflect a UWW policy that a wrestler must not only be eligible at the beginning of a competition but must also remain eligible for the whole of the competition, that is, from entry to the finals. Accordingly, there are no accumulated rights arising from partial eligibility and this explains why the Rules provide that once a wrestler is ineligible during the course of the competition, the consequences provided in Article 11 apply.
9. It follows that the Sole Arbitrator declines to grant the relief sought and that the Application be dismissed.
10. The Sole Arbitrator observes that the Athlete entered the field of play and fought and won three rounds and reached the final of the 50 kg wrestling competition at the Paris Olympic Games before she failed the second weigh-in and was ineligible to compete in the final. There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing on her part.

Vinesh returned home last week and remains unsure whether she will return to wrestling, having announced her retirement following the heartbreaking news of her disqualification.