August 5, 2024: the date might go down as one of the most controversial ones in Olympic history, especially for gymnastics. Romanian gymnasts, Sabrina Maneca-Voinea and Ana Barbosu, stood at a similar score of 13.700 in the Paris Olympics floor exercise finals. What follows is a tiebreaker, and later, than marches with the Romanian flag, thinking her dream of an Olympic medal has come to life. But only if. An inquiry was made by Jordan Chiles’ coach. Result? Her score was boosted by 0.1 points, so now Chiles, who stood at 5, shot up to 4. Done and dusted, one might think. The Bronze medalist is decided. But only if.

Team Romania now appealed, saying that Chile’s inquiry was submitted four seconds late. Days later, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) agreed with them, and just like that, Jordan Chiles was no longer the 2024 Olympic Bronze Medalist according to CAS. Should have been the end of it, right? No. Chiles refused to return the bronze she was awarded and challenged CAS’s decision in the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland. In the meantime, Barbosu was awarded a new one. Now, about 10 months later, Barbosu is back again with comments over the controversy.

Ana Bărbosu captured the gold medal on the floor exercise at the 2025 European Gymnastics Championships in Leipzig, with a score of 13.833. In the post-meet interview she was congratulated for it, expressing gratitude she said, “Thank you so much it means a lot for me and also for my teammates and coaches because we did this result together it was a very tough time for me last year after the Olympics and in the beginning of this year and it shows me that I’m capable of getting over the hard times with the right people beside my side. ” Still, for an 18-year-old, she was very mature in dealing with it.

She did call the controversy saddening and that, “We expected the referees and staff at the Olympics to do their job properly.” But she also said that she had nothing but good thoughts for Jordan Chiles. When asked by the interviewer of her hard times and the level of difficulty in overcoming them, the 18-year-old said, “So for sure after the Olympics I was not in a good mood I was for sure heart broke I was heartbroken but with the help of my coaches family and friends I managed to get over that…” After the Olympics controversy, the young gymnast exposed the hatred on social media and decided to take a break from it.

Be it comments from Sabrina Voinea’s mom or comments from different celebrities in different sports, the bronze medal controversy has always been a trend and topic of discussion, and will still be after the  Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland’s decision. What is the update on that?

What is the update on the Swizz court case? 

“While we are appreciative that this process has continued to shine a light on Jordan’s world-class skill and character, we look forward to a decision by the Supreme Court of Switzerland in the coming months.” These were the words of Maurice M. Suh, a Gibson Dunn partner and counsel for Chiles in the case against CAS. Jordan Chiles’s legal team, led by Suh, filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland on September 16, 2024, seeking to overturn the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decision that stripped her of the Paris 2024 floor‐exercise bronze medal. In their initial filing, Suh argued that, despite CAS’s assertion that Chiles’s coach filed the inquiry four seconds too late, judges at the floor final had accepted and approved that inquiry in real time.

Central to Chiles’s appeal are three core grounds. First, Chiles contends CAS violated her fundamental right to be heard by refusing to consider audio and video evidence, captured by a Netflix documentary crew, showing her coach’s inquiry was submitted at 49 seconds, well within the one‐minute window. Second, she alleges that CAS panel president Dr. Hamid G. Gharavi had a conflict of interest due to long‐standing legal ties to Romania, the beneficiary nation of the disputed bronze, a relationship that Chiles’s team argues should have disqualified him from the panel. Third, Chiles asserts she received legally insufficient notice of the CAS hearing, being informed only hours before it began, denying her adequate time to prepare a defense and thereby breaching procedural fairness under Swiss law.

As of June 1, 2025, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court has not yet scheduled a hearing, and Chiles’s appeal remains the sole avenue to reclaim her medal. Should the Swiss court find that CAS’s procedures were fundamentally unfair, either for ignoring conclusive audiovisual proof or for allowing a conflicted arbitrator, the case could be remanded for a new hearing or result in the reinstatement of Chiles’s bronze. What are your opinions about it?