The case involves Irina Deleanu, President of the Romanian Federation of Rhythmic Gymnastics (RFRG), who faced disciplinary sanctions from the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) following controversial remarks she made during a Romanian TV interview. The dispute stemmed from a qualifying event for the 2012 London Olympics, where a Cypriot gymnast, Chrystalieni Trikomitis, secured a spot while Deleanu’s trainee, Alexandra Piscupescu, did not. During the interview, Deleanu criticized Trikomitis’s qualifications and insinuated that her Olympic participation was secured through financial influence by her father, a gymnastics official. These comments were deemed defamatory and damaging to the athlete, the sport, and FIG’s reputation. The Cyprus Gymnastics Federation (CGF) filed a complaint, leading to disciplinary proceedings. FIG’s Disciplinary Commission found Deleanu violated Article 3 of the FIG Disciplinary Code, which prohibits anti-sport behavior, including verbal attacks harming human dignity. Although Deleanu later apologized, CGF rejected it, and she reiterated her non-offensive intent in a follow-up TV appearance. The Disciplinary Commission proceeded with a hearing, despite Deleanu’s request for a postponement due to medical reasons.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld FIG’s authority to sanction Deleanu, ruling that freedom of expression does not excuse defamatory statements. The panel concluded her allegations, broadcast on TV, constituted anti-sport behavior regardless of the show’s local reach. They also affirmed FIG’s right to suspend officials under its Disciplinary Code. The case highlights the balance between personal opinion and professional conduct in sports governance, emphasizing that public figures must avoid statements undermining athletes and institutions.
Deleanu appealed the sanctions, arguing procedural flaws and disproportionate penalties. She claimed she was not properly informed of all charges and that her comments were personal opinions, not made in her capacity as a FIG representative. The FIG Appeal Tribunal partially upheld her appeal, ruling the Disciplinary Commission overstepped by addressing unrelated charges but maintained the core sanctions. Deleanu then took the case to CAS, seeking full acquittal or reduced penalties. The CAS Panel dismissed her arguments, finding her explanations unconvincing and her apologies insincere. They emphasized her roles as a FIG judge and European Gymnastics Union (UEG) official subjected her to FIG’s disciplinary jurisdiction. The Panel also rejected her claim of double jeopardy, noting only a single penalty was imposed for multiple violations.
Regarding the penalty, Deleanu argued the suspension from her UEG Technical Commission position until December 31, 2015, was excessive and ultra vires, as her term ended in 2013. The CAS clarified the suspension applied to her functions if re-elected, not her eligibility to run. The Panel found the sanction proportionate, targeting her influence over judging panels, and noted a broader penalty would have been harsher. Deleanu’s comparison to past cases was dismissed due to lack of meaningful similarities.
Ultimately, CAS upheld FIG’s sanctions, dismissing Deleanu’s appeal entirely. The ruling reinforced FIG’s authority to enforce disciplinary measures for misconduct, even outside formal competitions, and underscored the importance of maintaining respect and integrity in sports. The case serves as a precedent for balancing free expression with professional accountability in sports governance.