Jordan Chiles and two Romanian gymnasts would all get bronze medals if an arbitration panel could award them, and said “a great deal of heartache” could have been avoided had there simply been a way to verify in the moment whether a scoring appeal was submitted on time.

The International Gymnastics Federation needs to put a mechanism in place so a similar situation “never happens again,” the ad-hoc panel of the Court of Arbitration for Sport wrote in its full release of its decision that resulted in Chiles being stripped of her bronze medal in the floor exercise at the 2024 Paris Olympics.

“If the Panel had been in a position to apply equitable principles, it would surely have attributed a bronze medal to all three gymnasts in view of their performance, good faith and the injustice and pain to which they have been subjected,” according to the full decision, which was released Wednesday.

“The Panel expresses the hope that the FIG will draw the consequences of this case, in relation to these three extraordinary Athletes and also for other Athletes and their supporting personnel, in the future, so that this never happens again.”

Romania requested bronze medals be awarded to Chiles, Ana Barbosu and Sabrina Maneca-Voinea. But the CAS panel noted that would have required the consent of the FIG, which did not agree.

2024 Paris Olympics: Follow USA TODAY’s coverage of the biggest names and stories of the Games.

“The Panel is fully conscious of the disappointment this adjudicating process may cause to the two other extraordinary gymnasts who have at all times conducted themselves with integrity and probity and acted in good faith,” the panel wrote.

USA Gymnastics and the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee said they “strongly" disagreed with the detailed decision, citing the extensive delay in Chiles and U.S. officials even learning about the case. Notices were sent to “incorrect email addresses,” and it wasn’t until Aug. 9, three days after Romania filed its appeal and two days after the deadline to submit objections, that CAS got in touch with Chris McCleary, the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee’s general counsel.

News from on and off the field: Sign up for USA TODAY's Sports newsletter.

Chiles and U.S. officials were given an additional two hours to respond to the Romania’s appeal. But even with the extension, she, USA Gymnastics and the USOPC had roughly 10 hours to file their response, less than 24 hours before a hearing with CAS.

"Our objections have since been validated by new evidence indicating administrative errors by FIG and mishandlings by CAS, which would have been impossible to raise at the time of the rushed hearing. In short, we were denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard," the USOPC said in a statement Wednesday night.

Chiles initially finished fifth in the floor final on Aug. 5, her 13.666 putting her behind Barbosu and Maneca-Voinea. (The two Romanians had each scored 13.7, but Barbosu has placed higher because of a better execution score.)

But Cecile Landi, who is Chiles’ personal coach in addition to being the U.S. coach in Paris, appealed her difficulty score, arguing Chiles had not been given full credit for a tour jete, a leap. A review panel agreed, and the additional 0.100 elevated the American ahead of both Romanians into third place.

Romania appealed to CAS on Aug. 6, saying Chiles’ inquiry was not filed in time. Because Chiles was the last competitor in the floor final, she had to submit a verbal appeal within a minute of her original score being posted and follow up with a written inquiry.

During an Aug. 10 hearing, the president of the FIG’s women’s technical committee acknowledged there was no way to immediately know whether the verbal appeal was submitted on time or late. Omega, the official timing system at the Olympics, had that data, but it wasn’t linked to the FIG’s system or communicated to the appeal panel.

“So in that moment I assumed that the system didn't block the (initial) verbal inquiry because out of the limit. So I saw the written inquiry and I said `OK, it means it's OK,’” Donatella Sacchi, president of the women’s technical committee, testified.

“I proceed because I cannot control the timing of the inquiries and the difference of the timing.”

The CAS panel also said no one has been able to identify the person to whom the verbal appeal was made. It was not a FIG employee, Sacchi said, but rather someone working for Paris organizers.

“Nor were they able to tell the Panel, in response to questions, whether there was in place any arrangement to ensure that the one-minute rule … had been complied with,” according to the full decision.

The decision leaves several other questions unanswered:

➤ When, exactly, did the clock start on Chiles’ appeal? This has significance because it took almost five seconds between when Chiles’ overall score was shown on the arena Jumbotron and when the separate difficulty and execution scores were shown – which would have alerted Chiles’ coaches to the need for an inquiry.

It’s not clear whether Chiles and her coaches saw those scores elsewhere before they were posted on the Jumbotron. But USA Gymnastics said Sunday it had submitted to CAS newly discovered video evidence that "conclusively establishes" Landi made the verbal inquiry 47 seconds after Chiles' score was posted. CAS quickly rejected it, saying its ruling could not be reconsidered even in light of new evidence.

➤ How is the verbal inquiry noted? Does the person who receives it simply press a button on a tablet? Or is detailed information required, which could take more time to give and receive? How far did Landi have to go, and how many seconds did that take, to make the verbal inquiry?

➤ Whose were the "erroneous email addresses" CAS was using for USA Gymnastics and the USOPC officials? Did anyone at the FIG, a respondent in the case, notify USA Gymnastics officials that an appeal had been filed involving Chiles?

In asking for an extension after CAS finally contacted McCleary, USA Gymnastics said "[c]opies were secured circuitously from other parties."

➤ Why did the IOC want the matter wrapped up before the Paris Games ended? When asked about the possibility of referring the case to CAS Appeals Arbitration Division, the IOC dismissed the idea, saying “it would be both preferable and consistent with the purpose of the CAS Ad Hoc Division that a dispute concerning an event that took place on 5 August 2024 be resolved before the end of the Olympic Games.”

In statements Wednesday, both USA Gymnastics and the USOPC said they plan to keep fighting on Chiles' behalf by appealing to the Swiss Federal Tribunal, the highest court in Switzerland.

"Our pursuit of truth in this matter remains unwavering," the USOPC said.