http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50829-2004Oct21.htmlIn dismissing Yang's appeal, CAS affirmed the essential arguments made by Hamm and his lawyers: that judges' decisions made on "the field of play" are not subject to review by judicial bodies unless fraud is alleged; that South Korean officials failed to appeal in a timely manner; and that it would be mere speculation to conclude that Yang would have won the event if his parallel-bar score had been adjusted, given that it wasn't the final event of the competition.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/22/s...&en=ad5275c3803336ce&ei=5094&partner=homepageThe three-judge panel said in the ruling that the Koreans needed to protest under established gymnastics rules while the competition was going on, which they did not, and changing a result after it had ended was too dangerous a precedent without evidence of fraud or impropriety.
The arbitrators added that it was not fair to declare that Yang would have won the gold if the start value had been corrected because the athletes still had another apparatus to contest and the results of that might have been different had the parallel bars result been different.