Fact check: Did Liz Thomas appeal the NCAA decision to strip her wins?

1. Why the question matters — records, reputation and legal routes left open

News accounts frame the stripping of records as both a reputational and regulatory action tied to broader policy fights over transgender athletes; the decision to strip records is an administrative settlement by UPenn rather than a standard NCAA judicial ruling, which shapes available legal remedies and public response. Reporting shows the University of Pennsylvania agreed to a voluntary resolution with the U.S. Department of Education that included removal of individual records, and Thomas publicly expressed grief and disappointment over that outcome, but none of the contemporary coverage identifies a subsequent appeal by Thomas against that particular administrative outcome ^{[2] [4]}. That context helps explain why legal action elsewhere — challenges to World Aquatics and to international eligibility rules — received more attention in the timeline.

2. What Thomas did litigate — international bans and arbitration losses

Multiple outlets document that Lia Thomas pursued legal challenges to international sporting bodies’ rules and lost at the Court of Arbitration for Sport and in other actions related to World Aquatics’ ban on transgender women who experienced any part of male puberty; those cases are distinct from the UPenn resolution and focus on eligibility for elite international competitions, including the Olympics ^{[5] [6]}. Coverage dated April–June 2024 through October 2025 records Thomas’ legal defeats in those arenas and her public remarks about them, showing a pattern of litigation targeted at governing-body rules rather than at university record-keeping practices ^{[3] [5]}.

3. What the reporting does not show — no documented appeal of stripped NCAA/Penn records

Reviewing the articles and interviews provided, journalists repeatedly note Thomas’ reaction to the UPenn/Department of Education resolution and her personal reflections on competing and transition, but they do not report any filing, appellate brief, or public statement announcing an appeal of the decision to strip her records. Multiple pieces that explore her legal strategy and aftermath mention only her challenges to World Aquatics and educational policy settlements, which suggests that if an appeal existed it was not publicly reported in these mainstream accounts between 2024 and October 2025 ^{[2] [7]}.

4. Alternative explanations and possible reporting gaps

There are plausible reasons for the absence of reported appeals: an administrative settlement with the Department of Education may have limited or foreclosed typical appeal routes; Thomas may have prioritized other legal venues such as international arbitration; or she may have chosen not to appeal for strategic or personal reasons. None of the sources supplied confirms a formal appeal, and the articles leave open that certain proceedings or private legal steps might not be publicized, so the absence of reporting is strong but not an absolute proof that no appeal was ever contemplated or pursued in confidential filings ^{[2] [1]}.

5. Bottom line and what to watch next

Based on contemporary coverage through October 2025, the factual finding is clear: there is no public record in these sources that Lia (sometimes misnamed Liz) Thomas appealed the NCAA/UPenn decision to strip her wins. Monitoring future court dockets, university announcements, or filings with administrative tribunals would be the way to catch any later developments; given the high-profile legal fights already documented — particularly with World Aquatics and CAS — those venues remain the most likely arenas to see additional appeals or challenges reported ^{[5] [8]}.