TOMMASO ELETTRICO CAS DOPING APPEAL CASE
On 15 June 2026, the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne (CAS) rendered Award 2025/A/11412 in the Appeal Case of Tommaso Elettrico v. NADO Italia, which is of particular significance from a procedural standpoint, specifically with regard to the appealability of a decision in a doping matter.
In particular, the Award does not address the merits of the anti-doping charge or the scientific validity of the biological passport. The decision rests entirely on a procedural bar, namely the failure to exhaust the available domestic remedies before resorting to CAS.
The appeal, therefore, was disposed of on procedural grounds, without CAS considering the alleged haematological anomalies; the physiological explanations advanced by the athlete concerned; or the appropriateness of the sanction.
- The applicable provision and the two-track system
Pursuant to Article R58 of the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration, the arbitrator applies, as a matter of priority, the applicable national anti-doping regulations, in particular, the Anti-Doping Sports Code, and only subsidiarily, in the present case, Italian law.
The Anti-Doping Sports Code establishes a differentiated system of appeals depending upon the athlete’s status. For international-level athletes and for cases arising from participation in an international sporting event, appeals lie directly and exclusively to CAS. In all other cases, an appeal must be brought exclusively before the National Anti-Doping Appeals Court.
The classification of an athlete, therefore, constitutes not merely a descriptive element, but the legal basis for determining the competent appellate body. It consequently determines both the admissibility of an appeal before CAS and the existence of any obligation to exhaust domestic remedies beforehand.
- Classification as a national-level athlete
The ratio decidendi of the Award is based on the regulatory definition of a national-level athlete. The Anti-Doping Sports Code expressly includes within this category any athlete included in the national Registered Testing Pool (RTP), alongside other circumstances establishing a sufficiently close connection with the national sporting system.
The arbitrator attached decisive weight to this formal criterion. Inclusion in the national RTP was deemed sufficient to establish national-level athlete status, irrespective of results achieved in international competitions or participation in events having a transnational dimension. Mere participation in international events does not, in itself, confer international-level athlete status within the meaning of the definition adopted by the relevant international sports federation.
The reasoning is technically sound: within a regulated sporting system, the relevant concept of “international” status does not depend upon competitive prominence, the location of the event, or the title achieved, but rather derives from a regulatory classification conferred by the competent sporting authority. Otherwise, access to CAS would become contingent upon factual circumstances lacking sufficient predictability and legal certainty.
The Award also highlights the inconsistency of the athlete’s procedural position, as, in previous proceedings, the athlete had characterised his status in terms incompatible with the subsequent assertion that he was an international-level athlete. This circumstance does not, in itself, constitute the basis of the Award, but operates as a corroborating factor in the evidentiary assessment of the athlete’s status. The decisive basis remains the athlete’s inclusion in the national RTP and the absence of evidence establishing recognition as an international-level athlete.
- Exhaustion of domestic remedies as a condition for access to CAS
Once the athlete’s status had been established as national-level, Article 18.2.2 of the Anti-Doping Sports Code requires a prior appeal to the National Anti-Doping Appeals Court.
The direct appeal against the first-instance decision to CAS, therefore, circumvented the hierarchical sequence of sporting jurisdictions prescribed by the applicable regulations.
The Award correctly reconciled this requirement with Article R47 of the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration. That provision makes an appeal to CAS conditional not only upon the existence of an arbitration clause or other regulatory basis conferring jurisdiction, but also upon the exhaustion of the available internal remedies. This, therefore, is not merely a formal requirement, nor one capable of being cured by the timely filing of the appeal; rather, it constitutes a prerequisite for access to the appellate arbitral jurisdiction of CAS.
The athlete had failed to pursue the appeal before the National Anti-Doping Appeals Court and had instead approached CAS directly against a first-instance decision.
In the absence of any regulatory exception, of an internal remedy that was merely illusory, or of circumstances demonstrating that effective relief was unavailable at the national level, the appeal was necessarily premature.
- Nature of the inadmissibility and its consequences
The sole arbitrator observed that, in CAS practice, the failure to pursue domestic remedies beforehand may be characterised either as a jurisdictional defect or as inadmissibility. The solution adopted in the present case was that of inadmissibility. From a substantive standpoint, however, the distinction does not alter the outcome: the CAS does not examine the merits.
This point is significant because it preserves the autonomy of the national anti-doping system and the role of the National Anti-Doping Appeals Court as the mandatory domestic appellate body for national-level athletes. The CAS is not conceived as an alternative forum to the national appellate instances, but rather as a residual appellate arbitral forum, or as a forum with direct jurisdiction only in the specific circumstances expressly provided for by the applicable rules.
The decision, therefore, rests upon a clear and strict rationale: national-level athlete status; an obligation to pursue the domestic appellate remedy first; failure to exhaust the internal available remedies; and, consequently, inadmissibility of the appeal before CAS.
We advise and represent clients in doping cases in Italy, before CAS and in appeals from CAS to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, and further information is available from the Head of our Italian Law Practice, Avv. Sara Botti, by emailing her at botti@valloni.ch.