SR/250/2024

IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY THE INTERNATIONAL TENNISINTEGRITY AGENCY UNDER THE 2024 TENNIS ANTI-DOPING PROGRAMME
Before:Dr David Sharpe KC (Chair)
Tamara Gaw
Benoit Girardin
BETWEEN:
International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA)

Anti-Doping Organisation

andJannik Sinner

Respondent

DECISION OF THE INDEPENDENT TRIBUNAL

A. INTRODUCTION
1.

The International Tennis Integrity Agency (‘ITIA’) was established as a delegated third
party under the World Anti-Doping Code, by the International Tennis Federation (‘ITF’),
the international governing body for the sport of tennis and a signatory of the Code. As
the delegated third party of the ITF, the ITIA is responsible for the management andadministration of the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (the ‘TADP’) which establishes
Code-compliant anti-doping rules applicable to players competing in ‘Covered Events’.

2.

The Independent Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’) has been established in accordance with Article
8.1 of the TADP, which provides that the Tribunal shall determine Anti-Doping Rule
Violations (‘ADRVs’) committed under the TADP.

3.

Mr Jannik Sinner (the ‘Player’) is a 23-year-old professional tennis player from Innichen,South Tyrol, Italy. He is the current ranked Number 1 ATP singles player and as such heis bound by the TADP.

4.

The Player does not dispute that he is bound by the TADP or that he is subject to thejurisdiction of the Independent Tribunal to resolve this matter.

5.

The Player has been charged with ADRVs under Articles 2.1 and/or 2.2 of the TADP, asa result of the presence of metabolites of Clostebol found in two urine samples collected
on 10 March 2024, during his participation at the BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells,
California, USA (the ‘Event’) (the ‘First Sample') and a further urine sample collected on
18 March 2024, prior to his participation at the Miami Open (the ‘Second Sample’).

6.

Clostebol is a S1 anabolic androgenic steroid and a Prohibited Substance. As such, itspresence (or that of its metabolites) in the Player’s Sample, or its Use by the Player, areso-called “strict liability” ADRVs under TADP Articles 2.1 and 2.2 respectively (set out in
Section B, below).

7.

The Player does not dispute that Clostebol metabolites were in his urine and thus does
not dispute that he committed the ADRVs. However, he has provided an explanation forthe presence of the Clostebol metabolites in his system, for which he contends there is
No Fault or Negligence on his part. As a result, the Player seeks no period of Ineligibility
in accordance with Article 10.5 of the TADP. Alternatively, the Player seeks a reduction in
the period of Ineligibility in accordance with Article 10.6 of the TADP, on the basis that hebore No Significant Fault or Negligence. A summary of the Player’s explanation is set out
within Section C, below.

8.

The Player was provisionally suspended from 4 April until 5 April 2024 and from 17 April
until 20 April 2024, when the suspension was lifted on each occasion following an urgent
application before Mr Mark Hovell (the ‘Chair’) on the papers.

9.

On 1 August 2024, the Chair of the Independent Panel appointed Dr David Sharpe KC as
Chair of the Independent Tribunal. On the same day, Mr Benoit Girardin and Ms Tamara
Gaw were appointed to form the Independent Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’) that would hear anddetermine the dispute.

10. The Tribunal conducted a hybrid oral hearing (with the arbitrators and legal
representatives attending in-person and with witnesses giving evidence by videolink) on
15 August 2024. Ms Louise Reilly (in-person) and Messrs Nicolas Zbinden (remote) andRobert Kerslake (remote), attorneys-at-law at Kellerhals Carrard represented the ITIA. Ms
Kendrah Potts, Barrister, together with Messrs Jamie Singer and George Cottle, Solicitors
at Onside Law represented the Player. (Together, the ‘Parties’.)11. The Tribunal is grateful to both Parties and their Counsel for their helpful written and oral
submissions, for their collaboration in substantially agreeing the relevant facts and in the
management of this proceeding. The Tribunal also acknowledges the assistance provided
by Ms Lara Fasoli, who interpreted in English and Italian and Sport Resolutions, in its
capacity as the independent Secretariat, pursuant to Rule 1.1 of the Procedural Rules
Governing TADP Proceedings Before An Independent Tribunal.

B. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
12. The ITIA has charged the Player with a violation of TADP Article 2.1, which states that thefollowing is an ADRV: “The presence of a Prohibited Substance or any of its Metabolites
or Markers in a Player’s Sample, unless the Player establishes that such presence isconsistent with a TUE [Therapeutic Use Exemption] granted in accordance with Article4.4”; it being “each Player’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enterstheir body”.
13. The ITIA has also charged the Player with a TADP Article 2.2 “Use” violation, involving“Use or Attempted Use by a Player of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method,
unless the Player establishes that such Use or Attempted Use is consistent with a TUE
granted in accordance with Article 4.4”; it being “each Player’s personal duty to ensurethat no Prohibited Substance enters their body”.

14. ADRVs under both TADP Articles 2.1 and 2.2 require that the Independent Tribunal be
comfortably satisfied that the ITIA has established each of the elements of the ADRVs
charged. Both are strict liability offences, with no requirement that the ITIA prove thesource of the Prohibited Substance. In particular, both articles provide that “it is notnecessary to demonstrate intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Player's partin order to establish an [ADRV…]; nor is the Player’s lack of intent, Fault, Negligence or
knowledge a defence to an assertion [or] a charge that an [ADRV…] has been committed”.
15. Therefore, should the Player establish that the ADRV based on TADP Articles 2.1 or 2.2
was not intentional, then the period of Ineligibility shall be two years. The sanction is
subject to potential reduction or suspension where the Player establishes how theProhibited Substance entered their system, pursuant to TADP Article 10.5 or 10.6. (In theevent that the Player is unable to establish that the ADRV was unintentional, the period
of Ineligibility is four years.)
16. TADP Article 2.1.1 states that:“It is each Player’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters theirbody. Players are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or any of its Metabolites orMarkers found to be present in their Samples.”17. Therefore, in accordance with TADP Article 2.1.1 and the jurisprudence established in the
Court of Arbitration for Sport (‘CAS’) case law (such as in CAS 2017/A/5301, Errani v. ITF
and CAS OG AD 18/004, IIHF v. Ziga Jeglic) the Player is responsible for the actions of
those around them as well as their own. In particular, for the purposes of objectively
assessing whether a player complied with their duty of “utmost caution” as is required by
the TADP (and the World Anti-Doping Code (‘WADC’)), the Tribunal will assess theactions of the Player and the Player’s friends, coaches, relatives, doctors or othermembers of their team to whom they’ve entrusted any part of the anti-doping
responsibilities.
18. TADP Articles 10.2.1 and 10.2.2 provide that:“10.2 […]

The period of Ineligibility imposed for an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under Article
2.1, 2.2 or 2.6 that is the Player’s […] first doping offence will be as follows, subject
to potential elimination, reduction, or suspension pursuant to Articles 10.5, 10.6,
or 10.7.
10.2.1 [… T]he period of Ineligibility will be four years:
10.2.1.1

where the Anti-Doping Rule Violation does not involve a
Specified Substance or a Specified Method, unless thePlayer […] establishes that the Anti-Doping Rule Violation
was not intentional […]10.2.2 If Article 10.2.1 does not apply, then […] the period of Ineligibility will be
two years.”Thus, the benchmark sanction is four years of Ineligibility, unless the Player rebuts thepresumption of intentionality, in which case the sanction is reduced to two years.
19. TADP Article 10.2.3 provides that:“As used in Article 10.2, the term ‘intentional’ is meant to identify those Players […] who
engage in conduct that they knew constituted an Anti-Doping Rule Violation or knew that
there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an Anti-Doping
Rule Violation and manifestly disregarded that risk”.

20. TADP Article 10.5 provides for the elimination of the period of Ineligibility on the groundsof No Fault or Negligence. TADP Article 10.6 provides for the reduction of the period of
Ineligibility on the grounds of No Significant Fault or Negligence.
21. The terms “No Fault or Negligence” and “No Significant Fault or Negligence” are definedin TADP Appendix One as follows:“No Fault or Negligence. The Player […] establishing that they did not know or suspect,and could not reasonably have known or suspected even with the exercise of utmost
caution, that they had Used or been administered the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited
Method or otherwise violated an anti-doping rule. […] for any violation of Article 2.1 thePlayer must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered their system.”

“No Significant Fault or Negligence. The Player […] establishing that their Fault or
Negligence, when viewed in the totality of the circumstances and taking into account thecriteria for No Fault or Negligence, was not significant in relation to the Anti-Doping Rule
Violation. […] for any violation of Article 2.1 the Player must also establish how theProhibited Substance entered their system.”

22. To sustain a plea of No (Significant) Fault or Negligence, the Player is required to prove
the origin of the Prohibited Substance on the “balance of probability”. This burden lies
solely on the Player - see CAS 2012/A/2759 Rybka v. UEFA, paragraphs 11.31 – 11.32
and CAS 2014/A/3820 WADA v. Damar Robinson & JADCO, paragraph 16. It is not
sufficient for an athlete to simply identify a potential source; they must demonstrate thatthe source could have caused the actual adverse finding. To satisfy the burden, a Player
has to prove not only “the route of administration” of the substance (e.g. transdermal
ingestion) but also “the factual circumstances in which administration occurred”, i.e., whenand how the substance got into his system – see CAS 2010/A/2277 La Barbera v. IWAS.
23. The duty of “utmost caution” is found in the WADC definition and the TADP definition of“No Fault or Negligence”, which states there is “No Fault or Negligence” where the athlete“did not know or suspect, and could not reasonably have known or suspected even withthe exercise of utmost caution, that he or she had Used or been administered theProhibited Substance or Prohibited Method or otherwise violated an anti-doping rule”. In
CAS 2011/A/2518 Kendrick v ITF, paragraph 10.14, this was held to mean that the athlete
should do everything in his power to avoid ingesting any Prohibited Substance.
24. To sustain a No Fault or Negligence plea, the athlete must prove that he has fully compliedwith that duty, i.e., that he has made every conceivable effort to avoid taking a prohibited
substance and that the substance got into his system despite all due care on his part.
25. “Administration” is defined in TADP Appendix One as “[p]roviding, supplying, supervising,facilitating, or otherwise participating in the Use or Attempted Use by another Person of a
Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method. However, this definition does not include theactions of bona fide medical personnel involving a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited
Method Used for genuine and legal therapeutic purposes or other acceptable justification,and does not include actions involving Prohibited Substances that are not prohibited in
Out-of-Competition Testing unless the circumstances as a whole demonstrate that such

Prohibited Substances are not intended for genuine and legal therapeutic purposes or are
intended to enhance sport performance.”
26. “Use” is defined in TADP Appendix One as “[t]he utilisation, application, ingestion,
injection or consumption by any means whatsoever of any Prohibited Substance or
Prohibited Method.”
27. The Comment to Article 10.5 in the WADC states that “No Fault or Negligence would not
apply in the following circumstances . . . (b) the Administration of a Prohibited Substanceby the Athlete’s personal physician or trainer without disclosure to the Athlete (Athletes
are responsible for their choice of medical personnel and for advising medical personnel
that they cannot be given any Prohibited Substance)…”.
28. When a sanction is imposed, the period of Ineligibility starts on the date that the decision
is issued, provided that any period of Provisional Suspension served by the Player must
be credited against the total period of Ineligibility to be served, pursuant to TADP Article
10.13.
29. Further, TADP Article 9.1 provides that an ADRV “committed by a Player in connection
with or arising out of an In-Competition test automatically leads to Disqualification of theresults obtained by the Player in the Competition in question, with all resulting
consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, ranking points and Prize Moneyobtained by the Player in that Competition.”
30. TADP Article 10.10 provides that “[u]nless fairness requires otherwise, in addition to theDisqualification of results under Articles 9.1 and 10.1, any other results obtained by thePlayer in Competitions taking place in the period starting on the date the Sample inquestion was collected or other Anti-Doping Rule Violation occurred and ending on thecommencement of any Provisional Suspension or Ineligibility period, will be Disqualified,with all of the resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, ranking
points and Prize Money.”
31. TADP Article 19.2 states that “[t]he comments annotating various provisions of the Codewill be used to interpret the Code” and TADP 19.6 provides that “[t]he Purpose, Scope,and Organisation of the World Anti-Doping Program and the Code and Appendix 1,
Definitions, are integral parts of the Code.”

C. SUMMARY OF FACTS
32. The Parties have agreed the following summary of facts.
33. On 12 or 13 February 2024, Mr Umberto Ferrara, the Player’s fitness coach, purchased a
medical spray with the brand name “Trofodermin” which is used to heal cuts (the ‘Spray’).
Trofodermin is available over the counter in Italy and does not require a prescription(unlike most other countries). Mr Ferrara has provided a bank record confirming he madea purchase at the Farmacia SS Trinità in Bologna, Italy, dated 13 February 2024 (butsuggesting the purchase was made on 12 February 2024). Trofodermin contains theProhibited Substance known as Clostebol.
34. In early March 2024, the Player was competing at the Event in Indian Wells, USA. Mr
Ferrara and Mr Giacomo Naldi, the Player’s physiotherapist, were also present in IndianWells, together with other members of the Player’s entourage who were all staying in thesame villa.
35. Mr Ferrara and Mr Naldi confirmed that during the Event, Mr Ferrara had the Trofodermin
Spray amongst his personal possessions, in his own washbag located in his ensuitebathroom at the villa.
36. On the morning of 3 March 2024, Mr Naldi reached into his treatment bag and cut the little
finger on his left hand with a scalpel (used to treat callouses on the Player’s feet). The cut
was bleeding, so Mr Naldi put a bandage on his finger, which he kept on the finger for twodays until 5 March 2024. Although there are some discrepancies in relation to precisely
where and when the cut occurred, all of those witnesses who observed the incident agree
as to how the cut took place (i.e., via a scalpel in Mr Naldi’s treatment bag) and that thiswas on 3 March 2024.
37. The Player states he was not aware of Mr Naldi’s injury until the evening of 3 March 2024,
when he had a session with Mr Naldi and saw his finger was bandaged. Mr Naldi told thePlayer that he had cut himself. At the time the Player asked if Mr Naldi had used anything
to treat the injury, to which Mr Naldi replied “no”.
38. On 5 March 2024, when the bandage had been removed, Mr Ferrara recommended that
Mr Naldi use the Trofodermin on his cut for its healing and antiseptic qualities. There is adiscrepancy between Mr Ferrara and Mr Naldi in relation to whether Mr Ferrara gave ananti-doping warning to Mr Naldi at the time Mr Ferrara recommended the product. The
Player was not aware that Mr Ferrara had the Spray or that Mr Naldi used it.
39. The canister of Spray had previously been removed from its packaging. Mr Naldi admits
that he did not check the contents of the Spray or see that present on the label of thecanister was “Clostebol”. Mr Naldi states that he had no knowledge that the Spraycontained Clostebol.
40. Mr Naldi confirmed he used the Trofodermin Spray every morning from 5 March 2024 until
13 March 2024. Mr Naldi and Mr Ferrara both confirmed the Spray was only used in Mr
Ferrara’s ensuite bathroom.
41. Between 5 and 13 March 2024, Mr Naldi gave full-body massages to the Player andapplied colloid bandages to his feet. Mr Naldi carried out both of these treatments on adaily basis during this period. He confirmed that he did not use gloves whilst carrying out
the treatments.
42. The Player suffers from a skin condition called Psoriasiform Dermatitis on his feet andback and as a result his skin is very itchy, which often leads to scratching and can cause
small cuts and sores to be present on his back and feet. This was the case in Indian Wells.
43. On the evening of 9 March 2024, Mr Naldi gave the Player a full-body massage using oils
for an hour to an hour and a half. Mr Naldi also performed foot mobilisation exercises due
to a problem with the Player’s ankle.
44. On the morning of 10 March 2024, Mr Naldi treated the Player’s feet and ankle. Mr Naldi
states that he would have applied two sprays of the Trofodermin Spray to his finger thatmorning and he cannot remember washing his hands between spraying his finger andtreating the Player’s feet.

45. Having interviewed the Player twice, the ITIA accepts the Player had no knowledge that:a. Mr Ferrara had the Trofodermin Spray in his possession at the villa;b. The Trofodermin Spray contained a Prohibited Substance; orc. Mr Naldi used the Trofodermin Spray to treat his cut finger.
46. On the evening of 10 March 2024, the First Sample was collected In-Competition from thePlayer following his match at the Event. The First Sample returned an Adverse Analytical
Finding (‘AAF’) for the Clostebol metabolite (commonly referred to as the M1 metabolite)
in a concentration of 121pg/mL (adjusted to 86pg/mL when a normal specific gravity wasapplied).
47. Early in the morning of 18 March 2024, the Second Sample, a urine sample was collected
Out-of-Competition from the Player. The Second Sample returned an AAF for the
Clostebol metabolite in a concentration of 122pg/mL (adjusted to 76pg/mL when a normal
specific gravity was applied).
48. Three scientific experts, Professor Jean-François Naud, Dr Xavier de la Torre, andProfessor David Cowan have confirmed inadvertent contamination from Mr Naldi’s
treatment in the period between 5 March and 13 March 2024 in the manner described
could explain the presence of Clostebol metabolites in the Player’s system.

D. THE PLAYER’S EXPLANATION
49. The Player’s explanation is set out above in the summary of facts. The Player maintains
that he bears No Fault or Negligence as he did not know or suspect (and could notreasonably have known or suspected even with the exercise of utmost caution) that hehad used or been contaminated by a Prohibited Substance as a result of being massagedby Mr Naldi.
50. The ITIA accepts on a balance of probability the veracity of the Player’s account onsource, based on (i) the documentary and testamentary evidence provided by the Player,

(ii) the transcripts of ten interviews carried out by ITIA investigators with the Player andmembers of his team, and (iii) the opinions from three anti-doping experts.
51. Pursuant to the agreed Summary of Facts, the ITIA has therefore accepted, on theappropriate standard (set out in paragraph 22, above), that the Player has discharged hisburden of proof relating to the origin of the Prohibited Substance.

E. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
52. By a pre-charge notice letter of the ITIA, dated 4 April 2024 (the ‘First Notice of the ITIA’),
the ITIA informed the Player that an AAF had been reported in relation to the First Sample.
The Player was provisionally suspended by the ITIA with effect from 4 April 2024 pursuant
to Article 7.12.1 of the 2024 TADP.
53. On the same day, the Player filed an urgent application for the provisional suspension to
be lifted. The application was upheld by the Chair who confirmed that, on the balance of
probabilities, he was comfortably satisfied by the uncontested evidence of the Player, thestatement of the laboratory, and the written submissions of the parties that the provisional
suspension should be lifted.
54. The Player subsequently tested positive for Clostebol and/or its metabolites, following theSecond Sample on 18 March 2024.
55. By a pre-charge notice letter of the ITIA, dated 17 April 2024 (the ‘Second Notice of ITIA’),
the ITIA informed the Player that a AAF had been reported in relation to the Second
Sample. The Player was provisionally suspended by the ITIA with effect from 17 April
2024 pursuant to TADP Article 7.12.1.
56. On the same day, the Player filed a second urgent application for the provisional
suspension to be lifted. The application was upheld by the Chair on 24 April 2024. The
Chair confirmed that, on the balance of probabilities, he was comfortably satisfied by theuncontested evidence of the Player, the statement of the laboratory supplied by the ITIA,
the academic research article provided by the laboratory, and the written submissions of
the parties that any period of Ineligibility that might otherwise be imposed on the Player

for the ADRV asserted is likely to be completely eliminated by application of TADP Article
10.5.
57. The ITIA arranged and conducted interviews with the Player and his support team in Italy
and online during the intervening period and also sought scientific advice from two wellrecognised experts prior to the Notice of Charge being issued.
58. On 29 May 2024, the Player provided a response to the Pre-Charge Letters sent on 4
April 2024 and 17 April 2024.
59. Having considered the response, the ITIA issued a Notice of Charge dated 30 May 2024,
charging the Player with ADRVs pursuant to TADP Article 2.1 and/or 2.2 for the AAFs in
the First Sample and Second Sample.
60. On 19 June 2024, the Player responded to the Notice of Charge by providing the ITIA withdetailed submissions explaining the circumstances of the AAF and seeking a resolution
to the proceedings on the basis of No Fault or Negligence, or in the alternative, No
Significant Fault or Negligence. The Player provided documents to corroborate theexplanations contained therein.
61. In addition to agreeing the summary of facts, the Parties also agreed to an expedited
carriage of the matter as well as a procedural timetable.

F. EXPERT EVIDENCE
62. The Tribunal has the benefit of expert opinions from three independent experts –Professor Jean-François Naud, the director of the WADA-accredited laboratory inMontreal, Canada; Dr Xavier de la Torre, Deputy Director and Laboratory Manager(Scientific Vice-Director) of the WADA accredited laboratory in Rome, Italy; and Professor
David Cowan, the Professor Emeritus in the Department of Environmental, Analytical andForensic Science at King’s College London (‘KCL’) and the former head of the WADAaccredited Laboratory at KCL in London, United Kingdom. The Player’s identity was notknown by two of the experts.

63. Professor Naud concluded that based on the First Sample, the likelihood that the Player's
explanation is plausible is “really high. The roughly estimated concentration of 100 pg/mL
is a small concentration and could be obtained by cross-contamination as published in thescientific literature.” Considering, also, the Second Sample and specifically its specificgravity (1.032) and the low Clostebol concentration detected that is similar to the previous
AAF, Professor Naud stated that “it is possible that the second AAF result comes from thesame administration/contamination as the first AAF reported.”
64. Dr Xavier de la Torre, based on the data reported in the literature and on the data obtainedin experiments conducted in his laboratory, considers it is plausible that the ﬁndings in theFirst Sample and Second Sample of the Player are “the result of a contamination provokedby the activities of the physiotherapist”, who was treating the Player at the time theSamples were collected.
65. Professor David Cowan concludes that the Player’s explanation for the finding of
Clostebol metabolites in the First Sample and the Second Sample as having arisen from
him unknowingly being contaminated by his physiotherapist who was using Trofodermin
Spray containing 5mg/mL Clostebol Acetate to be “entirely plausible based on the
explanation given and the concentrations identified by the Laboratory. Even if theadministration had been intentional, the minute amounts likely to have been administeredwould not have had […] any relevant doping, or performance enhancing, effect upon thePlayer.” Further, he can find “no evidence to support any other scenario.”
66. The Expert evidence is generally in alignment and the Parties have agreed that the reports
can be entered into evidence and considered by the Tribunal without formal proof by theauthors.

G. THE PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS
67. In advance of the hearing, the Parties provided us with very substantial quantities of
documentation, including witness evidence (factual and expert) and case law.
68. This section summarises the main relevant facts, allegations and legal argument basedon the Parties’ written submissions, oral pleadings and evidence adduced during theseproceedings. Although the Tribunal has considered the entirety of the Parties’
submissions, it refers here only to matters it considers necessary to explain its reasoning.
(a) The ITIA
69. The ITIA accepts that it has been unable to refute the Player’s suggested source of the
Clostebol following its investigations and the independent scientific opinions provided andhas agreed a summary of facts with the Player’s legal representatives. The ITIA submits
that for the Player to avoid the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility of four years, theTribunal must be comfortably satisfied that the Player has established that the above routeof administration of Clostebol is “more likely than not”. The ITIA accepts that to be thecase.
70. If the Tribunal accepts that source has been proven on the balance of probabilities, theprimary issue for consideration by the Tribunal is whether the Player is entitled to rely on
the provisions of Article 10.5 on the basis that the actions of his physiotherapist and/or
fitness coach cannot be attributed to him. The ITIA asserts that the starting point for thisanalysis is to assess whether the Comment to Article 10.5 (the ‘Comment’) applies in thiscase. The Tribunal notes that the Comment appears only in the WADC (not in the TADP),
and, that it is only meant to apply in exceptional circumstances. If the Tribunal considers
that the Comment does not apply, a No Fault or Negligence outcome remains open tofurther consideration by the Tribunal to determine whether the Player bore No Fault or
Negligence in its analysis of the facts and in light of the jurisprudence. However, if the
Tribunal considers that the Comment applies to these factual circumstances, the Player
could not then successfully establish No Fault or Negligence. In such a case, the Tribunal
would then only have to assess the appropriate period of Ineligibility.
71. The ITIA submits that the first issue in respect of the application of the Comment to Article
10.5 is whether the actions of Mr Naldi fall within the remit of the Comment, as theComment expressly applies to the Player’s “personal physician or trainer”. Whilst it isacknowledged that Mr Naldi is a physiotherapist (and not a medical doctor, per se), thetreatment provided by Mr Naldi to the Player may in certain circumstances be consideredakin to that which would be provided by a personal physician or trainer. Further, the Player
would be equally selective and careful of the relevant expertise and professionalism of hisphysiotherapist as he would be with a treating physician or member of his medical staff.
In that regard, the Tribunal may consider on balance that Mr Naldi ought to be treatedequivalently to a personal physician or trainer for the purposes of the application of theComment. Finally, in respect of this issue, the Comment states that “Athletes are
responsible for their choice of medical personnel…”, thus the Comment envisages that it
will apply beyond doctors and physicians exclusively, extending to other medical
personnel.
72. The second issue in respect of the application of the Comment to Article 10.5 is whether
the Player can be said to have been “administered” the Prohibited Substance. The Player
asserts (and the ITIA has accepted, following two interviews) that he had no knowledge
that the Trofodermin Spray was involved at any stage of his massage (or other treatment).
Unlike other cases where the athlete knew or ought to have known of the administrationof a product which may contain a Prohibited Substance, the Player has stated that neither
he nor Mr Naldi were aware that a Prohibited Substance was being applied to the Player.
73. The definition of “Administration” includes: “Providing, supplying, supervising, facilitating,or otherwise participating in the Use or Attempted Use by another Person of a Prohibited
Substance or Prohibited Method”. The Tribunal considers that this is clearly a wideencompassing definition. It is also noted that Use is defined as “utilisation, application,
ingestion, injection or consumption by any means whatsoever of any Prohibited
Substance or Prohibited Method”, i.e. it does not include a subjective element and Use
has been accepted in this case by the Player. Therefore, the key question for the Tribunal
on the application (or not) of the second limb of the Comment is whether Mr Naldi
inadvertently contaminated the Player during a massage and/or other treatment amounts
to “Administration”.
74. The ITIA set out the relevant jurisprudence to be considered in relation to the applicationof TADP Article 10.5. Ultimately, however, the ITIA accepts that it is a matter for the
Tribunal to determine whether the Player has established No Fault or Negligence. Should
the Tribunal so find, pursuant to TADP Article 10.5, the otherwise applicable period of
Ineligibility would be eliminated.

75. The ITIA submits that if the Tribunal determines that the Player has not established No
Fault or Negligence, it would then fall to the Tribunal to determine the Player’s degree ofFault and whether it is “Significant”. It is open to the Tribunal, pursuant to TADP Article
10.6, to reduce the Player’s sanction on the basis of No Significant Fault or Negligence to“at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, and at a maximum, two years ofIneligibility.”
76. The ITIA asserts that the following factors are relevant for the assessment of the degreeof Fault attributable to the Player in this case:a. The steps taken by the Player to recruit appropriate, experienced personnel to his
team (as set out in his Witness Statements).
b. The Player’s efforts to ensure his entourage was educated about anti-doping,including not to Use Prohibited Substances when treating him.
c. The Player asking Mr Naldi on 3 March 2024, if he was using anything to treat his cut
when he first saw it but (on balance) not checking again if that remained the position(albeit he stated in his Witness Statements that he believed the cut had healed).
d. Mr Ferrara purchased the Trofodermin Spray, and then provided the Spray to Mr
Naldi when Mr Ferrara knew that the Spray contained a Prohibited Substance andthat Mr Naldi would be treating the Player with his bare hands. Mr Ferrara is a fitness
coach (and a qualified pharmacist) specifically chosen by the Player to advise him
and the team on anti-doping matters, yet he failed to ensure that his Trofodermin
Spray did not come into contact with the Player.
77. Mr Ferrara knew that Mr Naldi would be applying the Trofodermin Spray to his bare hands
and knew or ought to have known that Mr Naldi would be subsequently touching thePlayer. Therefore, whether or not Mr Ferrara notified Mr Naldi of the presence of a
Prohibited Substance in the Spray, it must have been apparent (to him, at least) that thePlayer risked coming into contact with a Prohibited Substance and could subsequently
test positive.

78. The ITIA points out that Mr Naldi did not wash his hands after using a medical spray totreat his own wounds prior to making direct contact with the Player’s skin (whether warnedof the presence of a Prohibited Substance or otherwise) and that Mr Naldi was aware that
the Player had cuts and sites of exposure on his skin which Mr Naldi would be treating.
Thus, the Player was (albeit unknown to him) more exposed to potential contamination
via skin-to-skin contact than others might be.
79. The ITIA asserts that Mr Naldi did not read the label of the product or seek information
when he knew or ought to have known of the Player’s anti-doping responsibilities andraises the issue of whether the negligence of Mr Ferrara and Mr Naldi ought to be directly
attributed to the Player.
80. The ITIA referenced a substantial number of relevant authorities from the CAS which are
not listed but have been provided in submissions and considered by the Tribunal inreaching its findings.
(b) The Player
81. The Player submits that he has never intentionally taken any Prohibited Substance andwould never do so. He is the subject of regular In-Competition and Out-of-Competition
anti-doping tests and takes his anti-doping responsibilities very seriously, as does his
team.
82. As regards the Notice of Charge, the Player’s position is as follows:a. He accepts that metabolites of Clostebol were in his system at the time of the two
positive tests giving rise to the AAFs.
b. He admits that the presence of the metabolites of Clostebol on each occasion meansthat he is in breach of TADP Article 2.1.
c. He admits that he Used, as that term is deﬁned in the TADP, Clostebol in breach of
TADP Article 2.2 on each occasion.
d. The only issue before the Tribunal is if the Player bore any Fault or Negligence, andaccordingly, what Consequences, if any, should be imposed upon the Player.

83. The Trofodermin Spray is focussed on the Italian consumer market and over 50% of antidoping proceedings relating to Clostebol involve its detection in Italy. It appears there is
now a recognised issue for Clostebol cases involving Italian athletes. The Player submits
that it cannot be the intention of the TADP or the WADC to disadvantage athletes fromcertain jurisdictions, yet that is the impact upon the Player. It is notable that the Player’s
attention has never been drawn speciﬁcally to the risk to him of Clostebol.
84. The administration of Clostebol must have happened around the time of the Event since
the Player has been tested, on average, once a month over the 12-month period between
April 2023 and March 2024, and none of the previous tests gave rise to any AAF for
Clostebol (or any other Prohibited Substance).
85. The Player asserts that he takes great care and pride in being a clean athlete. He has
adopted caution (fully detailed in his witness statements) when it comes to anti-doping
matters to ensure that any medication or supplement that he might ingest or haveadministered runs as limited a risk as possible of inadvertently giving rise to an anti-doping
issue.
86. The Player submits that he took exceptional care to select and hire team members of thehighest experience and calibre. The ITIA has had the opportunity to interview those teammembers and is aware of their experience and expertise. Unlike many in professional
sport, the Player also took care to ensure that not only were team members selected fortheir professionalism and expertise, but also, they were formally contracted on
professional contracts. Those contracts in turn required them to perform their obligations
to the highest level, which the Player argues included compliance with relevant rules. The
Player asserts that he took his responsibility for his team members exceptionally seriously
and took appropriate steps to ensure high standards were maintained. The two individuals
with principal responsibility for ensuring that the Player did not inadvertently breach the
TADP are Mr Ferrara and Mr Vittur, the Player’s manager, who have responsibility for
differing aspects of the anti-doping framework.
87. The Player submits that in the speciﬁc circumstances relevant to the two AAFs there wasnothing else he could have realistically done, or that the TADP required him to do. He had
asked Mr Naldi how he was treating the cut, received a response which was true at thattime, and therefore raised no concerns. He quite reasonably understood that the matter
was concluded, and that there was no risk to him personally.
88. Clostebol entered the Player’s system inadvertently when, unbeknown to the Player andhis physiotherapist, it transferred from his physiotherapist (who used a spray containing
clostebol to treat a cut on his own finger) to the Player whilst the physiotherapist treatedhim.
89. The issue is that Mr Ferrara and Mr Naldi unfortunately failed to appreciate their own
personal anti-doping responsibilities as an individual subject to the TADP. It appears that
there was a miscommunication between Mr Naldi and Mr Ferrara as a result of which Mr
Naldi did not appreciate that the Spray contained a Prohibited Substance. The Player
acknowledges that he has an obligation to be responsible for his team’s actions, but hehas discharged that responsibility by all of the measures he has taken in carefully selecting
his team members, imposing professional obligations upon them, impressing upon them
the importance of complying with the TADP and ensuring that they have all relevant
information to carry out their role. Having taken those precautions, the Player should not
be held responsible for the mistake of Mr Ferrara and/or Mr Naldi.
90. The Player submits that this view is supported from the well-known CAS case of Maria
Sharapova, CAS 2016/A/4643, Maria Sharapova v ITF which, in turn, followed another
CAS decision CAS 2014/A/3591, Sheikh Hazza Bin Sultan Bin Zayed Al Nahyan v. FEI,
which stated that athletes were not to be considered at Fault for the mistakes of membersof their team, provided they took due care. The CAS panel, in the Sharapova matter,stated that, at paragraph 85:“If, however, an anti-doping rule violation is committed, the objective fact of the third
party’s misdeed is imputed to the athlete, but the sanction remains commensurate withthe athlete’s personal fault or negligence in his/her selection and oversight of such third
party or, alternatively, for his/her own negligence in not having checked or controlled theingestion of the prohibited substance. In other words, the fault to be assessed is not thatwhich is made by the delegate, but the fault made by the athlete in his/her choice. As aresult, as the Respondent put it, a player who delegates his/her anti-doping
responsibilities to another is at fault if he/she chooses an unqualiﬁed person as herdelegate, if he/she fails to instruct him properly or set out clear procedures he/she mustfollow in carrying out his task, and/or if he/she fails to exercise supervision and control
over him/her in the carrying out of the task. The Panel also concurs with such approach”.

91. The Player’s argument is that with respect to the ﬁrst limb his selection and oversight of athird party, Mr Ferrara, who had the requisite expertise and experience is not something
for which he can be at Fault. Mr Ferrara, who holds a degree in pharmaceuticaltechnology/pharmacology, is a leading ﬁtness coach, contracted professionally, whose
duties and responsibilities towards the Player were made clear to him. It is argued thatthe second limb is not relevant given that the Player had no knowledge a Prohibited
Substance was even in his vicinity. It is not the gravity of Mr Ferrara’s mistake that thePlayer is responsible for but his choice in appointing Mr Ferrara in the ﬁrst place and his
supervision of him. In that regard, it is submitted that the Player has clearly acted
appropriately.
92. While the mistake of Mr Ferrara in bringing the Trofodermin Spray into the Player’s vicinity,
was unknown to the Player, it remains the case that he delegated authority to Mr Ferrara
to ensure that such a product did not contain a Prohibited Substance. The Player suggeststhat such a delegation is entirely reasonable in professional sport and again explained in
the CAS reasoning within the Sharapova case.
93. The Player submits that he delegated his anti-doping responsibilities to individuals who
were qualiﬁed for that role with the appropriate information required to discharge it, suchas Mr Ferrara and Mr Vittur. Having acted appropriately, and in accordance with the
Sharapova decision, it is submitted that the Player should not then be responsible for Mr
Ferrara’s actions in the assessment of his Fault. He should not be liable for an inexplicableand out of character mistake by Mr Ferrara.
94. There can be no suggestion that the Player deliberately sought to ingest Clostebol orreceive any performance enhancement from doing so. It is submitted that he hasdischarged his burden, on the balance of probabilities standard, to prove that he did not
act with any intention to have Clostebol inadvertently administered to him. That meansthat the starting point for any period of Ineligibility should now be considered to be twoyears.

95. The Player can have any applicable period of Ineligibility eliminated entirely if he candemonstrate that he bears No Fault or Negligence for the ADRVs. He accepts that TADP
Article 10.5 sets out an exceptional remedy but asserts that his circumstances are clearly
exceptional and more than justify a No Fault or Negligence outcome.
96. The Player has explained how the Clostebol entered his system. He submits that on theagreed facts he did not know or suspect that he had Used or had been administered with
Clostebol. It is further submitted that that there is simply no basis to assert that he shouldhave known or suspected, even with the exercise of utmost caution, that he had Used or
had been administered with Clostebol. There was no reason for the Player to haveperceived any risk in Mr Naldi’s continued regular treatment of him. Further, the Player’s
situation is a unique, or at least a very rare, example of a situation where the athlete inquestion did not consent to the act that ultimately led to their AAFs.
97. The Player relies upon a series of CAS decisions relating to No Fault or Negligence
including:a. CAS 2005/A/847 Hans Knauss v FIS.
b. CAS 2009/A/1926 and 1930 ITF v Richard Gasquet. Mr Gasquet is a professional
tennis player and the Prohibited Substance in question was cocaine.
c. CAS 2019/A/6482 Gabriel da Silva Santos v Fédération Internationale de Natation.
Mr Santos was a professional swimmer and the Prohibited Substance in question
was Clostebol.
d. ITIA v Marco Bortolotti. Mr Bortolotti is a professional tennis player and the Prohibited
Substance in question was again Clostebol.
e. United States Anti-Doping Authority v Katerina Nash – Ms Nash is a professional
cyclist, and the Prohibited Substance was Capromorelin.
98. The provision of TADP Article 10.5 is of no relevance to the Player as it clearly implies
that “the personal physician or trainer” (meaning, in this context, Mr Naldi) is aware thatthey are administering a Prohibited Substance.

99. The Comment to Article 10.5 should be strictly limited to physicians, i.e. medically qualified
doctors, and trainers. Where there is any doubt, it should be construed ‘contra
proferentum’ against the ITIA. The Clostebol was inadvertently entered into the Player’s
system as a result of a treatment and bandaging provided by a physiotherapist and theComment does not apply in such circumstances. Administration cannot include
inadvertent and unrecognised contamination of the Player by Clostebol during a massage
and/or bandaging. Consequently, the Comment should not be used to bar the Player fromrelying upon Article 10.5.
100. The Player also identifies the discrepancy with the “A” versus “a” between the wording of
the WADC Comment (“Administration") and the wording of the TADP definition of “No
Fault and Negligence” (“administration"). This is important as upper-case “Administration”
falls within the extended definition set out in both the WADC and TADP whereas lowercase “a” is the normal everyday meaning. The Player argues that when considering “No
Fault”, it is necessary to apply the everyday meaning (and not the defined term of“Administration”).

H. THE HEARING
101. The hearing took place as a hybrid event with the Tribunal members, the Parties’
representatives, and the secretariat to the Independent Tribunal present within the hearing
room. The witnesses, the translator, and additional Party representatives attended
virtually. Several observers attended in person and remotely.
102. The Parties agreed that the scientific experts’ reports should be admitted into evidence
without formal proof and that their attendance was not required.
103. The Tribunal heard oral evidence from the Player, Messrs Ferrara and Naldi. The ITIA did
not require the Independent Tribunal to hear from any of the other previously tenderedwitnesses. Counsel for each Party were given the opportunity to make oral submissions
to supplement their detailed written submissions together with a short reply.

I. DISCUSSION(a) Factual Issues
104. Whilst the Parties have agreed many of the relevant facts pertaining to the circumstances
surrounding the AAFs, there are a number of factual issues which the Tribunal has beenasked to consider: some requested by the Parties and others essential for the correct
determination of the anti-doping charges against the Player.
105. The first of the issues raised by the Parties was the date upon which Mr Ferrara had
purchased the Trofodermin. It was either 12 or 13 February 2024 and there was adiscrepancy between the accounts given by Mr Ferrara and the available bankstatements. However, the Tribunal considers that given that there is no dispute in relation
to the actual presence of the Trofodermin at the Event, then it is not necessary to resolve
the apparent date discrepancy.
106. The second issue raised by the Parties relates to the location of where Mr Naldi was when
he cut his finger. The Tribunal heard evidence from the Player, Mr Naldi, and Mr Ferrara.
All of them gave evidence that the injury took place within the small room used forphysiotherapy treatment and “warm-ups” in the villa, which was occupied by the Player
and his entourage during the Event. The only contrary evidence provided, was that of Mr
Gius, a friend of the Player who travelled with the team to the Event, and who indicatedthat the injury took place at an entirely different location. The Tribunal, having had thebenefit of hearing oral evidence, considers that each of the witnesses was truthful,remained consistent with the written statements, and did not present any discrepancies
between their version of events. In light of these circumstances, the Tribunal favours their
testimony over that of Mr Gius, who was not called to give oral evidence, and determinesthat Mr Naldi cut his finger in the location described by the Player, and Messrs Ferrara
and Naldi.
107. The third factual dispute identified by the Parties relates to the alleged warning given by
Mr Ferrara to Mr Naldi, in relation to the Trofodermin Spray, the fact that it contained
Clostebol (a Prohibited Substance), and that it should not be applied anywhere near thePlayer. Mr Ferrara, in his evidence, was clear that this warning was given to Mr Naldi,
whereas Mr Naldi stated whilst being cross-examined that he could not remember any

such warning being given. Mr Naldi could also not recollect a request being made to himthat he should only use the Spray in Mr Ferrara’s bathroom, but he did accept that thiswas the only location in which he ever did actually apply the Spray. The Tribunal considers
that, on balance, Mr Ferrara’s version of events is more compelling given that he had aclear recollection of the instructions he communicated versus Mr Naldi’s broad nonrecollection, the fact that Mr Ferrara was extremely experienced in matters of anti-doping,that he himself had pharmaceutical training, and that the accepted use of the Spray solely
in Mr Ferrara’s bathroom was in keeping with the warning provided to Mr Naldi. In addition,
as it was suggested by the Parties, Mr Naldi’s appreciation of what Mr Ferrara said to him
about the Spray may have been adversely affected by the fact that he had arrived later
than the others, may have been jetlagged, and was under some family pressure at thattime. In consequence, the Tribunal determines that Mr Ferrara did provide a warning to
Mr Naldi. The Tribunal also determines that the reason for Mr Ferrara’s warning was outof concern that the Player might come into direct contact with Trofodermin rather than any
possibility of cross-contamination, which he believed could be well avoided.
108. The Tribunal has considered the Player’s attitude and practice in relation to anti-doping
matters. The Tribunal heard evidence from the Player himself, Mr Ferrara and Mr Naldion this issue, together with reviewing the various witness statements and documents
provided by the Parties. The Tribunal has noted in particular that the Player gave evidence
that he took “an extremely cautious approach” to anti-doping matters and that he oftensought advice and confirmation from the members of his support team who were bothexperienced and had an understanding of anti-doping issues. The Tribunal notes thenumerous references to the Player’s anti-doping awareness and good practice within theevidence presented and in the written submissions provided by the Player’s counsel. In
particular, the Player indicated that he had employed Mr Ferrara because of his antidoping experience, including the fact that he had a background in pharmacology. The
Player gave an example of an incident that arose at a recent tournament, in Madrid, Spain,
when he had to reprimand Mr Naldi for failing to “watch the water bottles properly” as hehad been concerned about the risk of interference and that he was sure that Mr Naldi
would not allow this to happen again. Mr Ferrara, in his evidence, confirmed that he hada degree in pharmaceutical technology. He stated that any time the Player had to take a
new medication or product, he would ask what it was for and queried whether it complied

with anti-doping requirements. Mr Naldi, in his evidence, indicated that prior to his
employment by the Player, he had worked as a physiotherapist for a professional
basketball team for six and a half years, prior to that he had worked with a nonprofessional basketball team and in his own physiotherapy clinic. The Tribunal determinesthat the Player had a high level of awareness about anti-doping matters, applied acautious approach, and that in his hiring practices, engaged appropriately experienced
individuals. The Tribunal also finds that Messrs Ferrara and Naldi regularly discussed antidoping issues that arose in respect of their individual roles, that they each knew their
responsibilities and obligations and knew about the World Anti-Doping Agency’s
Prohibited List. The Tribunal also determines that the Player was right to assume his team
to be aware of the anti-doping arrangements.
109. The Tribunal heard evidence from the Player that he questioned Mr Naldi shortly after Mr
Naldi sustained the cut to his finger and the fact he was wearing a bandage. The Player
also asked him whether Mr Naldi was using “anything else”, which was correctly answeredin the negative at that time. Given that Mr Naldi only commenced using the Trofodermin
Spray after this inquiry took place and taking into account all of the relevant documentary
evidence, the Tribunal finds as fact that the Player was unaware that: (a) Mr Ferrara wasin possession of the Trofodermin Spray; (b) Mr Naldi was using the Trofodermin Spray;and (c) there was any anti-doping risk arising from the treatment (i.e. the massage and/or
the bandaging of his feet) he received from Mr Naldi. The Tribunal also finds as fact that:(a) the Player had no reason to suspect Mr Ferrara was in possession of the Trofodermin
Spray, (b) Mr Naldi was using the Trofodermin Spray, or (c) there was any anti-doping risk
arising from the treatment he received from Mr Naldi.
(b) Expert Evidence
110. The Tribunal notes that three independent experts have been consulted to test theplausibility of the Player’s explanation. Two were instructed by the ITIA and one by thePlayer. The Tribunal concludes that none of them has suggested that the Player’s
explanation is not consistent with the scientific analysis. Similarly, there is no suggestionthat the tiny concentration in his system would have had any performance enhancing
effect.

(c) Lex Sportiva Issues
111. The Tribunal must consider a number of key legal issues arising from the TADP and CAS
case law in order to finalise its determination of this matter. It is appropriate to list theseas sub-headings and deal with them individually:a. Was a Prohibited Substance or any of its metabolites or markers found in either thePlayer’s First Sample or Second Sample?
The answer to this question is yes and as such constitutes a violation of TADP Articles
2.1 and 2.2, given that both of these offences are strict liability matters.
b. What is the sanction for breaches of TADP Articles 2.1 and 2.2?
As set out within TADP Articles 10.2.1 and 10.2.2, the benchmark sanction is four
years of Ineligibility unless the Player rebuts the presumption of intentionality. In suchcases, the sanction is reduced to two years of Ineligibility.
c. Was the presence or Use of a Prohibited Substance intentional?
A definition of “intentional” is set out in TADP Article 10.2.3. However, the ITIA haveaccepted that the presence or Use of the Prohibited Substance was not intentional inthis case. The starting point for the sanction to be applied is a period of Ineligibility of
two years.
d. Is the period of ineligibility to be eliminated or further reduced?
This issue, to be determined by the Tribunal, is less straightforward: TADP Article 10.5
provides for the elimination of the period of Ineligibility on the grounds of No Fault or
Negligence. TADP Article 10.6 provides for the reduction of the period of Ineligibilityon the grounds of No Significant Fault or Negligence (this is not analysed further given
the conclusions in respect of TADP Article 10.5, cited above). The term “No Fault or
Negligence” is defined in the TADP Appendix One. It is crucial that the wording is
considered with great care. The key terms of the definition are that the Player mustnot “know or suspect” and “could not reasonably have known or suspected even withthe exercise of utmost caution” that they had “Used or been administered theProhibited Substance”. The Player is also required to prove the origin of the Prohibited
Substance on the balance of probabilities, and in this case the ITIA have accepted
the Player’s explanation i.e. that the Clostebol was transmitted to him from the handsof Mr Naldi during the massage therapy and the bandaging of his feet following theadministration of Clostebol to Mr Naldi’s finger which had previously been cut in an
accident with a scalpel.
112. The Comment to Article 10.5 in the WADC provides at sub-section (b) “the Administrationof a Prohibited Substance by the Athlete’s personal physician or trainer without disclosure
to the Athlete (Athletes are responsible for their choice of medical personnel and foradvising medical personnel that they cannot be given any Prohibited Substance)”. The
Tribunal forms the view that the comment is part of the WADC and that it should be given
a purposive interpretation so as to ensure that Article 10.5 is compliant with the overallaims and objectives of the WADC, as intended by TADP Article 19.2. This results in the
Tribunal considering that the application of the Comment should not be limited to“physician” or “trainer” but rather than the Comment should be interpreted in a way so as
to include any licensed/qualified healthcare or sports professional person providing
medication or supplements to an athlete. The clear intent of the comment is to ensure thatan athlete cannot evade responsibility simply because a Prohibited Substance has been
provided by a trusted medical practitioner or a person in a similar position which may in
the Tribunal’s interpretation include but is not limited to physiotherapists, chiropractors,
pharmacists, and/or nurses. In reaching its conclusions on the analysis of the Comment,
the Tribunal has taken into account the French version of the WADC, which appears toprovide for a wider interpretation of “trainer” than would be the case in English. The
Tribunal would point out that it may be prudent for the anti-doping authorities to review thelanguage used within the Comment in order to ensure that the issues raised by the Partiesare clarified, if necessary.
113. The Tribunal considers that the effect of the Comment to Article 10.5 on its operation does
not otherwise interfere with the clear provisions of TADP Article 10.5 and the mandatory
requirements which an athlete must satisfy in order to avail him- or herself of the relief
from sanction. The reference with the Comment to “Administration” cannot in the view of
the Tribunal encompass the scenario which arose in this case; i.e., the Player wasinadvertently cross-contaminated by the Prohibited Substance during a massage by aphysiotherapist who had used a spray containing Clostebol to treat his own wound ofwhich the Player was not aware and could not have been aware within the factual matrix
presented in evidence.
114. The Tribunal in its review of the substantial CAS (and other) case law provided by theParties makes the general comment that almost all these cases turn upon their own facts
and the relevant tribunals’ assessment of the evidence and analysis in those cases. Whatis important, therefore, is not so much whether there are factual similarities or differences
between those cases and this one, but to find common points of principle and see how
those principles may have been applied in a particular case. To this end the Tribunal
considers the relevant principles in the following cases:
a. In CAS 2017/A/5015 FIS v Johaug, the CAS considered, inter alia, whether the Appellant
could rely upon WADC Article 10.5 in the circumstances of her case to obtain full relief
from sanction. The relevant facts in that case were that the Appellant, a successful andexperienced cross-country skier, suffered a sunburn and as a result obtained medicationfrom her doctor, who was an extremely experienced sports medicine practitioner.
Unfortunately, the athlete administered Trofodermin cream, which contains Clostebol.
She sought assurances from the doctor that it did not contain a Prohibited Substanceand was advised that it did not. However, she did throw away the packaging whichdisplayed a clear anti-doping warning albeit in Italian and did not read the relevant drug
data sheet. The athlete was, therefore, unable to rely upon WADC Article 10.5. Inreaching its conclusion, the CAS found against the Appellant, ruling that a finding of No
Fault applies only in truly exceptional cases and that to avail of this relief, it is necessary
to exercise the “utmost caution” in avoiding doping. An athlete must always take very
rigorous measures to discharge their obligations, given that they always bear personal
responsibility, and the failure of a doctor does not exempt the athlete from their personal
responsibility. The CAS also considered that it was necessary for athletes to cross-checkassurances given by a doctor, even where such a doctor is a sports specialist.
The current case can be distinguished from Johaug given that the substance entered
the Player’s system not by a medication prescribed or provided by a doctor but by wayof cross-contamination during a physiotherapy session.

b. In CAS 2017/A/5301 Errani v ITF, the Appellant was notified that a sample they provided
contained a Prohibited Substance, which was determined to have been caused byingesting medication prescribed to the athlete’s mother, through a meal eaten with herfamily. It transpired that the medication was kept in a box in the kitchen near the place
where the athlete’s mother cooked and that she took a pill every day. The CAS rejected
the appeal. Their decision was based clearly on the relevant facts which included that
there had been a previous occasion when a pill had fallen out of the box, the day-to-day
routine of the athlete’s mother taking her medication, and the storage of the medication
box in the immediate proximity to the place where meals were prepared.
It is clear to the Tribunal that the current case is completely different on the facts and as
indicated above the Tribunal has found that the Player was unaware that his
physiotherapist had access to the Clostebol, that he had administered it to his finger,
and that there was a risk of cross-contamination.
c. In CAS 2009/A/1926 and 1930 ITF –v- Richard Gasquet, the Appellant inadvertently
ingested cocaine through kissing a woman he had met for the first time in an Italianrestaurant. It appears that the woman had been taking cocaine without the Appellant
being aware and that the cocaine passed to him whilst they were kissing through theintermingling of saliva. The Appellant was successful at the CAS, with the panel
determining that he did not fail the “utmost caution” test. He could not have known therisk of ingesting cocaine from kissing someone. The CAS observed that given theparties’ experts took some time to conclude that risk for themselves, the Appellant could
not have known of the risk of ingesting cocaine, even whilst exercising the utmost
caution, from the woman, specifically given that he did not see her taking cocaine, see
her under the influence of cocaine, or know anything about her personal circumstances.
At paragraph 5.32 of the decision, the CAS panel considered whether it could have been
the intention of the WADC or the relevant version of the TADP to seek to sanction an
athlete in circumstances where it was impossible for an athlete to have perceived ananti-doping risk.
It seems to the Tribunal that this decision is similar to the Player’s case at hand.

d. In CAS 2019/A/6489 Gabriel Silva Santos v FINA, the Appellant was a professionalswimmer and the Prohibited Substance in question was Clostebol. The Appellant was
exposed to Clostebol through the use of a product containing Clostebol by a third party
without his knowledge. There was no reason why the Appellant ought to have known
that the product contained the Prohibited Substance, given that the product was not usedin his presence nor stored in a location that he had access to. However, in that appeal,
it was not possible to ascertain the route by which the athlete came into contact with
Clostebol, other than perhaps through the use of common household items. The CAS
panel in this case endorsed the findings in the Gasquet case. It concluded that there wasno reason why the Appellant, even in exercising the utmost care, should have discoveredthat there was Clostebol in his vicinity or that there was a possible risk of him being
exposed to it. The CAS panel considered that it was “an unreasonable and impracticable
expectation” to require the Appellant to ask questions of individuals he was around when
he was exposed to Clostebol to assess any anti-doping risk.
The Tribunal notes the similarities of this case and the approach taken by the CAS panel.
It appears that the foundation of this case is the fact that the Appellant did not know andcould not have known about the possibility of exposure within the facts of the case.
e. In CAS 2013/A/3313 Stroman v FEI, the CAS panel noted that the Appellant could notseek to avoid their duty of utmost caution by delegating anti-doping responsibilities
elsewhere. The panel referred to a consistent theme in CAS jurisprudence on antidoping; that the duty of utmost caution or due diligence is a non-delegable duty. In thiscase, the Appellant was a professional equestrian competitor in show jumping and thematter pertained to the veterinary treatment received by the athlete’s horse. The
Appellant sought to establish that she bore No Significant Fault or Negligence for theanti-doping violation and that the athlete had in effect delegated her anti-doping function
to the veterinarian. However, some additional comments of the CAS panel in Stromanare also incisive in the context of the overall review of the substantial case law referenced
in this case, namely at paragraph 82: “[t]he Panel repeats that in any event it is generally
an unproductive exercise to seek to compare different cases decided at different times
and/or under different rules and/or by different bodies, whose facts are not exactlycomparable to the case under appeal and which do not lay down rules of generalapplication (CF CAS 2013/A/3124 para 12.23).”
f. In CAS 2007/A/1395 WADA v NSAM & Cheah & Ng & Masitah, the panel held that
athletes are responsible for the actions of their entourages in respect of providing themwith substances and it is no excuse for an athlete to contend that another person was
responsible for the presence of a Prohibited Substance in the athlete’s Sample.
However, the facts in this case relate to the Appellant’s eating unwrapped chocolates
given to them by another coach during a shooting competition and the panel concluded
that they did not exercise the greatest vigilance or utmost caution, which is to be
expected of athletes ingesting unwrapped chocolates.
This is clearly distinguished on the facts from the current case and it is useful to note thecontents of paragraph 80 of the decision which restates the law eloquently “[i]n general,
the elimination of the period of suspension is only possible in the case where the athlete
can establish that he/she was unaware, that he/she did not doubt or could not havereasonably known or presumed, even with the greatest vigilance or utmost caution, thathe/she was given a prohibited substance or prohibited method. The burden is therefore
shifted to the athlete to establish that he/she has done all that is possible to avoid apositive testing result (see CAS 2006/A/1133 WADA v/S & Swiss Olympic).”
115. As stated above, it is clear from the analysis of the relevant case law that caution must be
taken in respect to reliance upon previous cases and that only the principles can be takenfrom them, which can then be applied to the specific facts of an individual case. The
Tribunal has already determined that the Player in this case did not know or suspect andcould not reasonably have so known or suspected even with the utmost caution that
Clostebol was present within the premises in which he was staying, that the Player did notknow or suspect that Mr Naldi had used the Clostebol on his finger, and the Player did notknow or suspect that it was possible for a Prohibited Substance to be inadvertently
transferred to him during massage therapy and/or during the bandaging of his feet. Given
that the Tribunal has also concluded that the Player is an individual who exercises
considerable caution in respect of anti-doping matters and that he has taken care inchoosing his support team and ensuring that they understand and respect the various
anti-doping responsibilities, the Tribunal considers that the Player has exercised “utmost

caution” and has done all that is possible to avoid a positive test result. The Tribunal has
no hesitation in overall concluding that the Player can avail himself of the full relief
provided within TADP Article 10.5.

J. CONCLUSIONS
116. The Player has committed two ADRVs, pursuant to TADP Articles 2.1 and 2.2.
117. Based on the specific circumstances and facts relating to this matter, the Tribunal
concludes that the Player bears No Fault or Negligence in relation to the commitment of
the two ADRVs, pursuant to TADP Article 10.5. Consequently, any period of Ineligibility
shall be eliminated.
118. That being determined, as per TADP Article 9.1, given that the Player committed an ADRV
deriving from an In-Competition sample collection, any medals, titles, ranking points andPrize Money obtained during the Event, i.e. the BNP Paribas Open, in Indian Wells, shallbe forfeited.
119. Consequently, given that any period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated, any medals, titles,
ranking points and Prize Money obtained in the events in which the Player competed after
the Event and before the date of this award shall not be Disqualified. These events
include:a. Miami Open presented by Itaú, from 19 to 31 March 2024
b. Rolex Monte-Carlo Masters, from 7 to 14 April 2024
c. Mutua Madrid Open, from 23 April to 5 May 2024
d. Roland Garros, from 26 May to 9 June 2024
e. Terra Wortmann Open, from 17 to 23 June 2024
f. The Championships at Wimbledon, from 1 to 14 July 2024
g. Omnium Banque National présenté par Rogers, from 6 to 12 August 2024

h. Cincinnati Open, from 12 to 19 August 2024.

K. COSTS
120. TADP Article 8.5.4 establishes that this “Independent Tribunal has the power to make acosts order against any party, where it is proportionate to do so. If it does not exercise thatpower, each party will bear its own costs, legal, expert, hearing, and otherwise.” Given theoutcome of this case, the Tribunal makes no costs order and each party will bear its own
costs.

L. RIGHT OF APPEALThis decision may be appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”), located at Palaisde Beaulieu, Avenue des Bergières 10, CH-1004 Lausanne, Switzerland (procedures@tascas.org), in accordance with TADP Article 13.2.1. TADP Article 13.8.1.1 sets the deadline tofile an appeal to the CAS, which is 21 days from the date of receipt of this final decision.

______________________________
Ms Tamara Gaw

London, UK____________________________Mr Benoit Girardin____________________________Dr David Sharpe KC
Chair

19 August 2024
1 Paternoster Lane, St Paul’s London EC4M 7BQ resolve@sportresolutions.com 020 7036 1966
Company no: 03351039 Limited by guarantee in England and WalesSport Resolutions is the trading name of Sports Dispute Resolution Panel Limitedwww.sportresolutions.com