TAS - CAS 2026-A-12149

Palais de Beaulieu Av. Bergières 10 CH-1004 Lausanne Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 www.tas-cas.org CAS 2026/A/12149 Enrico Pellegrini v. International Ski Mountaineering Federation & International Testing Agency ARBITRAL AWARD delivered by the

COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

sitting in the following composition:

President: Ms. Marianne Saroli, Attorney-at-Law in Montreal, Canada

Arbitrators: Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, Attorney-at-Law in Milan, Italy

Mr. Alexander McLin, Attorney-at-Law in Lausanne, Switzerland

in the arbitration between Enrico Pellegrini, Italy Represented by Ms. Veena Swarna Ravoori and Mr. Filippo Apolloni, Attorneys-at-Law in Padova, Italy Appellant v. International Ski Mountaineering Federation, Switzerland Represented by Mrs. Dominique Leroux -Lacroix, Mrs. Charlotte Frey and Mr. Anton Sotir of the International Testing Agency in Lausanne, Switzerland and International Testing Agency, Switzerland Represented by Mrs. Dominique Leroux -Lacroix, Mrs. Charlotte Frey and Mr. Anton Sotir, Lausanne, Switzerland RespondentsCAS 2026/A/12149 – Page 2

I. PARTIES

1. Mr. Enrico Pellegrini (the “Athlete” or the “Appellant”) is an Italian ski -mountaineering athlete born on 13 March 2006. He is affiliated with the Federazione Italiana Sport Invernali

(the “FISI”), the Italian national federation for winter sports. The Athlete has competed in the youth category since 2023, taking part between 2023 and 2025 in International Ski Mountaineering Federation (the “ISMF”) competitions, including ISMF Youth World Cups and European Championships, where he finished on several occasions on the podium. During

youth category since 2023, taking part between 2023 and 2025 in International Ski Mountaineering Federation (the “ISMF”) competitions, including ISMF Youth World Cups and European Championships, where he finished on several occasions on the podium. During the 2024 season, he finished first in the overall World Cup ranking in the U18 category. He was included in the ISMF Registered Testing Pool (“RTP”) on 11 June 2024.

2. The ISMF (or the “First Respondent”) is the world governing body for the sport of skimountaineering, with its seat in Lausanne, Switzerland. As a signatory to the World AntiDoping Code (“WADC”), the ISMF has adopted its own anti -doping rules, the ISMF AntiDoping Rules (“ISMF ADR”). The ISMF has delegated the implementation of its anti-doping programme, including the results management and the prosecution of anti -doping rule violations (“ADRVs”), to the International Testing Agency (the “ITA”).

3. The ITA (or the “Second Respondent ”) was named as a respondent by the Athlete in his Statement of Appeal. It is a foundation under Swiss law, with its seat in Lausanne, Switzerland. The ITA objected to its inclusion as a respondent, an objection which the Panel addresses below.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

4. Below is a summary of the relevant facts and allegations based on the Parties ’ written submissions, pleadings and evidence adduced at the hearing. Additional facts and allegations found in the Parties ’ written submissions, pleadings and evidence may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the legal discussion that follows. While the Panel has considered all the facts, allegations, legal arguments and evidence submitted by the Parties in the present proceedings, it refers in its Award only to the submissions and evidence it considers necessary to explain its reasoning.

A. Background facts

5. On 25 and 26 January 2025, the Athlete participated in the ISMF Youth World Cup held in

proceedings, it refers in its Award only to the submissions and evidence it considers necessary to explain its reasoning.

A. Background facts

5. On 25 and 26 January 2025, the Athlete participated in the ISMF Youth World Cup held in Forni di Sopra, Udine, Italy (the “Event”). He competed in the sprint race on 25 January 2025 and in the relay race on 26 January 2025. At the beginning of the 2025 sea son, the Athlete had moved from the U18 to the U20 category and, according to his explanations, this transition required him to use a more rigid model of ski boots.

6. During the Event, the Athlete states that he developed blisters and bruising on both heels, in the area of the Achilles tendons. According to the Athlete, on 25 January 2025, the team physiotherapist, Ms. Camilla Cona, treated the injuries by draining the blisters, disinfecting the affected areas, and applying bandages and plasters. The Athlete further states that, at the conclusion of the Event on 26 January 2025, Ms. Cona observed that the injuries had worsened. It is undisputed that no qualified doctor was present at the Event.CAS 2026/A/12149 – Page 3

7. Following the Event, the Athlete claims that a cream marketed under the name Trofodermin was purchased on the evening of 26 January 2025 at Farmacia Dr. Dal Zotto in Cogollo del Cengio (the “Pharmacy”) and was subsequently applied to treat those injuries. The circumstances surrounding the purchase and application of Trofodermin, including the dates on which these events occurred and the extent of the Athlete’s knowledge and involvement, are disputed between the Parties. Trofodermin is a topical cream available over the counter in Italy without a medical prescription. Its active ingredient is clostebol. The packaging bears a red “DOPING” warning, and clostebol is identified as an active ingredient on both the outer

are disputed between the Parties. Trofodermin is a topical cream available over the counter in Italy without a medical prescription. Its active ingredient is clostebol. The packaging bears a red “DOPING” warning, and clostebol is identified as an active ingredient on both the outer packaging and the tube. The package leaflet, written in Italian, states: “For those involved in sport: the use of this medication without a legitimate medical reason constitutes doping and may result in a positive result in anti-doping tests.”

8. On 28 January 2025, the Athlete was selected for an out-of-competition doping control at his home in Cogollo del Cengio, Italy, under the testing and results management authority of the ISMF. The Athlete provided urine samples A and B, bearing code number 1442264. The doping control form ( “DCF”) records that “Trofodermin cream” had been used during the seven days preceding sample collection, with the date of last use recorded as 27 January 2025.

9. The Athlete ’s samples were subsequently transferred to the World Anti -Doping Agency (“WADA”)-accredited laboratory in Ghent, Belgium (the “Ghent Laboratory”).

10. On 18 February 2025, the Ghent Laboratory reported an adverse analytical finding (“AAF”) for the presence of clostebol metabolite 4-Chloro-3α-hydroxy-androst-4-en-17-one in sample A-1442264, at an estimated concentration of 0.5924 ng/mL. Clostebol is a non -specified substance listed under class S1.1 (Anabolic Androgenic Steroids) of the 2025 WADA Prohibited List, and is prohibited at all times.

11. Upon receipt of the AAF, the ITA conducted an initial review pursuant to Article 7 of the ISMF ADR. It confirmed that the Athlete had neither been granted nor had a pending therapeutic use exemption ( “TUE”) for clostebol. The review further found no apparent

11. Upon receipt of the AAF, the ITA conducted an initial review pursuant to Article 7 of the ISMF ADR. It confirmed that the Athlete had neither been granted nor had a pending therapeutic use exemption ( “TUE”) for clostebol. The review further found no apparent departure from the International Standard for Testing and Investigations ( “ISTI”) or the International Standard for Laboratories ( “ISL”) that could reasonably have caused the AAF or otherwise undermined its validity.

B. The charge

12. On 26 February 2025, the ITA, acting on behalf of the ISMF, notified the Athlete of the AAF, informed him of his rights under the ISMF ADR, and imposed a mandatory provisional suspension with immediate effect pursuant to Article 7.4.1 of the ISMF ADR. The Athlete was also invited to submit his written explanations.

13. On 28 February 2025, through his legal representatives, the Athlete confirmed that he did not challenge the AAF, expressly waived his right to the opening and analysis of the B -sample, and requested a copy of the A-sample laboratory documentation package (the “LDP”).

14. On 10 March 2025, the ITA provided the Athlete with the A -sample LDP and set 17 March 2025 as the deadline for the submission of his written explanations regarding the AAF.CAS 2026/A/12149 – Page 4

15. On 17 March 2025, the Athlete submitted his written explanations, attributing the AAF to a single topical application of Trofodermin on the evening of 26 January 2025. In support thereof, the Athlete submitted, inter alia, a statement from his father, Mr. Paolo Pellegrini

(the “Father”); a statement from Ms. Cona; a statement from a teammate; a statement from the pharmacist; photographs of the injuries; the purchase receipt for Trofodermin dated 26 January 2025; a toxicologi cal opinion from Professor Donata Favretto; and a certificate

(the “Father”); a statement from Ms. Cona; a statement from a teammate; a statement from the pharmacist; photographs of the injuries; the purchase receipt for Trofodermin dated 26 January 2025; a toxicologi cal opinion from Professor Donata Favretto; and a certificate confirming his participation in a WADA anti-doping education course.

16. On 21 May 2025, at the ITA’s request, the Athlete provided photographs of the Trofodermin and its packaging.

17. On 6 October 2025, the ITA, acting on behalf of the ISMF, issued a notice of charge alleging an ADRV under Articles 2.1 and/or 2.2 of the ISMF ADR. The Athlete was offered the possibility either to admit the ADRV and accept a reduced period of ineligibility of three years pursuant to Article 10.8.1 of the ISMF ADR, or to submit further explanations in support of a greater reduction. The Athlete was informed that a failure to respond within 20 days would be treated as an acceptance of the consequences and a waiver of his right to a hearing, and that a decision imposing a four-year period of ineligibility, together with the disqualification of results, would then be issued pursuant to Article 8.3.3 of the ISMF ADR without further notice.

18. On 25 October 2025, the Athlete, through his legal representatives, responded to the notice of charge, maintaining that the AAF resulted from a single topical application of Trofodermin and submitting further evidence, including statements confirming that no doctor had been present at the Event and a document from the national federation confirming that no doctor had been summoned.

19. On 3 November 2025, the ITA, acting on behalf of the ISMF, asserted that the Athlete had failed to establish that the ADRV was not intentional and that a four -year period of ineligibility was therefore applicable from the date of the provisional suspension. The Athlete was granted until 10 November 2025 either to accept the consequences or to refuse them and

failed to establish that the ADRV was not intentional and that a four -year period of ineligibility was therefore applicable from the date of the provisional suspension. The Athlete was granted until 10 November 2025 either to accept the consequences or to refuse them and have the matter referred to the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (the “CAS ADD”). The Athlete did not respond within that deadline.

20. On 17 November 2025, the Athlete was granted a final deadline of 24 November 2025, warning that a failure to respond would result in the issuance of a sanctioning decision under Article 8.3.3 of the ISMF ADR without further notice. The Athlete did not respond, and did not request referral of the matter to the CAS ADD.

C. The Appealed Decision

21. On 9 January 2026, in the absence of any response from the Athlete and without a firstinstance hearing, the ITA, acting on behalf of the ISMF, issued a decision pursuant to Article 8.3.3 of the ISMF ADR (the “Appealed Decision”).

22. The Appealed Decision found that the Athlete had committed an ADRV under Article 2.1 and/or Article 2.2 of the ISMF ADR, determined that the violation was intentional within the meaning of Article 10.2.3 of the ISMF ADR, and imposed a period of ineligibili ty of four years running from 26 February 2025, the date of the provisional suspension, until 25CAS 2026/A/12149 – Page 5

February 2029. It further ordered the disqualification of all competitive results obtained by the Athlete between 28 January 2025 and 26 February 2025, with forfeiture of all related medals, points and prizes. The Appealed Decision recorded that the Athlet e had no prior ADRV and had, so far, respected the terms of his provisional suspension.

23. It is against the Appealed Decision that the Athlete has filed the present Appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”).

medals, points and prizes. The Appealed Decision recorded that the Athlet e had no prior ADRV and had, so far, respected the terms of his provisional suspension.

23. It is against the Appealed Decision that the Athlete has filed the present Appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”).

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

24. On 29 January 2026, the Athlete filed a Statement of Appeal with the CAS against the ISMF, the ITA and WADA in respect to the Appealed Decision, pursuant to Articles 47 and 48 of the CAS Code of Sports -related Arbitration (the “Code”). In his Statement of Appeal, the Athlete nominated Professor Luigi Fumagalli, Attorney-at-Law in Milan, Italy , as arbitrator in this matter. He also requested an extension of 10 days to file his Appeal Brief.

25. On 30 January 2026, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the Statement of Appeal filed on 29 January 2026. In the same correspondence, it invited, inter alia, the ISMF, the ITA and WADA to jointly nominate an arbitrator within 10 days. It further granted, on behalf of the CAS Director General, a 10-day extension to the Athlete to file his Appeal Brief, pursuant to Article R32(2) of the Code.

26. On 4 February 2026, WADA submitted correspondence asserting that it manifestly lacked standing to be sued by the Athlete and requesting its removal from the proceedings. In the same correspondence, WADA also requested that the time limit for the ISMF, the ITA and WADA to jointly nominate an arbitrator be suspended pending a determination of its request for removal from the proceedings.

27. On the same date, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of WADA ’s request to be removed from the proceedings and invited the Athlete to submit his position by 9 February

2026.

28. On 9 February 2026, the Athlete confirmed that he did not oppose WADA ’s request and

27. On the same date, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of WADA ’s request to be removed from the proceedings and invited the Athlete to submit his position by 9 February

2026.

28. On 9 February 2026, the Athlete confirmed that he did not oppose WADA ’s request and accordingly withdrew WADA as a respondent in these proceedings.

29. On the same date, the ISMF informed the CAS Court Office that it would be represented in these proceedings by the ITA, specifying that the ITA acts as its delegated third party pursuant to the WADC and the ISMF ADR. It further clarified that, as a result, the ITA is neither a separate party to, nor does it have independent standing in, the present proceedings.

30. On 10 February 2026, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the Athlete ’s position regarding WADA’s request and confirmed that WADA had been removed as a respondent from the proceedings. It further noted the ISMF ’s statement that the ITA does not have independent standing in these proceedings and invited the Athlete to submit his position on this issue by 16 February 2026.

31. On 16 February 2026, the Athlete informed the CAS Court Office that he had taken note of the ISMF’s position on the ITA’s status as a respondent in this Appeal . However, in light ofCAS 2026/A/12149 – Page 6

the imminent expiry of the deadline to file his Appeal Brief on 18 February 2026, he requested an extension of time to submit his position on this issue.

32. On the same date, the CAS Court Office, on behalf of the CAS Director General, granted the Athlete’s request for an extension pursuant to Article R32(2) of the Code. It further informed the Parties that the time limit for the Respondents to jointly nominate an arbitrator remained suspended. In the absence of any timely objection, it also confirmed that English would be the language of the proceedings pursuant to Article R29 of the Code.

the Parties that the time limit for the Respondents to jointly nominate an arbitrator remained suspended. In the absence of any timely objection, it also confirmed that English would be the language of the proceedings pursuant to Article R29 of the Code.

33. On 18 February 2026, the Athlete filed his Appeal Brief in accordance with Article R51 of the Code. He also separately set out his position with respect to the ITA ’s status as a

respondent in this Appeal as follows: “[…] a. The Doping Test was conducted by ITA; b. The Results Management and the Initial Review of the ADRV was determined by ITA; c. The provisional suspension was imposed by ITA; d. All communications and notifications were sent and signed by from ITA; e. ITA played an active and decisive role during the first instance proceedings and now before CAS; f. the Appealed Decision was issued and signed by ITA; and g. ITA continues to represent ISMF Thus, the Appellant has correctly included ITA as a Respondent, considering it was the decision-making body that issued the Appealed Decision. Under these circumstances, the Appellant considers it appropriate to maintain both entities as Respondents. We remain at the disposal of the CAS to indicate the appropriate way forward in this matter.”

34. On 20 February 2026, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the Appeal Brief filed by the Athlete on 18 February 2026 and took note of his position regarding the ITA ’s status as a respondent in this Appeal. It further informed the Parties that the issue of the ITA’s status would be determined by the Panel once constituted and that the time limit for the Respondents to jointly nominate an arbitrator was no longer suspended. The Respondents were also invited to file their Answer within 20 days.

35. On 27 February 2026 , the ITA nominated, on behalf of the ISMF, Mr. Alexander McLin , Attorney-at-Law in Lausanne, Switzerland, as an arbitrator in this matter.

to file their Answer within 20 days.

35. On 27 February 2026 , the ITA nominated, on behalf of the ISMF, Mr. Alexander McLin , Attorney-at-Law in Lausanne, Switzerland, as an arbitrator in this matter.

36. On 9 March 2026, the ITA requested, on behalf of the ISMF, a 10 -day extension of the time limit to file its Answer. On 10 March 2026, the CAS Court Office, on behalf of the CAS Director General, granted this request pursuant to Article R32(2) of the Code.CAS 2026/A/12149 – Page 7

37. On 23 March 2026, the ITA filed , on behalf of the ISMF, an Answer in accordance with Article R55 of the Code. In a separate submission, the ITA contended that it had been incorrectly designated as a respondent in these proceedings, for the following reasons: “- CAS has jurisdiction only vis -à-vis the ISMF under Article R47 of the CAS Code. The Athlete has not provided, and indeed cannot provide, “a copy of the provisions of the statutes or regulations or the specific agreement providing for appeal to CAS” that would allow an appeal to CAS against the ITA, as no such basis exists. - Furthermore, the ITA has no standing in these proceedings. It acted exclusively in an operational capacity as a Delegated Third Party on behalf of the ISMF during Results Management and therefore cannot be the subject of appeal proceedings in its own right.

Consequently, we respectfully request that the Panel rule that CAS has no jurisdiction to hear the Athlete’s appeal against the ITA and, in any event, that the ITA lacks standing to be sued.”

38. On 24 March 2026, the Parties were informed, pursuant to Article R56(1) of the Code, that, following the submission of the Appeal Brief and the Answer, they could no longer supplement or amend their requests, introduce new arguments, or submit additional evidence, unless otherwise agreed by them or ordered by the President of the Panel in exceptional

following the submission of the Appeal Brief and the Answer, they could no longer supplement or amend their requests, introduce new arguments, or submit additional evidence, unless otherwise agreed by them or ordered by the President of the Panel in exceptional circumstances. The Parties were further invited to inform the CAS Court Office by 31 March 2026 whether they preferred a hearing to be held or for the Panel to render an award based solely on the wri tten submissions. Within the same time limit, they were also invited to indicate whether they requested a case management conference. Finally, pursuant to Article R54 of the Code, the Parties were informed of the composition of the Panel, as follows:

President: Ms. Marianne Saroli, Attorney-at-Law in Montreal, Canada

Arbitrators: Professor Luigi Fumagalli, Attorney-at-Law in Milan, Italy

Mr. Alexander McLin, Attorney-at-Law in Lausanne, Switzerland

39. On 1 April 2026, the CAS Court Office acknowledged the Parties’ preference for a hearing in this matter and noted that the ITA, acting on behalf of the ISMF, had not requested a case management conference at that stage.

40. On 30 April 2026, the CAS Court Office, on behalf of the Panel, informed the Parties that a hearing would be held on 11 May 2026 by videoconference.

41. On 8 May 2026, the Parties signed and returned their respective Orders of Procedure in this

Appeal.

42. On 11 May 2026, a hearing took place by videoconference . The Panel was assisted by Ms. Amelia Moore, Counsel to the CAS, and joined by the following:

For the Athlete:

• Ms. Veena Swarna Ravoori, Attorney • Mr. Filippo Apolloni, Attorney • Mr. Alessio Bertoncello, Trainee attorneyCAS 2026/A/12149 – Page 8

• Mr. Enrico Pellegrini, Appellant
• Mr. Paolo Pellegrini, Witness
• Ms. Ermelinda Rendano, Witness

• Mr. Alessio Bertoncello, Trainee attorneyCAS 2026/A/12149 – Page 8

• Mr. Enrico Pellegrini, Appellant
• Mr. Paolo Pellegrini, Witness
• Ms. Ermelinda Rendano, Witness
• Dr. Eber Dal Zotto, Witness
• Ms. Camilla Cona, Witness
• Ms. Martina Scola, Witness
• Mr. Luca Curioni, Witness
• Mr. Daniele Cappelletti, Witness
• Mr. Mirco Bertolina, Witness
• Mr. Umberto Ferrazza, Witness
• Ms. Roberta Fiscon, Interpreter

For ISMF:

• Ms. Charlotte Frey, Counsel for the ISMF • Mr. Anton Sotir, Counsel for the ISMF
• Mr. Cristian Moldovan, Legal intern
• Mr. Lucas Nanchen, ISMF representative

43. At the outset of the hearing, the Parties confirmed that they had no objection to the constitution of the Panel and the way the proceedings had been conducted thus far . At the conclusion of the hearing, the Parties confirmed that their right to be heard had been fully respected.

IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. The Athlete

44. In his Appeal Brief, the Athlete sought the following relief: “As a Preliminary Claim: ➢ to admit this Appeal along with its exhibits/annexes; On the Merits, as the Primary Claim: ➢ to set aside, in whole or in part, the Appealed Decision passed on 9 January 2026 by the International Testing Agency, on behalf of the International Ski Mountaineering Federation; ➢ to find that the alleged Anti-Doping Rule Violation was not intentional within the meaning of Article 10.2.3 of the ISMF Anti-Doping Rules; ➢ to find that the Appellant bore No Fault or Negligence and accordingly eliminate the period of Ineligibility pursuant to Article 10.5 of the ISMF Anti-Doping Rules;

Article 10.2.3 of the ISMF Anti-Doping Rules; ➢ to find that the Appellant bore No Fault or Negligence and accordingly eliminate the period of Ineligibility pursuant to Article 10.5 of the ISMF Anti-Doping Rules; On the Merits, in the Alternative: ➢ to find that the Appellant bore No Significant Fault or Negligence within the meaning of Article 10.6 of the ISMF Anti -Doping Rules and accordingly to reduce the period of Ineligibility to a period significantly below 2 years (as requested within 12-18 months);CAS 2026/A/12149 – Page 9

➢ additionally, and/or in the alternative, consider the application of Article 10.7 of the ISMF Anti-Doping Rules, allowing for the elimination, reduction, or suspension of the period of Ineligibility or other consequences for reasons other than fault, in li ght of the exceptional circumstances of the present case; In any event: ➢ to order that any reduced period of Ineligibility be credited with the period already served and that the disqualification of results and related consequences be adjusted accordingly; ➢ to order the Respondents to contribute to the Appellant ’s legal and other expenses incurred in connection with these proceedings; ➢ to grant any further relief deemed appropriate given the circumstances of the present matter.”

45. The Athlete’s submissions, in essence, may be summarised as follows:

a. The ITA as a respondent - The Athlete submits that the ITA was properly designated as a respondent because it conducted the doping control process, carried out the results management, imposed the provisional suspension, issued the relevant correspondence and notifications, and sign ed the Appealed Decision. In the Athlete ’s view, the ITA exercised the relevant decision -making functions in the first-instance proceedings and was therefore properly joined as a respondent in this Appeal. b. Establishment of the ADRV - The Athlete accepts that clostebol was detected in his sample and that an ADRV under

functions in the first-instance proceedings and was therefore properly joined as a respondent in this Appeal. b. Establishment of the ADRV - The Athlete accepts that clostebol was detected in his sample and that an ADRV under Articles 2.1 and/or 2.2 of the ISMF ADR is established. His Appeal is directed solely at the characterisation of the ADRV as intentional and the consequences imposed by the Appealed

Decision.

c. Applicable consequences

1. Period of ineligibility

(a) Source of clostebol in the Athlete’s system - The Athlete submits that the injuries to his heels were caused by the ski boots he was required to use after moving from the U18 to the U20 category at the beginning of the 2025 season. According to the Athlete, the transition required him to replace his plastic ski boots with fully carbon boots, which were more rigid and could not be moulded to the shape of his feet. - The Athlete contends that, during the first day of the Event on 25 January 2025, the new boots caused severe blisters and bruising in the area of his Achilles tendons. The injuries were treated by the team physiotherapist, Ms. Cona, on the same day. Howeve r, after competing again on the second day of the Event, the injuries deteriorated. The Athlete submits that he nevertheless continued competing because he had been encouraged to do so by his coachesCAS 2026/A/12149 – Page 10

and because withdrawing would have prevented his teammates from participating in the relay race. - The Athlete alleges that, upon returning home on the evening of 26 January 2025, he was experiencing considerable pain, with swollen ankles and wounds that appeared to be at risk of infection. According to the Athlete, his Father, concerned by the conditio n of the injuries, disinfected the wounds, photographed them and, after locating a pharmacy that was still open at that hour, went to the Pharmacy, showed the photographs to the pharmacist and requested

of infection. According to the Athlete, his Father, concerned by the conditio n of the injuries, disinfected the wounds, photographed them and, after locating a pharmacy that was still open at that hour, went to the Pharmacy, showed the photographs to the pharmacist and requested an effective treatment. The pharmacist , Dr. Eber Dal Zotto , recommended Trofodermin, which the Father purchased over the counter and brought home. - The Athlete further submits that his Father applied the Trofodermin to his heels without telling him beforehand what product was being used, without showing him the product and without obtaining his express consent. The Athlete claims that he was lying fac e down on a bed with the injured area exposed and, due to the location of the injuries, was unable to see either the product or its packaging. He therefore maintains that he was unaware of the identity of the product or its active ingredients. The Athlete further submits that the Trofodermin was applied on a single occasion only. - He also submits that he attended school on 27 January 2025 with his ankles bandaged and that, during the doping control on 28 January 2025, the use of Trofodermin was voluntarily disclosed on the DCF. While acknowledging that the DCF records the date of last use as 27 January 2025, the Athlete contends that this entry resulted from an error by the doping control officer ( “DCO”). He maintains that the sole application of Trofodermin occurred on the evening of 26 January 2025. (b) The absence of intent - The Athlete submits that his ADRV was not intentional within the meaning of Article 10.2.3 of the ISMF ADR. He contends that Article 10.2.3 applies only where an athlete knew that his conduct constituted an ADRV or knew that there was a significant risk that it might do so and manifestly disregarded that risk. Relying on CAS 2016/A/4643 Maria Sharapova v. ITF, he argues that what matters is his actual knowledge, not what he ought to have known.

his conduct constituted an ADRV or knew that there was a significant risk that it might do so and manifestly disregarded that risk. Relying on CAS 2016/A/4643 Maria S