CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

TAS 2022/A/9319 — NADO Italia v. José Luis Palomino

"Palomino" · CAS upheld the acquittal of Atalanta defender Palomino for a Clostebol positive caused by contact with his treated dog, finding no fault or negligence.

What happened in Palomino

José Luis Palomino, a professional footballer for Atalanta Bergamo, tested positive for Clostebol metabolite in an out-of-competition doping control on 5 July 2022 at Ciserano. The substance was traced to the veterinary spray Veterabol, which had been applied to his dog Lollo by a dogsitter (Stefano Falcinelli) while Palomino was on holiday. The dog was returned on 3 July 2022, just two days before the sample collection. The Italian National Anti-Doping Tribunal (TNA) acquitted Palomino on 22 November 2022, finding no fault or negligence under the 'balance of probabilities' standard. NADO Italia appealed to CAS seeking a two-year ban. CAS first confirmed its jurisdiction, holding that Palomino qualified as an 'international-level athlete' under the FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations because he had regularly participated in UEFA competitions across multiple seasons. On the merits, CAS found that the Clostebol entered Palomino's body through contact with the dog, and that even assuming he knew of the dog's treatment, the standard of 'utmost caution' could not reasonably have required him to foresee the contamination risk. The appeal was dismissed and the TNA acquittal confirmed. The case is significant for its analysis of the 'international-level athlete' definition and the burden of pleading in contamination cases.

Procedural history of TAS 2022/A/9319

On 5 July 2022, Palomino underwent an out-of-competition doping control. On 26 July 2022, the Anti-Doping Control Committee reported the presence of Clostebol metabolite (WADA List category S1.1) in sample A; sample B confirmed the result on 11 August 2022. On 20 September 2022, NADO Italia's Procura Nazionale Antidoping (PNA) referred the case to the Tribunale Nazionale Antidoping (TNA), requesting a two-year ban under Articles 2.1, 2.2 and 11.2.2 CSA plus a EUR 3,000 financial sanction. On 7 November 2022, the TNA issued its operative part, with full reasons on 22 November 2022, acquitting Palomino for absence of fault or negligence under Article 4.1 CSA. NADO Italia filed its CAS appeal on 12 December 2022, within the 21-day deadline under Article 18.5.1 CSA and Article R49 of the CAS Code. CAS held a hearing in Lugano on 6 September 2023.

Key holdings in TAS 2022/A/9319

• CAS has jurisdiction over the appeal because Palomino qualifies as an 'international-level athlete' under the FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations, given his regular participation in UEFA competitions across multiple seasons, and the word 'regularly' in the 2021 FIFA definition requires assessment over a period of time rather than at a single moment.
• The TNA's prior characterisation of Palomino as an international-level athlete is not binding on CAS, which conducts a de novo review, and Palomino did not waive his jurisdictional objection by his conduct before the TNA.
• Under the applicable burden of proof (balance of probabilities), the Clostebol entered Palomino's body through contact with his dog Lollo, which had been treated with the veterinary spray Veterabol; NADO Italia's alternative contamination scenarios were insufficiently concrete and specific to constitute valid contestation.
• NADO Italia bore a duty to plead a sufficiently concrete alternative scenario to enable Palomino to respond and adduce counter-evidence; merely hypothesising other possible routes of ingestion without specificity does not discharge that obligation.
• Even assuming Palomino knew of the dog's treatment with Veterabol, the standard of 'utmost caution' required for a finding of no fault or negligence was met, because neither Palomino nor the club's experienced team doctor was aware that a veterinary spray applied to a dog could contaminate a human.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The panel conducted a de novo review. On jurisdiction, it interpreted the word 'regularly' in the 2021 FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations as requiring assessment over a period of time rather than at the precise moment of the violation; Palomino had participated in UEFA competitions in multiple seasons before and after the control, making season-by-season fluctuation of international status problematic. The panel also invoked principles of procedural economy, noting that even if jurisdiction lay with the national appeal court, a further appeal to CAS would be available under Article 18.2.3.2 CSA, making direct CAS jurisdiction more efficient. On the merits, the panel applied Swiss procedural law principles (via Article 182(2) LDIP) on the burden of pleading ('Substantiierungslast'), drawing on CAS 2011/A/2384 & 2386 and Swiss Federal Tribunal jurisprudence. It held that NADO Italia's vague references to Trofodermin or indirect human-to-human contact were insufficiently specific to constitute valid contestation of Palomino's detailed account. The panel accepted the dog-contamination route on the balance of probabilities. On fault, it endorsed the TNA's reasoning and was reinforced by the team doctor Del Vescovo's testimony that even he had been unaware of the possibility of animal-to-human Clostebol transfer before the positive test.

Why Palomino matters in CAS jurisprudence

Palomino is a leading CAS authority on two issues: (1) the interpretation of 'regularly' in the 2021 FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations for determining international-level athlete status, establishing that the assessment spans a period of time rather than a single moment; and (2) the application of Swiss-law pleading burdens ('Substantiierungslast') in contamination cases, requiring anti-doping organisations to plead sufficiently concrete alternative scenarios before an athlete can be required to disprove them. The award also confirms that animal-to-human Clostebol transfer via a treated pet can satisfy the 'no fault or negligence' standard.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2018/A/5853 CAS 2011/A/2384 & 2386 CAS 2017/A/5111 CAS 2019/A/6295 Swiss Federal Tribunal 4A_103/2011 Swiss Federal Tribunal 4A_246/2011

Frequently asked questions about Palomino

Why was Palomino acquitted of the Clostebol doping charge?

The CAS panel found, on the balance of probabilities, that the Clostebol entered Palomino's body through contact with his dog Lollo, which had been treated with the veterinary spray Veterabol by his dogsitter between early June and 3 July 2022. Even assuming Palomino knew of the dog's treatment, the panel held that the standard of 'utmost caution' did not require him to foresee the contamination risk, particularly since even the club's experienced team doctor Del Vescovo was unaware that a veterinary spray applied to a dog could contaminate a human.

How did CAS determine it had jurisdiction over the Palomino case given the dispute about his international-level status?

CAS interpreted the word 'regularly' in the 2021 FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations as requiring assessment over a period of time rather than at the precise moment of the doping control on 5 July 2022. Palomino had participated in UEFA Champions League and Europa League competitions in multiple seasons before and after the control, and the panel found it problematic for international status to fluctuate season by season solely because a club did not qualify for European competition in one particular season. The panel also noted that even if jurisdiction lay with the national appeal court, a further appeal to CAS would be available under Article 18.2.3.2 CSA, making direct CAS jurisdiction more efficient.

What did the Palomino case establish about NADO Italia's burden of proof in contamination cases?

The panel held that NADO Italia was required to plead a sufficiently concrete and specific alternative contamination scenario before Palomino could be expected to disprove it. NADO Italia's vague references to possible use of the dermatological cream Trofodermin or indirect human-to-human contact were held to be insufficiently specific to constitute valid contestation of Palomino's detailed account of dog-to-human transfer. Drawing on CAS 2011/A/2384 & 2386 and Swiss Federal Tribunal jurisprudence on 'Beweisnotstand', the panel applied Swiss procedural law principles via Article 182(2) LDIP.

What sanction did NADO Italia seek against Palomino and what did CAS award?

NADO Italia sought a two-year period of ineligibility under Articles 2.1, 2.2 and 11.2.2 CSA, together with a EUR 3,000 financial sanction and costs. CAS dismissed the appeal in its entirety, confirmed the TNA's acquittal of 22 November 2022, and imposed no sanction on Palomino.

Topics: Doping, ethics & governance at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.