CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

TAS 2025/A/11412 — Tommaso Elettrico v. NADO Italia

"Elettrico" · CAS declared inadmissible a national-level cyclist's direct appeal against a TNA doping ban for failure to exhaust internal remedies.

What happened in Elettrico

Tommaso Elettrico, an Italian cyclist born 19 September 1987 and registered in NADO Italia's national Registered Testing Pool (RTP) since 17 February 2022, was found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation under Art. 2.2 of the Codice Sportivo Antidoping (CSA) based on an Adverse Passport Finding (APF) from his Athlete Biological Passport. The ABP Expert Group unanimously analysed fourteen blood samples collected between 2022 and 2024 and concluded it was highly probable that Elettrico had used a prohibited substance or method. The Tribunale Nazionale Antidoping (TNA) imposed a four-year ban, a EUR 2,500 accessory financial sanction, and EUR 500 in costs on 13 March 2025. Rather than appealing to the Corte Nazionale d'Appello Antidoping (CNAA) as required for national-level athletes under Art. 18.2.2 CSA, Elettrico appealed directly to CAS, claiming international-athlete status. The Sole Arbitrator held that Elettrico was a national-level athlete — he was in the national RTP, had previously described himself as a recreational/national athlete in parallel CAS proceedings (TAS 2024/A/11046), and no international federation had recognised him as an international-level athlete. Because Art. R47 of the CAS Code requires exhaustion of all available internal remedies before a CAS appeal, and Elettrico had not appealed to the CNAA, the appeal was declared inadmissible. The case matters as a clear application of the exhaustion-of-remedies gateway and the estoppel-like principle against contradictory procedural positions.

Procedural history of TAS 2025/A/11412

On 11 November 2024 NADO Italia's APMU registered an Adverse Passport Finding (BPID: BP43FEP8) against Elettrico. The Procura Nazionale Antidoping (PNA) formally charged him on 25 November 2024 with violating Art. 2.2 CSA and referred him to the TNA on 13 December 2024, seeking a four-year ban, EUR 2,500 financial sanction, forfeiture of results 2022–2024, and costs. After a hearing on 13 March 2025, the TNA found the violation proved under Arts. 2.2 and 11.2.1 CSA, imposed a four-year ban (initially running from 11 July 2028 to 10 July 2032), EUR 2,500 financial sanction, and EUR 500 costs. The reasoned decision was notified on 16 April 2025. Instead of appealing to the CNAA (the mandatory second-instance body for national-level athletes), Elettrico filed a Statement of Appeal directly with CAS on 7 May 2025. NADO Italia raised a preliminary objection of inadmissibility and lack of CAS jurisdiction, arguing Elettrico had not exhausted internal remedies. The Sole Arbitrator declined to bifurcate the procedure but addressed jurisdiction at the hearing held by video-conference on 18 March 2026.

Key holdings in TAS 2025/A/11412

• An athlete registered in NADO Italia's national RTP is a 'national-level athlete' under the CSA definition, regardless of past international competition results.
• An athlete who previously described himself as recreational/national in parallel proceedings (TAS 2024/A/11046) cannot credibly claim international-level status in subsequent proceedings covering the same period, as this constitutes a venire contra factum proprium.
• Art. R47 of the CAS Code requires an appellant to have exhausted all available internal remedies before CAS can accept jurisdiction; a direct appeal to CAS bypassing the mandatory CNAA second-instance body renders the appeal inadmissible.
• Whether the failure to exhaust internal remedies is characterised as inadmissibility or lack of jurisdiction, the practical result is identical — CAS does not examine the merits — and both characterisations are defensible under CAS jurisprudence.
• The purpose of the national/international athlete distinction is to concentrate CAS jurisdiction over athletes for whom uniform international jurisdiction is particularly important due to the international nature of their sport.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first determined Elettrico's status as a threshold factual question. The CSA expressly defines a 'national-level athlete' as one inserted in the national RTP, and Elettrico had been in that pool since 17 February 2022. His claim to international status rested on winning the UCI Gran Fondo World Championship in 2018 and participating in international races, but the CSA definition of 'international-level athlete' requires recognition by the relevant international federation under the International Standard for Testing and Investigations — recognition that was entirely absent. The Arbitrator also applied an estoppel-type analysis: in the parallel proceedings TAS 2024/A/11046 (covering a similar period), Elettrico had described himself as a recreational/national cyclist before the TNA, CNAA, and CAS. Switching to 'international athlete' in the present case, without any evidence of a change in sporting status, was contradictory and driven by procedural convenience. Having established national-level status, the Arbitrator applied Art. 18.2.2 CSA (mandatory CNAA appeal for national athletes) and Art. R47 CAS Code (exhaustion of internal remedies). Elettrico had not appealed to the CNAA, so the condition was unmet. The Arbitrator rejected any argument that the CNAA remedy was extraordinary or illusory, noting Elettrico had in fact used the CNAA in the parallel case. Citing Swiss Federal Tribunal decisions and CAS precedents, the Arbitrator declared the appeal inadmissible.

Why Elettrico matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces the strict application of the exhaustion-of-internal-remedies requirement under Art. R47 of the CAS Code in the Italian anti-doping context, confirming that national-level athletes must appeal to the CNAA before accessing CAS. It also illustrates how CAS panels apply an estoppel-type principle when an athlete adopts contradictory procedural positions across related proceedings, and confirms that both 'inadmissibility' and 'lack of jurisdiction' are defensible characterisations when the exhaustion condition is unmet.

Cases cited in this award

TAS 2024/A/11046 (Elettrico v. CNAA — parallel evasion-of-control case) TAS 2022/A/9319 CAS 2002/A/409, Longo v. IAAF CAS 2011/A/2670, Masar Omeragik v. MFF CAS 2019/A/6677, Markus Kattner v. FIFA CAS 2019/A/6298, Manchester City FC v. UEFA

Frequently asked questions about Elettrico

Why was Elettrico's CAS appeal thrown out without a decision on the doping merits?

The Sole Arbitrator found that Elettrico was a national-level athlete under the CSA because he was registered in NADO Italia's national RTP since 17 February 2022. Under Art. 18.2.2 CSA and Art. R47 of the CAS Code, national-level athletes must first appeal to the CNAA before going to CAS. Elettrico skipped the CNAA entirely, so the appeal was declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust internal remedies.

Can Elettrico still challenge his four-year ban after the CAS inadmissibility ruling?

The award does not close the door permanently on the merits: it finds the CAS appeal premature, not that the ban is definitively confirmed. Elettrico could potentially still appeal to the CNAA, which is the mandatory second-instance body under Art. 18.2.2 CSA, subject to any applicable time limits under Italian anti-doping rules.

How did Elettrico's position in the parallel TAS 2024/A/11046 case affect the jurisdiction ruling here?

In TAS 2024/A/11046 (concerning an Art. 2.3 CSA evasion charge covering a similar period), Elettrico had described himself as a recreational/national cyclist before the TNA, CNAA, and CAS. The Sole Arbitrator in the present case found this prior self-characterisation contradicted his new claim to international-athlete status, applying a venire contra factum proprium analysis and concluding the status change was driven purely by procedural convenience.

What was the original TNA sanction in the Elettrico ABP case?

The TNA decision of 13 March 2025 (notified 16 April 2025) imposed a four-year ban initially running from 11 July 2028 to 10 July 2032, a EUR 2,500 accessory financial sanction, and EUR 500 in costs. Following the annulment of the parallel ban in TAS 2024/A/11046, a presidential order of 19 December 2025 realigned the ban to run from 11 July 2024 to 10 July 2028.

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.