Skip to main content
International Arbitration Forum

Mariano Tammaro v. International Tennis Federation (ITF)

Case summary

At a glance

Parties
Mariano Tammaro (Italian tennis player) v. International Tennis Federation (ITF)
Case no.
CAS 2022/A/9141
Forum and rules
Court of Arbitration for Sport, Appeals Arbitration Division; CAS Code; hearing in Lausanne
Treaty
Not a treaty case. The appeal was brought under Article 13.2.1 of the 2022 Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP).
Tribunal
Hans Nater (President), Massimo Coccia, Michael Beloff
Sector
Sport (tennis); anti-doping
Outcome
Appeal partially upheld (operative part 2 March 2023; reasoned award 7 November 2023): the two-year ban was reduced to 15 months for No Significant Fault or Negligence.
Amount
No money sums. Period of ineligibility reduced from two years to fifteen (15) months, starting 30 November 2021.

The dispute

Mariano Tammaro, an Italian junior tennis player born on 27 February 2004, played the Napoli 2 Challenger (an ATP Challenger event) on 11 October 2021 on a wild card. His in-competition sample tested positive for a metabolite of clostebol, a non-specified anabolic steroid, at about 0.04 ng/ml. The ITF Independent Tribunal accepted that the source was a single application of Trofodermin spray. His father had sprayed it on the player's infected knee wound on 1 or 2 October 2021 without warning him. The Tribunal found the violation not intentional, but held that the player was not a Protected Person and had not shown No (Significant) Fault, and imposed two years' ineligibility. On appeal the player sought elimination or reduction of the ban. The ITF argued that the parents' account was inconsistent and choreographed, that the parents' fault was to be imputed to the player, and that no reduction was justified.

Key holdings

  1. The inconsistencies in the testimony of the player and his parents were peripheral and did not undermine the key fact. The Panel accepted that the father applied the spray once, without notice and without the player's consent, after checking the bottle only for an anti-doping pictogram. The bottle had no pictogram, but it did refer to clostebol. ¶¶ 114–124
  2. No Fault or Negligence fails. The duty of utmost caution extends to the athlete's conduct after a substance is administered. The player had ample time before the Event to investigate what had been sprayed on him, and he made no inquiry at all. ¶¶ 135–137
  3. The player was a Protected Person when the spray was applied. He lost that status when he competed in the first round of the Event, a Covered Event in an open category, before he gave the sample. The more flexible regime for Protected Persons therefore does not apply, and the ban can be reduced to no less than 12 of the 24 months. ¶¶ 140–146
  4. The Panel adapted the fault categories of CAS 2013/A/3327 & 3335 to a non-specified substance. A normal degree of fault means 18–24 months (standard 21); a light degree means 12–18 months (standard 15); significant fault means no reduction. ¶ 157
  5. Objectively the player's fault was normal. It was less serious because it arose only after an involuntary application, and the spray was used only once. Subjectively, his age (17), his father's authority and his Protected Person status when the omissions occurred reduced the fault to the standard light degree: 15 months. ¶¶ 168–179
  6. The parents' fault was more severe than the player's, but it cannot be imputed to him. He neither consented to the treatment nor left it to his father's discretion, and the parents acted on their own initiative. The Panel distinguished cases of undisclosed administration by physicians or coaches, and CAS 2017/A/5301 & 5302, where the athlete had entrusted her mother with her meal. ¶¶ 180–185
  7. The appeal is partially upheld. The ban is replaced with 15 months of ineligibility from 30 November 2021, with the provisional suspension credited. All other prayers for relief are dismissed. The costs paragraphs of the operative part are not reproduced in the published text. ¶¶ 190–193; operative part

Procedural history

  1. 11 October 2021In-competition urine sample taken at the Napoli 2 Challenger. The Montreal laboratory reported a clostebol metabolite on 30 October 2021.
  2. 19 November 2021The ITF sent a Pre-Charge Notice and imposed a provisional suspension from 30 November 2021. The B-sample confirmed the finding, and the ITF charged the player on 1 December 2021.
  3. 25 August 2022The ITF Independent Tribunal (chaired by Lucas Ferrer) imposed two years' ineligibility and disqualified the player's results at the Event.
  4. 12 September 2022Statement of appeal filed with CAS against the ITF and the ITIA. The ITIA was removed as a respondent on 3 October 2022.
  5. 29 November 2022Panel constituted.
  6. 16 February 2023Hearing held in Lausanne.
  7. 2 March 2023Operative part of the award notified: ban reduced to 15 months.
  8. 7 November 2023Reasoned award issued.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by
For the claimant
Ciro Pellegrino · Virginia Comitini · Artemisia Lorusso
For the respondent
Bird & Bird · ITF (in-house)
Experts
Luigi Sabbatella (claimant)

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.

Case ID
CAS 2022/A/9141
Claimant
Mariano Tammaro
Respondent
International Tennis Federation (ITF)
Documents

Procedure: Appeal
Sport: Tennis
Matter: Doping
Outcome: Partially Upheld
Panel: Hans Nater, Michael Beloff, Massimo Coccia
Source: Court of Arbitration for Sport case database.