Rebecca Passler v. NADO Italia, World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), Federazione Italiana Sport Invernali (FISI), International Olympic Committee (IOC), International Testing Agency (ITA), International Biathlon Union (IBU), Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italia

At a glance

Parties

Rebecca Passler (Italian biathlete) v. NADO Italia, World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), Federazione Italiana Sport Invernali (FISI), International Olympic Committee (IOC), International Testing Agency (ITA), International Biathlon Union (IBU) and Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI)

Case no.

CAS OG 26/007 (CAS ad hoc Division, OG Milano-Cortina 2026)

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, Ad Hoc Division for the Milano-Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic Games; CAS Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games

Tribunal

Panel: James Drake (President), André Brantjes, Jordi López Batet

Sector

Sport; biathlon; anti-doping

Outcome

Jurisdiction declined (11 February 2026). The athlete could not appeal an ex parte provisional suspension to CAS; the ITA was removed as a respondent.

Amount

No amounts claimed or awarded. The CAS Ad Hoc Division's services are free of charge, and each party pays its own costs of legal representation, experts, witnesses and interpreters (Article 22 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules).

The dispute

Rebecca Passler, an Italian biathlete selected for the 2026 Winter Olympic Games, tested positive for Letrozole Metabolite Bis Methanol, an aromatase inhibitor and Specified Substance, in an out-of-competition test at her home on 26 January 2026. On 2 February 2026 the National Anti-Doping Tribunal (NADT), on the application of NADO Italia's prosecutor, provisionally suspended her ex parte, and the B Sample later confirmed the finding. Instead of asking the NADT to review its decision within three days, or appealing to the National Anti-Doping Appeal Board (NADAB), she applied to the CAS Ad Hoc Division. She sought annulment or a stay of the suspension, arguing that her mother's breast-cancer medication had contaminated her by accident. NADO Italia, WADA, the IBU and the IOC argued that CAS lacked jurisdiction, that she had not exhausted internal remedies, and that the suspension was in any event justified; the ITA said it had been wrongly named as a respondent.

Key holdings

1. Prima facie, the dispute falls within the Ad Hoc Division's time window. The window ran from 27 January 2026, ten days before the Opening Ceremony on 6 February 2026, and the suspension decision of 2 February 2026 fell inside it. The test date of 26 January 2026 does not matter, because the dispute concerns the suspension and not the test. ¶¶ 70–72
2. Under Article 18.2 of the ADSC, which mirrors Article 13.2 of the WADC, an International-Level Athlete may appeal to CAS only against a decision on a provisional suspension taken as a result of a provisional hearing. There is no appeal to CAS from the NADT's ex parte decision. That decision can be appealed only to the NADAB, whose decision is final. ¶¶ 76–77
3. The athlete could have asked the NADT to review the suspension by 5 February 2026. A decision after a provisional hearing would then have been due by 9 February 2026, and that decision could have been appealed to CAS, including the Ad Hoc Division. Because she made no such request, there was no provisional-hearing decision, and she had no right to appeal to CAS. ¶ 78
4. The CAS Ad Hoc Division therefore lacks jurisdiction over the Application. The athlete could still appeal to the NADAB, but only by 12 February 2026. ¶ 79; ¶ 83; Decision, point 1
5. The ITA has no standing to be sued. The doping control was conducted by NADO Italia, not the ITA, and the athlete did not dispute this. The ITA is removed as a respondent. ¶¶ 80–82
6. The Panel expressed no view on the merits of the Application or on the alleged anti-doping rule violation, including the contamination defence. ¶ 84

Procedural history

1. 26 January 2026NADO Italia conducts an out-of-competition urine test at the athlete's home; the A Sample is positive for a Letrozole metabolite.
2. 2 February 2026NADO Italia's prosecutor notifies the athlete of the Adverse Analytical Finding. The NADT provisionally suspends her ex parte and gives her three days to apply for revocation.
3. 5–6 February 2026The B Sample is analysed on 5 February and the result is issued on 6 February, confirming Letrozole at about 1.1 ng/ml.
4. 6 February 2026The athlete files her Application with the CAS Ad Hoc Division.
5. 7 February 2026The Panel is constituted and issues procedural directions.
6. 10 February 2026Hearing in Milan at the offices of the CAS Ad Hoc Division.
7. 11 February 2026Award: the CAS Ad Hoc Division has no jurisdiction; the ITA is removed as a respondent.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• James Drake President, CAS ad hoc Division Panel
• André Brantjes Co-arbitrator, CAS ad hoc Division Panel
• Jordi López Batet Co-arbitrator, CAS ad hoc Division Panel

For the claimant

Ernesto De Toni · Maria Laura Guardamagna · Luca Colombo

For the respondent

Pierfilippo Laviani · Lorenza Mel · Nicolas Zbinden · Antonio Rigozzi · Patrick Pithon

Experts

Donata Favretto (claimant) · Elia Del Borrello (claimant) · Martial Saugy (respondent) · Mario Thevis (respondent)

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• provisional suspension
• doping
• Letrozole
• aromatase inhibitor
• specified substance
• contamination
• biathlon
• Milano-Cortina 2026
• CAS ad hoc Division
• Olympic Charter Rule 61
• exhaustion of internal remedies
• provisional hearing
• ex parte decision
• NADAB
• standing to be sued
• WADC Article 13.2
• jurisdiction declined

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