The case revolves around Filippo Volandri, an Italian professional tennis player, who faced doping allegations after testing positive for elevated levels of salbutamol, a substance used to treat asthma, during the 2008 Indian Wells tournament. Volandri had a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for salbutamol, but his urine sample showed a concentration of 1,167 ng/mL, exceeding the permitted threshold of 1,000 ng/mL under the International Tennis Federation (ITF) Anti-Doping Programme. The ITF charged Volandri with a doping violation, leading to a suspension and disqualification of his tournament results. Volandri appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the elevated levels resulted from therapeutic use during a severe asthma attack and not performance enhancement.
The CAS examined the case under the 2008 ITF Programme, which incorporated the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC). While Volandri established that salbutamol entered his system through legitimate medical use, he failed to prove that the high concentration was consistent with therapeutic guidelines. The CAS noted that the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines allowed for higher doses during attacks, but Volandri’s lack of precise documentation and failure to seek immediate medical attention weakened his case. The ITF Tribunal had initially estimated his intake at 10–20 puffs, far exceeding his TUE allowance, and imposed sanctions including disqualification of results and a three-month suspension. However, the CAS found the Tribunal’s reasoning arbitrary, as it did not adequately justify its conclusions or consider GINA’s provisions for emergency use.
The CAS also highlighted procedural flaws, including the ITF’s eight-month delay in charging Volandri, during which he competed in multiple tournaments without further adverse findings. This delay was deemed unfair and inconsistent with anti-doping principles emphasizing swift resolution. While the CAS upheld the doping violation due to the exceeded threshold, it reduced the sanctions, recognizing Volandri’s minor fault and the marginal nature of the excess. His results from the Indian Wells tournament were disqualified, but no further ineligibility was imposed. The case underscores the importance of adhering to anti-doping regulations while ensuring procedural fairness and considering medical evidence in therapeutic use cases. The CAS decision balanced the need for strict enforcement with the recognition of mitigating circumstances, ultimately advocating for a more nuanced approach in similar cases.