The case involves a dispute between the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) concerning the anti-doping rule violations of Italian softball player Alice Fiorio. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was tasked with resolving the conflict, which centered on the interpretation and application of the WADA Code and Italy's National Anti-Doping Statute (NSA). Fiorio, included in the Registered Testing Pool, committed three violations within 18 months: two failures to file whereabouts information and one missed test. CONI initially imposed a one-year ineligibility period but later reduced it to six months, citing no significant fault or negligence under Article 10.5.2 of the WADA Code, which corresponds to Article 4.5.2 of the NSA.
WADA appealed the decision, arguing that the minimum sanction for whereabouts violations under Article 10.3.3 of the WADA Code is one year and cannot be further reduced under Article 10.5.2. WADA contended that CONI’s reduction of the sanction amounted to a substantive change to the WADA Code, which is prohibited for signatory organizations. The sole arbitrator, Marco Balmelli, sided with WADA, ruling that CONI’s interpretation and application of the NSA were inconsistent with the WADA Code. The arbitrator emphasized that the WADA Code’s sanction regime must be implemented without substantive modifications, and the minimum one-year ineligibility for whereabouts violations cannot be reduced based on no significant fault or negligence.
Fiorio, representing herself due to financial constraints, argued that her missed tests resulted from exceptional circumstances, including a medical visit, and pleaded for the CONI decision to be upheld. CONI defended its decision, stating that the WADA Code’s commentary on Article 10.5.2 is a guideline rather than mandatory, allowing discretion in applying the rule. However, the arbitrator rejected this argument, noting that the commentary explicitly states Article 10.5.2 should not apply to violations under Article 2.4, as the sanction range already accounts for the athlete’s fault.
The arbitrator concluded that CONI’s decision to reduce Fiorio’s sanction was non-compliant with the WADA Code and the NSA. As a result, the original one-year ineligibility period was reinstated, with any time already served credited against the total period. The case highlights the strict enforcement of anti-doping regulations and the importance of uniform application of the WADA Code across national anti-doping organizations. The decision reinforces the principle that signatories must adhere to the WADA Code’s provisions without introducing substantive changes, ensuring consistency in anti-doping sanctions worldwide. The ruling underscores the need for coherent interpretation of the WADA Code and its commentary to maintain the integrity of anti-doping efforts.