Editing Openai/6923772e-905c-8010-9104-b8d007833c93 (section)

=== ### ===

No.

CAS reaffirmed the settled jurisprudence (CAS 2004/A/718; CAS 2019/A/6612):
* Evasion does not require prior notification.
* Requiring formal notification would make the provision meaningless, as evasion typically prevents the notifier from giving notice.

➡ The lack of notification does not bar the charge.
10797_Lodo_Arbitrale__for_publ._

===== This is the central question. =====
* Article 2.3 CSA requires intentional evasion.
* Under Note 11 WADA Code: evasion requires deliberate conduct aimed at avoiding testing.
* Intent must be proven to the standard of comfortable satisfaction, higher than balance of probabilities but lower than beyond reasonable doubt.

CAS reviewed:
* All communications between athlete and DCO,
* Testimony of DCO, Carlo and Giacomo Lucheschi,
* Physical layout of the estate,
* Phone signal issues,
* Circumstantial inconsistencies highlighted by NADO.

===== ➡ NADO Italia failed to prove intentional evasion. =====
10797_Lodo_Arbitrale__for_publ._

Reasons:
# No direct evidence the athlete was absent from the declared location.
# Testimony of the two Lucheschi family members credibly confirmed she was present in the estate.
# The staff member (Covre) could not reliably determine who was in the residence at 07:00.
# The estate layout (multiple gates; poor lighting; large area) plausibly caused confusion.
# Signal and battery issues were credible, not contrived.
# The athlete’s communications with the DCO showed attempts to locate her, not avoidance.
# Her conduct was inconsistent with an athlete seeking to flee a test (e.g., she continued messaging the DCO).
# The scenario of an elaborate fabricated evasion plan was implausible given her profile and career.

CAS emphasized:
Even cumulatively, the circumstantial evidence did not reach the threshold of comfortable satisfaction for intentional evasion.