That is Half 2 of a two-part collection inspecting the ‘Kissing Defence’ in anti-doping instances. Half 1 analysed the authorized framework governing anti-doping rule violations and in contrast two latest contrasting selections: WADA v Thibus (CAS 2024/A/10748) (Thibus), the place French fencer Ysaora Thibus efficiently prevented any sanction, and ITIA v Oliveira (SR/140/2025) (Oliveira), the place tennis participant Gonçalo Oliveira acquired a four-year ban.
This Half 2 examines the broader jurisprudence on the Kissing Defence. It identifies the evidential, scientific, and sensible necessities for fulfillment and it considers how not too long ago accepted amendments to the 2027 WADA Code could make such defences extra frequent.
Article Define:
Earlier Circumstances The place The Kissing Defence Has Succeeded
ITF v Gasquet (2009)
Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport v Barber (2016)
WADA v Roberts (2018)
ITF v Yastremska (2020)
Evaluation & Commentary
Threshold for No Fault or Negligence
Position of Scientific Proof
Therapy of Conflicting Scientific Proof
Limitation of Lack of Information
Points with Direct Proof
Substance-Particular Concerns
Key Takeaways from all Circumstances
Proof of Companion’s Consumption
Scientific Plausibility
Witness Credibility
Fault Evaluation
Supporting Elements
Voluntary Testing
Corroborative Proof
Impact of Deliberate Adjustments below WADA Code 2027
Conclusion
