This text examines the so-called ‘Kissing Defence’: the place an athlete dealing with doping allegations argues that the prohibited substance entered their system by contamination by intimate contact – often kissing – relatively than by deliberate doping. It compares two latest instances which reached contrasting outcomes on Kissing Defences: WADA v FIE & Ysaora Thibus (CAS 2024/A/10748) (Thibus)[1], the place the argument succeeded, and Worldwide Tennis Integrity Company v Gonçalo Oliveira (SR/140/2025) (Oliveira) [2], the place it failed.
This text is break up into two elements with Half 2 accessible right here. This Half 1 examines the above two selections in Thibus and Oliveira and compares the explanations behind the differing conclusions reached by the respective panels.
Half 2 compares these two instances with earlier awards and identifies the evidential, scientific and authorized necessities that decide success or failure in establishing the Kissing Defence. It additionally examines how just lately permitted adjustments to the 2027 WADA Code might make such defences extra widespread sooner or later.
Introduction
One among an athlete’s finest routes to minimising sanctions after an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) is to argue that the ADRV was not intentional and arose by no fault or negligence of their very own. Nonetheless, establishing such a defence is simpler mentioned than carried out.
Some athletes have efficiently established that defence by figuring out another route by which the prohibited substance entered their system. Whereas nonetheless comparatively uncommon, in a rising variety of instances athletes have relied on Kissing Defences, arguing that the prohibited substance entered their system by intimate contact.
For instance, in Thibus the previous world champion fencer Ysaora Thibus (YT) efficiently relied on the Kissing Defence – and prevented any ban in any way – following the identification of ostarine in her pattern. This stands in distinction to the choice in Oliveira, through which tennis participant Gonçalo Oliveira (GO) unsuccessfully raised a Kissing Defence in respect of methamphetamine detected in his pattern. Topic to any attraction to the Courtroom of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), GO has been banned from competitors for 4 years[3].
Regardless of its considerably uncommon character, the Kissing Defence is changing into more and more widespread. This can be unsurprising given analysis indicating that anabolic steroid use usually happens amongst nonathletes engaged in e.g. leisure bodybuilding[4], rising the chance of switch to athlete companions. Certainly, a major variety of Kissing Defence instances over the previous few years take care of alleged contamination by intimate contact with companions who had taken anabolic steroids or selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs) for leisure functions. For instance, see: American softball participant Madilyn Nickles (ligandrol) in 2020;[5] Canadian world champion canoeist Laurence Vincent Lapointe (ligandrol) in 2020;[6] Ukrainian tennis participant Dayana Yastremska (mesterolone) in 2021;[7] Canadian roller Briane Harris (ligandrol) in 2025;[8] and Swiss triathlete Imogen Simmonds (ligandrol) in 2025[9].
Article Define
Authorized Framework for Doping Violations
Strict Legal responsibility
Sanction
No Fault or Negligence & No Vital Fault or Negligence
Normal of proof & intentionality
Background of the Thibus case
Proceedings earlier than the Doping Disciplinary Tribunal of the FIE
Attraction earlier than CAS & Award
Background of the Oliveira case
Using the Kissing Defence
Resolution of the Impartial Panel
Comparability
Proving Truth and Extent of Associate Use
Steadiness of Possibilities Threshold
Scientific Proof
