“You must remember this, a kiss is just a kiss…”
— As Time Goes By, Casablanca (1942)
With apologies to Casablanca, for most of us, that still rings true. But in the arena of anti-doping, a kiss can be more than just a kiss – it can carry a banned substance. That’s precisely what Olympic fencer Ysaora Thibus experienced this week. In a high-profile ruling from the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the UK Anti-Doping Panel accepted that ostarine entered her system not by ingestion, but via intimate contact—specifically, through repeated kisses with her partner over nine days.
Ostarine is a Selective Androgen Receptor Modulator (SARM) not approved for human use. It is prohibited in sport at all times under the S1 Anabolic Agent category of the WADA Prohibited List.
A History of the “Kiss Defence”
This is far from the first time a kiss has made headlines in anti-doping jurisprudence. Notable precedents include:
- Richard Gasquet (2009) – The French tennis star tested positive for cocaine. His defence? He’d kissed a woman in a nightclub who was carrying the drug. CAS accepted the explanation, recognising that the amount found was too small to suggest intentional use.
- Shawn Barber (2016) – The Canadian pole-vaulter tested positive for cocaine. He successfully argued that the contamination came from “passionate kissing” with a partner who had consumed the substance.
- Virginia Fuchs (2020) – American boxer Fuchs tested positive for GW1516. USADA accepted that her partner’s therapeutic use led to sexual transmission, clearing her of any fault.
These cases share striking similarities. First, athletes produced evidence of intimate contact. Second, expert evidence supported this method of transmission as plausible. Third, the tribunals hearing the cases acknowledged that the low-levels of contamination were consistent with innocence.
Legal Reflections on the Thibus Case
- Strict Liability vs. Credible Explanation
The system remains clear: athletes are responsible for substances in their bodies. But Thibus underscores that strict liability doesn’t preclude mitigation when supported by solid evidence. - Contamination
From supplements (see my protein shake post here) to kissing and physiotherapist creams vis a vis the Sinner case — the contamination map is broadening, as more and more athletes rely on a contamination defence and tribunals adapt to complex real-world scenarios. - Evidential Rigor and Fairness
It’s all about the evidence! Whether it’s a nightclub, a relationship, or a partner interaction, panels are applying scientific rigour to the evidence produced by athletes. Expert evidence is a necessity. However, the best experts cost significant fees and so it’s not surprising that the examples of these defences succeeding are those involving top athletes earning significant sums. It’s far more difficult for amateur or non-elite athletes to be able to fund such defences.
As Oscar Wilde wrote “A kiss may ruin a human life“. Certainly, in the world of elite sport, it can have unintended consequences. The Thibus decision is a powerful reminder that justice requires more than chemical detection: it demands context, science, and fairness.
Read the full decision on the Sport Resolutions website.
https://www.sportresolutions.com/news/thibus-cleared-doping-kiss
This commentary is offered in a personal capacity for educational purposes and does not reflect the views of any adjudicatory panel or regulatory body to which I may be appointed.