French fencer cleared of doping charge on account of kissing her partner
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) ruling echoed a verdict clearing another French athlete with a similar defense in a doping allegation – tennis player Richard Gasquet in the celebrated 'cocaine kiss' case in 2009.
Cas said in the Thibus case its judging panel dismissed an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada), which asked for her to be banned for four years.
Thibus tested positive for the anabolic substance ostarine in January 2024. She was later cleared by an International Fencing Federation tribunal weeks before the Paris Olympics, which let her compete there.
Wada challenged the explanation that Thibus was contaminated 'through kissing with her then partner, who had been using a product containing ostarine without her knowledge,' Cas said.
The court said Monday 'it is scientifically established that the intake of an ostarine dose similar to the dose ingested by Ms Thibus' then partner would have left sufficient amounts of ostarine in the saliva to contaminate a person through kissing.'
The Cas judges 'accepted that Ms. Thibus' then-partner was taking ostarine from 5 Jan, 2024, and that there was contamination over nine days with a cumulative effect.'
Her partner at the time was Race Imboden, a two-time Olympic fencing bronze medalist for the United States.
Thibus, a silver medalist for France in women's team foil at the Tokyo Olympics, placed fifth at that event in Paris and 28th in the women's individual foil.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Airline denies claims passengers were kicked off a plane because they are Jewish
An airline who kicked off a number of passengers from a flight has denied doing to because they were Jewish. Several dozen passengers were removed from a flight leaving Valencia for Paris for what Spanish police and the airline described as unruly behaviour. Some Israeli news outlets reported that the students are Jewish and that their removal was religiously motivated. The claim that was repeated by an Israeli minister online. Vueling, the carrier, denied reports that Wednesday's incident, which involved the removal of 44 minors and eight adults from flight V8166, was related to the passengers' religion. Spain's Civil Guard said the minors and adults are French nationals. A Civil Guard spokesperson said the agents involved were not aware of the group's religious affiliation. A Vueling spokesperson said the passengers were removed after the minors repeatedly tampered with the plane's emergency equipment and interrupted the crew's safety demonstration. 'A group of passengers engaged in highly disruptive behaviour and adopted a very confrontational attitude, putting at risk the safe conduct of the flight,' Vueling said in a statement. 'We categorically deny any suggestion that our crew's behaviour related to the religion of the passengers involved.' A Civil Guard spokesperson said the captain of the plane ordered the removal of the minors from the plane at Valencia's Manises Airport after they repeatedly ignored the crew's instructions. On Thursday, the Federation for Jewish Communities of Spain expressed concern about the incident. The group said that Vueling needed to provide documentary evidence of what happened on the plane. 'The various accounts circulating on social media and in the media to which we have had access do not clarify the cause of the incident,' the organization said. 'We are particularly interested in clarifying whether there were any possible religiously discriminatory motives toward the minors,' the group said. The Civil Guard said 23 minors and two adults from the group boarded a flight belonging to another airline, while the rest spent Wednesday night at a hotel. The spokesperson said arrangements were being made for them to leave Valencia later on Thursday.
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
What does the overturning of a City trader's fraud conviction mean for deregulation?
Tom Hayes, the former City trader who was jailed in 2015 for his part in rigging inter-bank interest rates, the so-called Libor scandal – was a patsy. The former UBS and Citigroup trader was convicted and sentenced to 14 years in prison, later reduced to 11. This week, that conviction was quashed by the Supreme Court. I'm all for white collar criminals getting their just desserts, but Hayes' penalty always seemed more than a little excessive. It is more than twice what the rogue trader Nick Leeson got for bringing down Barings Bank. However, proportionality never came into this. Hayes' trial was designed to deliver a head on a plate to a public that was justifiably angry about what the City was getting up to after the bankers nearly crashed the economy. There was a widespread feeling that overpaid boys – and they were mostly boys – with massively inflated egos and little sense of morality were thumbing their noses at the rest of Britain, which was just starting to feel the impact of the then-government's austerity policies. But Hayes, who ended up serving five-and-a-half years, had nothing to do with that crisis, and contributed not a whit to austerity. Libor – the interest rate at which key banks were willing to lend unsecured loans to each other – was unregulated at the time, which also wasn't Hayes' fault, but rather an issue for the politicians and regulators who were asleep at the wheel. It did ultimately set the rate for a number of loans, including some mortgages, but the day-to-day activities of Hayes and his peers didn't have much effect on what ordinary borrowers paid. No one was able to convincingly show any, otherwise we would have seen a string of compensation claims. The chief losers were likely other trading desks, which were often playing the same game anyway. That's not to justify what went on. Cheating is still cheating, and the whole business knocked confidence in the City and its markets. But, then, the whole system was a joke. 'Tom Hayes' penalty always seemed more than a little excessive. It is more than twice what the rogue trader Nick Leeson got for bringing down Barings Bank' (PA Wire) Libor was set based on what some rube at Bank A estimated would be their cost of borrowing from other banks. These were put together, and a daily rate declared. If a hotshot trader got in touch, suggesting that the Libor guy tweak their Tuesday submission to help their trading position, they tended to comply. This is how the scandal got going. Needless to say, all this was unregulated. Yes, you read that right. Stupid is as stupid does, and this was really stupid. The Financial Services Authority, which was then the City's chief watchdog, ended up using failings in systems and controls and violations of its principles of business to justify the chunky fines it ultimately levied on the banks involved. Back to Hayes: the Supreme Court didn't completely exonerate him. It said there was 'ample evidence' during the trial that could have led to a conviction. But the judges raised issues with the trial judge's summing up, the directions given to the jury, and the impact it had on Hayes' defence. This was deemed to be unfair and the conviction unsafe as a result. It wouldn't be a surprise to see the other seven convicted traders up next. Similar cases have also been quashed in the US. The whole deck of cards is collapsing. The Serious Fraud Office said it would not seek to re-try Hayes or Carlo Palombo, another former trader, at Barclays, who received a four-year sentence for manipulating another benchmarked interest rate, Euribor, but has also won his appeal. They've done their time, and it's unlikely that the taxpayer will be coughing up any compo. Best sweep this one under the carpet because who wants all that stupid aired in public again, right? Here's the problem. The government had promised to deregulate financial services in the hope that reducing its oversight of the financial sector would light a fire under the City of London, boost the UK's stalling economy and bring in the tax revenues that the Treasury is in dire need of. This will likely involve loosening the rules governing the conduct of senior bankers that were ushered in following the 2008 credit crunch and the wave of scandals that followed in its wake, including interest-rate fixing. Can you see the problem with that? I think Andrew Bailey, governor of the Bank of England, can. Earlier this week, he advised the Treasury select committee that any big reforms to dramatically loosen City regulation – what the chancellor Rachel Reeves described in her Mansion House speech as a "boot on the neck" of business – and encourage more risk-taking might actually do more harm than good. He hinted that it might even trigger another financial meltdown. If traders can find an edge, an opening, they will jump on it. It was ever thus. They had good reason to think they had with Libor and that they were okay because there weren't any proper rules in place at the time. Their bosses will either turn a blind eye, just as they did then, or quietly encourage it, especially if the numbers come up good. And when this results in another scandal, there will be fines, which banks see as the cost of doing business, and an attempt to find another Tom Hayes to carry the can. The supervising bosses, who do the hiring and set the culture and who are supposed to be on top of what their banks are up to, will ride out the storm and pocket their bonuses as they always have. Justice, of a sort, has been served this time. But as for all that talk we heard about lessons being learned? They never are.
Scottish Sun
24 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
Ex-Match of the Day host calls for BBC to create controversial new channel or risk losing events like Wimbledon
The BBC's Wimbledon deal soon expires and there is interest from other channels TURN OVER Ex-Match of the Day host calls for BBC to create controversial new channel or risk losing events like Wimbledon Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) LEGENDARY host Des Lynam has called for the BBC to controversially create a pay-per-view channel. The former Match of the Day presenter was in the hotseat from 1988 to 1999 and he also covered the likes of Wimbledon and the Olympics for the Beeb. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 2 The BBC have been urged to make a pay-per-view channel Credit: Getty 2 Des Lynam believes the Beeb must move behind a paywall to continue showing 'big-time sport' Credit: Getty Lynam, 82, is concerned the channel could soon be priced out of TV rights deals for major sporting events by companies like Sky and TNT. He has boldly encouraged the BBC to ditch their free-to-air tradition and create a new platform behind a paywall. Lynam wrote in his column for The Telegraph: "If they are to compete as serious contenders for big-time sport, they will have to form a separate sports channel and that means pay-per-view. They have the brand. "The only way to compete is to find the money to do so. READ MORE IN SPORT COMMON KNOWLEDGE Major sporting event facing TV blackout for first time in 70 years "Unless the BBC is content to cover only minor sports they will have to get out into the marketplace. "To do this, the kind of money involved means the funding must come from a source other than the licence fee and that means pay-per-view. "If there is someone at the corporation who agrees with me and has the courage to fight for that cause I mentioned, get ready to summon up the blood, disguise fair nature and prepare for the incoming rage." The BBC's current Wimbledon deal expires in 2027 and the channel reportedly face a fight to extend their agreement. CASINO SPECIAL - BEST CASINO BONUSES FROM £10 DEPOSITS They currently pay £60million per year to the All England Club for the rights to broadcast the action. But that price is set to rise with interest strong from both Sky and TNT Sports. However, the BBC view Wimbledon as one of the most important in the calendar and they are determined to keep it. It has been labelled as a Category A 'crown jewel' event by chiefs.
