This article provides guidance on the key aspects of family law that may impact fertility planning and modern family-building options, including egg freezing, fertility treatment, and surrogacy -all of which are increasingly relevant to athletes and sports professionals.

Picture this, you are 24, you came fourth in the women's 800m at the 2024 Olympic Games. You and your coaches know you've got one more 'Games' in you, your sponsors are supporting you, you're landing brand deals and your professional life is going great. You put your personal life on hold for another four years. Now you are 28, the Games are a triumph and you win a medal, while you won't compete in the next Games, you have to make the most of the opportunities and commercial prospects before you retire. A few years pass, the window of your professional peak felt so small and it was never the right time to prioritise having a baby.

Or maybe you have finally been transferred to Arsenal W.F.C., you have worked towards this for years, playing in teams all over to rise to this level. You are 25, and you give it everything you have for four years. You put off having a family until you step down from the team, but then you are offered a media role and you need to make the most of that opportunity to keep saving for your retirement (especially because most female players will not earn enough in their professional years to be able to retire early compared to their male counterparts). Another few years pass and still it is never the right time.

Another scenario, you are a professional netball player, you are thinking about having a baby with your partner and you have some basic fertility testing done. Your doctor advises you that your AMH (anti-Müllerian hormone) levels are very low and she recommends you start IVF (in vitro fertilisation) immediately. You are about to start the new season, and you are worried about how the fertility drugs will impact your performance if you go ahead.

Family planning and having a baby can be a wonderful time, but it can also be stressful. Timing is everything and it does not always go to plan. The sorts of dilemmas described affect women in all walks of life but they are especially acute for professional sportswomen whose careers are built around peak physical performance, gruelling training schedules, travel commitments and maximising a small window of opportunity. It is not easy to know when the right time is to start a family.

Some people choose to delay this next step in their personal lives until they have met their professional goals, others may find they face unexpected fertility struggles which they have to balance with their demanding professional lives.

This article provides guidance on the key aspects of family law that may impact fertility planning and modern family-building options, including egg freezing, fertility treatment, and surrogacy -all of which are increasingly relevant to athletes and sports professionals.

It looks at:

• Egg Freezing: Preserving Fertility for the Future
• Legal Updates on Storage Limits
• Consent Forms & Planning Ahead
• Eggs vs Embryos: What’s the Best Option?
• Fertility Treatment: What to Know as a Single Woman or Couple
  • Single Women
  • Couples
• Surrogacy: A Pathway for Women Who Cannot Carry
• Legal Parentage & Parental Orders
• Reform on the Horizon?

The gaming and sports industry in India encompasses a broad spectrum of activities, including online gaming platforms, fantasy sports, e-sports, and traditional sports organisations utilising digital platforms. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act)[1] and its 2025 Rules (Rules) framed under Section 40 of the DPDP Act  have far-reaching implications for this industry, particularly concerning the handling of personal data. 

In a previous article, available here,[2] the authors examined the key provisions of the newly notified Digital Data Protection Rules and why they are necessary. This article moves on to examine how the DPDP Act and Rules will impact India’s sports and gaming industry:

• Navigating Multiple Regulatory Layers: Where DPDP Rules interact with existing IT rules
• The Data Behind the Game: How Sports Analytics Must Adapt
• When Does Athlete Data Require Consent?
• Applying Consent Rules in Real Scenarios
• Purpose Limitation and Notice: The Guardrails on Data Use
• Where Consent May Not Be Required: Key Exemptions Explained
• Practical challenges of Full Implementation
  • Obtaining User Consent for Gaming Companies: The User Experience Dilemma
  • Click to Accept: The Problem of Consent Fatigue Among Gamers
  • Cross-border compliance complexity
• Verifiable Parental Consent Requirements
  • Implementation Opportunities
  • India Joins the Global Movement: Aligning with COPPA and GDPR
  • Understanding Cross-Border Transfer Restrictions
  • The Right to Be Forgotten: Implementing Deletion in Dynamic Databases
• The Path Forward: Balancing Compliance with Innovation

This is Part 2 of a two-part series examining the 'Kissing Defence' in anti-doping cases. Part 1 analysed the legal framework governing anti-doping rule violations and compared two recent contrasting decisions: WADA v Thibus (CAS 2024/A/10748) (Thibus), where French fencer Ysaora Thibus successfully avoided any sanction, and ITIA v Oliveira (SR/140/2025) (Oliveira), where tennis player Gonçalo Oliveira received a four-year ban.

This Part 2 examines the broader jurisprudence on the Kissing Defence. It identifies the evidential, scientific, and practical requirements for success and it considers how recently approved amendments to the 2027 WADA Code may make such defences more common.

• Previous Cases Where 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)
• Analysis & Commentary
  • Threshold for No Fault or Negligence
  • Role of Scientific Evidence
    • Treatment of Conflicting Scientific Evidence
    • Limitation of Lack of Data
    • Issues with Direct Evidence
    • Substance-Specific Considerations
  • Key Takeaways from all Cases
    • Evidence of Partner's Consumption
    • Scientific Plausibility
    • Witness Credibility
    • Fault Assessment
    • Supporting Factors
    • Voluntary Testing
    • Corroborative Evidence
    • Effect of Planned Changes under WADA Code 2027
  • Conclusion

This article examines the so-called ‘Kissing Defence’: where an athlete facing doping allegations argues that the prohibited substance entered their system through contamination by intimate contact – usually kissing – rather than by deliberate doping. It compares two recent cases which reached contrasting outcomes on Kissing Defences: WADA v FIE & Ysaora Thibus (CAS 2024/A/10748) (Thibus)[1], where the argument succeeded, and International Tennis Integrity Agency v Gonçalo Oliveira (SR/140/2025) (Oliveira) [2], where it failed.

This article is split into two parts with Part 2 available here. This Part 1 examines the above two decisions in Thibus and Oliveira and compares the reasons behind the differing conclusions reached by the respective panels.

Part 2 compares these two cases with previous awards and identifies the evidential, scientific and legal requirements that determine success or failure in establishing the Kissing Defence. It also examines how recently approved changes to the 2027 WADA Code may make such defences more common in the future.

One of an athlete’s best routes to minimising sanctions after an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) is to argue that the ADRV was not intentional and arose through no fault or negligence of their own. However, establishing such a defence is easier said than done.

Some athletes have successfully established that defence by identifying an alternative route by which the prohibited substance entered their system. While still relatively rare, in a growing number of cases athletes have relied on Kissing Defences, arguing that the prohibited substance entered their system by intimate contact.

For example, in Thibus the former world champion fencer Ysaora Thibus (YT) successfully relied on the Kissing Defence – and avoided any ban whatsoever – following the identification of ostarine in her sample. This stands in contrast to the decision in Oliveira, in which tennis player Gonçalo Oliveira (GO) unsuccessfully raised a Kissing Defence in respect of methamphetamine detected in his sample. Subject to any appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), GO has been banned from competition for four years[3].

Despite its somewhat unusual character, the Kissing Defence is becoming increasingly common. This may be unsurprising given research indicating that anabolic steroid use often occurs among nonathletes engaged in e.g. recreational bodybuilding[4], increasing the risk of transfer to athlete partners. Indeed, a significant number of Kissing Defence cases over the past few years deal with alleged contamination by intimate contact with partners who had taken anabolic steroids or selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs) for recreational purposes. For example, see: American softball player Madilyn Nickles (ligandrol) in 2020;[5] Canadian world champion canoeist Laurence Vincent Lapointe (ligandrol) in 2020;[6] Ukrainian tennis player Dayana Yastremska (mesterolone) in 2021;[7] Canadian curler Briane Harris (ligandrol) in 2025;[8] and Swiss triathlete Imogen Simmonds (ligandrol) in 2025[9].

• Legal Framework for Doping Violations
  • Strict Liability
  • Sanction
  • No Fault or Negligence & No Significant Fault or Negligence
  • Standard of proof & intentionality
• Background of the Thibus case
  • Proceedings before the Doping Disciplinary Tribunal of the FIE
  • Appeal before CAS & Award
• Background of the Oliveira case
  • The use of the Kissing Defence
  • Decision of the Independent Panel
• Comparison
  • Proving Fact and Extent of Partner Use
  • Balance of Probabilities Threshold
  • Scientific Evidence

As part of our series for international athletes and their advisers, residential property expert Lee Greaves explores the range of options available when moving to the UK and considers the key advantages and potential drawbacks to each option.

On any type of M&A (mergers & acquisition) transaction it is expected that a buyer will undertake due diligence on the target company which it intends to acquire or into which it intends to invest.  The due diligence exercise is usually a detailed investigation, often over a number of weeks, into the operational, financial, legal and possibly other elements of the target business.  It often involves engaging a number of external advisers and can have a high cost associated with it.

However, in the context of the sale of a football club, it is also not uncommon for the seller to undertake certain due diligence on the buyer. Everton Football Club’s proposed sale to 777 Partners, which collapsed once questions started to arise as to 777 Partners' funding and reputation[1], highlights the need for sellers to check a prospective buyer’s financial capability and credibility.

With more clubs now being owned (in whole or part) by sovereign wealth funds and private equity, there is likely to be even greater emphasis on the due diligence of any buyer on the future sale of such clubs. Future sales of these clubs will likely demand even closer examination of who is buying, why, and whether they have the means and credibility to follow through.

This article considers the due diligence that might be undertaken on a prospective buyer of a Premier League or Championship club. It focuses on five essential areas:

• Evidence of buyer funding
• League requirements
• Contractual consent & change of control
• Buyer motivations & future funding
• Purchase process

A recently published Arbitral Award by the Court of Arbitration for Sport confirmed a decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Ice Hockey Federation of Ukraine against Hockey Club Kyiv Capitals (Kyiv Capitals). The appeal to the CAS had been brought by Kyiv Capitals in connection with a match during the 2023/2024 Ukrainian Men’s Ice Hockey Championship season.

This article examines the award which serves as a crucial reminder for clubs, athletes, and sports administrators about the consequences of abandoning matches in protest at refereeing decisions. The ruling has broader implications for all sports organizations in understanding when regulatory sanctions for match abandonment will be upheld by sports tribunals.

The full award is available here: CAS 2024/A/10449 Hockey Club Kyiv Capitals v. Ice Hockey Federation of Ukraine[1]

• Factual background
• Procedural background
• Arguments advanced before the CAS
  • Kyiv Capitals’ arguments
  • The Federation’s arguments
• What is the field of play doctrine?
• The decision
• Impact of the ruling