nav emailalert searchbtn searchbox tablepage yinyongbenwen piczone journalimg journalInfo journalinfonormal searchdiv searchzone qikanlogo popupnotification paper paperNew
2020, 03, v.35;No.165 262-268
世界反兴奋剂制度体系下样本采集的程序困境及化解进路——以“孙杨案”为引
基金项目(Foundation): 司法部国家法治与法学理论项目(项目编号:18SFB3045);; 重庆市教育科学规划项目(项目编号:2015-GX-045);; 西南政法大学学术创新团队资助项目(项目编号:2017XZCXTD-05);西南政法大学专项资助重点项目(项目编号:2017XZZXZD-09)
邮箱(Email):
DOI: 10.13297/j.cnki.issn1005-0000.2020.03.003
发布时间: 2020-05-12
出版时间: 2020-05-12
网络发布时间: 2020-05-12
移动端阅读
摘要:

世界反兴奋剂规则体系在建立过程中,过分重视样本分析环节给药检结果带来的直接影响,在样本分析前环节方面的考虑却稍有欠缺。然而,样本分析前环节的失范极有可能造成样本本身的质量问题,所造成的影响会间接导致药检结果失真。"孙杨案"所暴露出的正是这一问题的直接体现。一方面,样本分析前的程序监控较之分析环节有虞,相关标准严密不足且缺乏程序性制裁规则;另一方面,运动员在样本分析前环节的程序性权利并不明晰,其在反兴奋剂工作的程序失范中将承担更大的风险。一旦运动员在模棱两可的程序规则中陷入与反兴奋剂组织或体育仲裁机构不完全相同甚至相反的认识,其权益将会遭受严重损失。虽然,运动员同样可以根据反兴奋剂规则寻求事后的权利救济,但却需要为此付出巨大的成本。反兴奋剂工作既应保证体育公平,也应当顾全运动员的权利。对运动员的权利保障不能完全指望事后救济,还需要通过在事前明晰程序规则,为运动员和反兴奋剂工作者提供严格的行为指导,从而避免类似"孙杨案"中的情形发生。是故,考察世界反兴奋剂制度体系下样本采集等分析前环节的程序困境并加以弥补,兼顾体育公平与运动员权利方是正举。

Abstract:

The WADA system pays excessive attention to the direct impact of sample analysis on drug test results,but does not pay attention to the indirect impact of pre-sample analysis procedure on sample test results. The process of sample analysis may reduce the quality of samples,thus affecting the results of sample inspection. This is also the key issue in Sun Yang's case. On the one hand,the program monitoring before sample analysis is looser than that of the laboratory,and the relevant standards are not strict enough and procedural sanctions are lacking. On the other hand,athletes' procedural rights in the process before sample analysis are not clear,and they will take greater risks if the procedures of anti-doping work are out of order. Once the athletes' understanding of the ambiguous procedural rules is not as same as or even opposite to the anti-doping organization or the sports arbitration organization,their rights will be seriously damaged. Although athletes can seek ex post facto remedy under anti-doping rules,it can be costly. Anti-doping work should not only ensure the fairness of sports,but also take into consideration the rights of athletes. The protection of the rights of the athletes can't only rely on the remedy after the incident,but also need to provide a strict guidance to behavior of athletes and anti-doping workers through clear procedural rules for avoiding situations which is similar to the Sun Yang's. Therefore,to investigate and remedy the procedural difficulties in the pre-analysis process such as sample collection under the world anti-doping system,it is a positive step to considerate sports fairness and athletes' rights.

参考文献

[1]胡颖,张连海,宋丽洁,等.生物样本质量的影响因素与评估[J].中国医药生物技术,2013,8(01):69-72.

[2] CAS.2019/A/6148 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Sun Yang&FINA[EB/OL].https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_6148_website.pdf.

[3] CAS.Sun Yang Is Found Guilty of A Doping Offense and Sanctioned with An 8-Year Period of Ineligibility[EB/OL].https://www.tas-cas.org/en/general-information/news-detail/article/sun-yang-is-found-guiltyof-a-doping-offense-and-sanctioned-with-an-8-year-period-of-ineligibility.html.

[4]中国反兴奋剂中心.《世界反兴奋剂条例》第二条[EB/OL].http://www.chinada.cn/contents/704/11144.html.

[5] CAS. CAS 2017/A/4968,Mr Alexander Legkov v. International Ski Federation(FIS)Alexander Legkov[EB/OL].https://www.doping.nl/media/kb/4970/CAS%202017_A_4968%20Alexander%20Legkov%20vs%20FIS%20%28OS%29.pdf.2017.

[6]赵永如.《世界反兴奋剂条例》“篡改”规定的不足与完善[J].体育科研,2018,39(05):45-55.

[7]毛建平,曾军,段明学.刑事诉讼告知义务初探[J].西南政法大学学报,2006(02):74-82.

[8]陈瑞华.程序性制裁制度的法理学分析[J].中国法学,2005(06):150-163.

[9] OLIVER DE HON,MAARTEN VAN BOTTENBURG. True Dopers or Negligent Athletes? An Analysis of Anti-Doping Rule Violations Reported to the World Anti-Doping Agency 2010–2012[J].Substance Use&Misuse,2017,52(14):1932-1936.

[10]曹绍芳,郭树理.对2015版《世界反兴奋剂条例》3.2条的评析[J].首都体育学院学报,2019,31(01):45-50+55.

[11]熊英灼,宋彬龄.从信赖到怀疑:世界反兴奋剂体系对科学的法律控制[J].武汉体育学院学报,2016,50(10):29-36.

[12] VICTOR D CHA.Match Point:Sports,Nationalism,and Diplomacy[J].Georgetown Journal of International Affairs,2010,11(2):3-5.

[13]张翼.俄罗斯兴奋剂事件的社会学解读与思考[J].南京体育学院学报:社会科学版,2016,30(04):17-24.

[14]熊英灼.俄罗斯系统性使用兴奋剂事件述评[J].体育学刊,2017,24(4):51-56.

[15]雷磊.法律规则的逻辑结构[J].法学研究,2013,35(01):66-86.

[16]黄士元.以程序性制裁弥补实体性制裁之不足[J].法学论坛,2005(5):13-17.

[17]宋彬龄.中国运动员国际体育仲裁胜诉第一案述评:兴奋剂处罚的程序正义问题[J].天津体育学院学报,2011,26(02):109-113.

[18]杨春然,王学栋.论反兴奋剂国际体育仲裁中的运动员程序保护[J].北京体育大学学报,2018,41(11):22-32.

[19]杨春然.论兴奋剂处罚的归责原则与WADC目的的冲突及协调[J].武汉体育学院学报,2017,51(03):45-55.

[20] MICHAEL S.STRAUBEL.Lessons from USADA v. Jenkins:You Can't Win When You Beat a Monopoly[J]. Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal,2009,10(01):119-156.

[21]敬文.兴奋剂案件在国际体育仲裁中的证据规则研究[J].广州体育学院学报,2016,36(03):23-28+38.

[22]刘翊军,李佩聪,高峰.世界反兴奋剂规则的新发展:对2015年《世界反兴奋剂条例》的述评[J].首都体育学院学报,2018,30(04):319-322.

[23]宋军生.严格责任原则规范下的反兴奋剂逆向处罚研究[J].成都体育学院学报,2015,41(03):19-24.

基本信息:

DOI:10.13297/j.cnki.issn1005-0000.2020.03.003

中图分类号:G803

引用信息:

[1]梅傲,向伦.世界反兴奋剂制度体系下样本采集的程序困境及化解进路——以“孙杨案”为引[J].天津体育学院学报,2020,35(03):262-268.DOI:10.13297/j.cnki.issn1005-0000.2020.03.003.

基金信息:

司法部国家法治与法学理论项目(项目编号:18SFB3045);; 重庆市教育科学规划项目(项目编号:2015-GX-045);; 西南政法大学学术创新团队资助项目(项目编号:2017XZCXTD-05);西南政法大学专项资助重点项目(项目编号:2017XZZXZD-09)

发布时间:

2020-05-12

出版时间:

2020-05-12

网络发布时间:

2020-05-12

检 索 高级检索

引用

GB/T 7714-2015 格式引文
MLA格式引文
APA格式引文