放心满意证明标准在非检测阳性兴奋剂违规案件中的适用性探讨
|
摘要
国际体育仲裁院(CAS)仲裁庭认定澳大利亚埃森登足球俱乐部34名运动员构成兴奋剂违规且对违规行为有重大过错,推翻了澳大利亚足球联盟(AFL)的决定,并对违规运动员均处以2年的禁赛期。区别于样本检测阳性的案件,CAS仲裁庭认定在非检测阳性案件中运用的证明标准是"放心满意标准"(Comfortable Satisfaction),认为世界反兴奋剂机构(WADA)可以通过运动员的承认、证人证言、书面证据等任何可靠的方式对兴奋剂违规事实加以证明。CAS仲裁庭在上诉审理中对证据审查适用的是全面审查原则,上诉程序中可以提交新证据的条件是申请方不存在对诉讼权利的滥用和主观恶意。研究认为:在非检测阳性案件中,有必要加强间接证据的独立定案功能,对放心满意标准确立统一的认定规则,并且完善证据排除规则的相关规定。
The arbitral tribunal of Court of Arbitration for Sport(CAS) firmly believed that 34 athletes from Essendon Football Club in Australia made stimulant violations and committed grave faults in the violations. CAS arbitral tribunal overturned the decision of the Australian Football League(AFL) and imposed a two-year suspension on them. Different from the cases of positive sample detection, CAS arbitral tribunal determines that the proof standard used in non-testing positive cases is "comfortable satisfaction standard", and that World Anti-Doping Agency(WADA) can prove doping violations through any reliable way such as an athlete's acknowledgment, witnesses' testimony, documentary evidence, etc. CAS arbitral tribunal applies the comprehensive review principle in appeal hearings. The precondition that a new evidence can be submitted in the appeal procedure is that the applicant does not abuse any litigation rights and does not have subjective malice. The study believes that in non-testing positive cases, it is necessary to strengthen the independent function of reaching a conclusion on a case with indirect evidence, establish a unified identification rule for comfortable satisfaction standard, and improve the relevant provisions of evidence exclusion rules.
The arbitral tribunal of Court of Arbitration for Sport(CAS) firmly believed that 34 athletes from Essendon Football Club in Australia made stimulant violations and committed grave faults in the violations. CAS arbitral tribunal overturned the decision of the Australian Football League(AFL) and imposed a two-year suspension on them. Different from the cases of positive sample detection, CAS arbitral tribunal determines that the proof standard used in non-testing positive cases is "comfortable satisfaction standard", and that World Anti-Doping Agency(WADA) can prove doping violations through any reliable way such as an athlete's acknowledgment, witnesses' testimony, documentary evidence, etc. CAS arbitral tribunal applies the comprehensive review principle in appeal hearings. The precondition that a new evidence can be submitted in the appeal procedure is that the applicant does not abuse any litigation rights and does not have subjective malice. The study believes that in non-testing positive cases, it is necessary to strengthen the independent function of reaching a conclusion on a case with indirect evidence, establish a unified identification rule for comfortable satisfaction standard, and improve the relevant provisions of evidence exclusion rules.
引文
[1]宋彬龄.兴奋剂案件中的间接证据问题[J].天津体育学院学报,2011,26(5):379-383.
[2]叶卫兵,苑亮,吕俊.非药检阳性兴奋剂案件的举证责任和证明标准[J].天津体育学院学报,2010,25(2):101-103+112.
[3]Kaitlyn A.W.2008 Annual Survey:Recent Developmen in Sports Law[J].M-arquette Sports Law Review,2009,19(2):437-578.
[4]ICAS.CAS 2005/A/884,Tyler Hamilton v.United States Anti-Doping Agency(USADA)&Union Cycliste Internationale(UCI)[EB/OL].[2018-8-4].http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/884.pdf#search=884.
[5]Attorney-General for Jersey v Edmond-O-Brien(2006)1WLR 1485[EB/OL].[2018-8-5].https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I69C0EE40E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0.
[6]ICAS.CAS 2015/A/4059,World Anti-Doping Agency(WADA)v.Thomas Bellchambers et[EB/OL].[2018-8-4].http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/4059.pdf#search=4059.
[7]David Mahoney.Doping appeals at the court of arbitration for sport:Lessons from essendon[J].Boston College Law Review,2018.5.
[8]ICAS.CAS 2017/A/5422,Aleksandr Zubkov v.International Olympic Committee(IOC)[EB/OL].[2018-8-4].http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_5422__internet.pdf.
[9]ICAS.CAS 2002/A/389,390,391,392,393,A.,B.,C.,D.&E.v International Olympic Committee(IOC)[EB/OL].[2018-8-5].http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/389-393.pdf#search=389.
[10]ICAS.CAS 2006/O/645,United States Anti-Doping A-gency(USADA)v.M.&International Association of Athletics Federation(IAAF)[EB/OL].[2018-8-5].http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/645.pdf#search=645.
[11]ICAS.CAS 2009/A/1817,World Anti-Doping Agency and Federazione International de Football Association v Cyprus Football Association,Carlos Marques,Leonel Medeiros,Edward Eranosian,Angelos Efthymiou,Yiannis Sfakianakis,Dmytro Mykhailenko,Samir Bengeloun,Bernardo Vasconcelos[EB/OL].[2018-8-5].http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/1817,%201844.pdf#search=1817
[12]宋彬龄.国际体育仲裁院兴奋剂案件证据规则研究[D].湘潭:湘潭大学法学院,2013.
[13]ICAS.CAS 2013/A/3286-3294,SC FC Sportul Studentesc SA v Romanian Football Federation&several players.
[2]叶卫兵,苑亮,吕俊.非药检阳性兴奋剂案件的举证责任和证明标准[J].天津体育学院学报,2010,25(2):101-103+112.
[3]Kaitlyn A.W.2008 Annual Survey:Recent Developmen in Sports Law[J].M-arquette Sports Law Review,2009,19(2):437-578.
[4]ICAS.CAS 2005/A/884,Tyler Hamilton v.United States Anti-Doping Agency(USADA)&Union Cycliste Internationale(UCI)[EB/OL].[2018-8-4].http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/884.pdf#search=884.
[5]Attorney-General for Jersey v Edmond-O-Brien(2006)1WLR 1485[EB/OL].[2018-8-5].https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I69C0EE40E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0.
[6]ICAS.CAS 2015/A/4059,World Anti-Doping Agency(WADA)v.Thomas Bellchambers et[EB/OL].[2018-8-4].http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/4059.pdf#search=4059.
[7]David Mahoney.Doping appeals at the court of arbitration for sport:Lessons from essendon[J].Boston College Law Review,2018.5.
[8]ICAS.CAS 2017/A/5422,Aleksandr Zubkov v.International Olympic Committee(IOC)[EB/OL].[2018-8-4].http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_5422__internet.pdf.
[9]ICAS.CAS 2002/A/389,390,391,392,393,A.,B.,C.,D.&E.v International Olympic Committee(IOC)[EB/OL].[2018-8-5].http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/389-393.pdf#search=389.
[10]ICAS.CAS 2006/O/645,United States Anti-Doping A-gency(USADA)v.M.&International Association of Athletics Federation(IAAF)[EB/OL].[2018-8-5].http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/645.pdf#search=645.
[11]ICAS.CAS 2009/A/1817,World Anti-Doping Agency and Federazione International de Football Association v Cyprus Football Association,Carlos Marques,Leonel Medeiros,Edward Eranosian,Angelos Efthymiou,Yiannis Sfakianakis,Dmytro Mykhailenko,Samir Bengeloun,Bernardo Vasconcelos[EB/OL].[2018-8-5].http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/1817,%201844.pdf#search=1817
[12]宋彬龄.国际体育仲裁院兴奋剂案件证据规则研究[D].湘潭:湘潭大学法学院,2013.
[13]ICAS.CAS 2013/A/3286-3294,SC FC Sportul Studentesc SA v Romanian Football Federation&several players.