论反兴奋剂国际体育仲裁中的运动员程序保护
|
摘要
尽管使用兴奋剂以获得比赛竞争优势的行为,属于诈骗行为的范畴,《世界反兴奋剂条例》却一直受到法学界的质疑,因为其对运动员的处罚主要表现为剥夺运动员一定期限的比赛资格,属于刑事处罚中职业禁止的范畴,但其适用的却是仲裁程序;所以,在当前法律框架下,如何在程序上保护运动员的权利,就成了一个不能回避的问题。从规范分析法和社会关系分析法的角度看,当前惩罚性的兴奋剂处罚对运动员存在着错误追究和不公正仲裁等程序风险,且缺乏相应的司法救济途径。为了解决这些问题,使兴奋剂处罚获得正当性:1)需要在相应的条文中增设运动员的权利,以制约反兴奋剂机构的权力; 2)需要建立反兴奋剂基金,确保运动员能获得相应的法律服务; 3)要建立运动员工会,以平衡运动员与反兴奋剂组织之间的关系; 4)将惩罚性的处罚与运动员的可责性联系在一起,使兴奋剂处罚迎合比例原则的要求。兴奋剂处罚只有获得正当性,其才能融入到当前的法律体系之中,进而才有可能充分调动社会各方面的力量,形成打击使用兴奋剂行为的合力。
The use of doping to gain competitive advantage is a category of fraud. World Anti-Doping Code( WADC) has been challenged in the law field for many years because the code's punishment is to deprive the qualification of competition of the accused athlete,which belongs to the category of occupational prohibition in criminal punishment,but its procedure is civil arbitration. Thus,how to protect the rights of athletes in procedure has become an unavoidable problem under the current legal framework. From the standpoint of normative analysis and social relationship analysis,the current punitive doping punishment has procedural risks such as wrong investigation and unfair arbitration for athletes,and lacks corresponding judicial remedies. In order to solve these problems and make the punishment of doping legitimate,it is necessary to add the rights of athletes in the corresponding provisions to restrict the power of anti-doping agencies; to establish anti-doping funds to ensure that athletes can obtain the corresponding legal services; to establish athletes' unions to balance the relationship between athletes and anti-doping organizations. Finally,the punitive punishment is linked with athletes' responsibility,so that doping punishment conforms to the principle of proportionality. Doping can only be incorporated into the current legal system only if it is justified,and then it is possible to fully mobilize the strength of all sectors of society and form a joint force to combat the use of doping.
The use of doping to gain competitive advantage is a category of fraud. World Anti-Doping Code( WADC) has been challenged in the law field for many years because the code's punishment is to deprive the qualification of competition of the accused athlete,which belongs to the category of occupational prohibition in criminal punishment,but its procedure is civil arbitration. Thus,how to protect the rights of athletes in procedure has become an unavoidable problem under the current legal framework. From the standpoint of normative analysis and social relationship analysis,the current punitive doping punishment has procedural risks such as wrong investigation and unfair arbitration for athletes,and lacks corresponding judicial remedies. In order to solve these problems and make the punishment of doping legitimate,it is necessary to add the rights of athletes in the corresponding provisions to restrict the power of anti-doping agencies; to establish anti-doping funds to ensure that athletes can obtain the corresponding legal services; to establish athletes' unions to balance the relationship between athletes and anti-doping organizations. Finally,the punitive punishment is linked with athletes' responsibility,so that doping punishment conforms to the principle of proportionality. Doping can only be incorporated into the current legal system only if it is justified,and then it is possible to fully mobilize the strength of all sectors of society and form a joint force to combat the use of doping.
引文
[1]See James Halt.Where is the Privacy in WADA's“Whereabouts”Rule?[J]Marquette Sports Law Review,2009,20:267-289.
[2]Horvitz S L,Tygart T,Turbow P A.Dopers and Not Duped:USADA's Assistance to Federal Prosecutions Ultimately Protecting Clean Athletes is Not State Action[J].Marq.Sports L.Rev.,2008,19:39.
[3]Dionne L.Koller.Does The Constitution Apply to the Actions of the United States Anti-Doping Agency?[J],ST.LOUIS U.L.J.,2005,50:120-121.
[4]Straubel M.International Convention against Doping in Sport:Is It the Missing Link to USADA Being a State Actor and WADC Coverages of U.S.Pro Athletes[J].The International Journal of Food Science&Technology,2008,28(5):461-464.
[5]See Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler,Antonio Rigozzi.Legal Opinion on the Conformity of Article 10.6 of the 2007Draft World Anti-Doping Code with Fundamental Rights of Athletes[EB/OL].(2017-11-13)[2016-08-08].http://www.wadaama.org/rtecontent/document/Legal-O-pinion-Conformity-1 0_6 complete.document.pdf.
[6]Daniel J.Gandert.The WADA Code:Optimal on Paper[J].Md.J.Int'l L,2017(32):274-337.
[7]Antoine Duval.The Russian doping scandal at the court of arbitration for sport:lessons for the world anti-doping system[J].Int Sports Law J,2017(16):177-197.
[8]Weston M.Simply a Dress Rehearsal?U.S.Olympic Sports Arbitration and De Novo Review at the Court Of Arbitration for Sport[J].Ga.j.intl&Comp.,2009(l):38.
[9]See Robyn R.Goldstein,Note,An American in Paris:The Legal Framework of International Sport and the Implications of the World Anti-Doping Code on Accused Athletes[J].VA.SPORTS&ENT.L.J.,2007,7:149-159.
[10]Polonetsky J,Tene O.Privacy and Big Data:Making Ends Meet[J].Stanford Law Review Online,2013:66.
[11]罗伯特·阿列克西.法·理性·商谈:法哲学研究[M].朱光,雷磊,译.北京:中国法制出版社,2011:82.
[12]Bjarte Askelandect.Punitive Damages:Common Law and Civil Law Perspectives[M].New York:Springer Wien,2009:5-210.
[13]陈兴良.“犯罪范围的合理定义”[J].法学研究,2008(3):141-143.
[14]Vgl.Jeshech/Weigend,Lehrbuch des Strafrechts,Allgemeiner Teil[M],5,Aufl,1996:829.
[15]See,Maureen A.Weston,Doping Control,Mandatory Arbitration,and Process Dangers for Accused Athletes in International Sports[J].Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal,2010,10:5-46.
[16]Cooter R.Prices and sanctions[J].Columbia Law Review,1984,84(6):1523-1560.
[17]See Rasmusen,Eric.Stigma and Self-Fulfilling Expectations of Criminality[J].Journal of Law and Economics,1996,39:519-543.
[18]See Guido Calabresi and A.Douglas Melamed,Property Rules,Liability Rules,and Inalienability:One View of the Cathedral[J].85Harvard Law Review,1972,85(6):1089-1128.
[19]杨春然.运动员使用兴奋剂行为入罪的法律障碍及突破[J].上海体育学院学报,2018(2):18-30.
[20]Straubel M.Enhancing the performance of the doping court:how the court of arbitration for sport can do its job better[J].Loy.U.Chi.LJ,2004,36:1203-1272.
[21]Reszel R.Guilty until Proven Innocent,and Then,Still Guilty:What the World anti-Doping Agency Can Learn from the National Football League about First-Time antiDoping Violations[J].Wis.intl L.j,2012.
[22]Goldstone A.Obstruction of Justice:The Arbitration Process for Anti-Doping Violations during the Olympic Games[J].Biochemical Journal,2016,7(5):445-465.
[23]杨春然.论被伤害权对同意效力范围的限制:兼论被害人同意在三阶层犯罪论体系中的位置[J].清华法学,2013(3):136-142.
[24]杨春然,张梅.世界反兴奋剂机构的行踪规则与法律的冲突及限制[J].成都体育学院学报,2018(1):39-46.
[25]USADA v.Landis,AAA No.30 190 0084 06(2007)[EB/OL].http://www.usada.org/files/active/arbitration-rulings/Landis%2Fina1%20(20-09-07)%20(3).pdf.
[26]Hanson v Federation Equestre Internationale Cas 2009/a/1768.
[27]Dr Chris Davies.The‘Comfortable Satisfaction’Standard Of Proof:Applied By The Court Of Arbitration For Sport In Drug-Related Cases[J].U.Notre Dame Austl.L.Rev.,2012,14:1-46.
[28]Rigozzi A,Haas U,Wisnosky E,et al.Breaking down the process for determining a basic sanction under the2015 World Anti-Doping Code[J].International Sports Law Journal,2015,15(1-2):1-46.
[29]杨春然.论惩罚性赔偿的证明标准[J].证据科学,2012(4):438-448.
[30]Gandert D J.The WADA Code:Optimal on Paper[J].Maryland Journal of International Law,2017,32(1):274-336.
[31]Claudia Pechstein v International Skating Union Cas2009/a/1912;Duetsche Eisschnelllauf Gemeinschaft v International Skating Union Cas 2009/a/1913.
[32]Paul C.McCaffrey,Note,Playing Fair:Why the United States Anti-Doping Agency's Performance-EnhancedA djudications Should Be Treated as State Action[J].22WASH.U.J.L.&POL'Y,2006:22.
[33]Masters A.Corruption in sport:From the playing field to the field of policy[J].Policy&Society,2015,34(2):111-123.
[34]杨春然,董兴佩.从政府、协会到个人:集体责任影响运动员比赛权的根据:兼论俄罗斯兴奋剂丑闻的处理[J].武汉体育学院学报,2018,52(4):59-67.
[35]Gandert D J.The WADA Code:Optimal on Paper[J].Maryland Journal of International Law,2017,32(1):274-336.
[36]Ryan Reszel,Guilty Until Proven Innocent,And Then,Still Guilty:What The World Anti-Doping Agency Can Learn From The National Football League About FirstTime Anti-Doping Violations[J].Wisconsin International Law Journal,2012,29(4):807-832.
[2]Horvitz S L,Tygart T,Turbow P A.Dopers and Not Duped:USADA's Assistance to Federal Prosecutions Ultimately Protecting Clean Athletes is Not State Action[J].Marq.Sports L.Rev.,2008,19:39.
[3]Dionne L.Koller.Does The Constitution Apply to the Actions of the United States Anti-Doping Agency?[J],ST.LOUIS U.L.J.,2005,50:120-121.
[4]Straubel M.International Convention against Doping in Sport:Is It the Missing Link to USADA Being a State Actor and WADC Coverages of U.S.Pro Athletes[J].The International Journal of Food Science&Technology,2008,28(5):461-464.
[5]See Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler,Antonio Rigozzi.Legal Opinion on the Conformity of Article 10.6 of the 2007Draft World Anti-Doping Code with Fundamental Rights of Athletes[EB/OL].(2017-11-13)[2016-08-08].http://www.wadaama.org/rtecontent/document/Legal-O-pinion-Conformity-1 0_6 complete.document.pdf.
[6]Daniel J.Gandert.The WADA Code:Optimal on Paper[J].Md.J.Int'l L,2017(32):274-337.
[7]Antoine Duval.The Russian doping scandal at the court of arbitration for sport:lessons for the world anti-doping system[J].Int Sports Law J,2017(16):177-197.
[8]Weston M.Simply a Dress Rehearsal?U.S.Olympic Sports Arbitration and De Novo Review at the Court Of Arbitration for Sport[J].Ga.j.intl&Comp.,2009(l):38.
[9]See Robyn R.Goldstein,Note,An American in Paris:The Legal Framework of International Sport and the Implications of the World Anti-Doping Code on Accused Athletes[J].VA.SPORTS&ENT.L.J.,2007,7:149-159.
[10]Polonetsky J,Tene O.Privacy and Big Data:Making Ends Meet[J].Stanford Law Review Online,2013:66.
[11]罗伯特·阿列克西.法·理性·商谈:法哲学研究[M].朱光,雷磊,译.北京:中国法制出版社,2011:82.
[12]Bjarte Askelandect.Punitive Damages:Common Law and Civil Law Perspectives[M].New York:Springer Wien,2009:5-210.
[13]陈兴良.“犯罪范围的合理定义”[J].法学研究,2008(3):141-143.
[14]Vgl.Jeshech/Weigend,Lehrbuch des Strafrechts,Allgemeiner Teil[M],5,Aufl,1996:829.
[15]See,Maureen A.Weston,Doping Control,Mandatory Arbitration,and Process Dangers for Accused Athletes in International Sports[J].Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal,2010,10:5-46.
[16]Cooter R.Prices and sanctions[J].Columbia Law Review,1984,84(6):1523-1560.
[17]See Rasmusen,Eric.Stigma and Self-Fulfilling Expectations of Criminality[J].Journal of Law and Economics,1996,39:519-543.
[18]See Guido Calabresi and A.Douglas Melamed,Property Rules,Liability Rules,and Inalienability:One View of the Cathedral[J].85Harvard Law Review,1972,85(6):1089-1128.
[19]杨春然.运动员使用兴奋剂行为入罪的法律障碍及突破[J].上海体育学院学报,2018(2):18-30.
[20]Straubel M.Enhancing the performance of the doping court:how the court of arbitration for sport can do its job better[J].Loy.U.Chi.LJ,2004,36:1203-1272.
[21]Reszel R.Guilty until Proven Innocent,and Then,Still Guilty:What the World anti-Doping Agency Can Learn from the National Football League about First-Time antiDoping Violations[J].Wis.intl L.j,2012.
[22]Goldstone A.Obstruction of Justice:The Arbitration Process for Anti-Doping Violations during the Olympic Games[J].Biochemical Journal,2016,7(5):445-465.
[23]杨春然.论被伤害权对同意效力范围的限制:兼论被害人同意在三阶层犯罪论体系中的位置[J].清华法学,2013(3):136-142.
[24]杨春然,张梅.世界反兴奋剂机构的行踪规则与法律的冲突及限制[J].成都体育学院学报,2018(1):39-46.
[25]USADA v.Landis,AAA No.30 190 0084 06(2007)[EB/OL].http://www.usada.org/files/active/arbitration-rulings/Landis%2Fina1%20(20-09-07)%20(3).pdf.
[26]Hanson v Federation Equestre Internationale Cas 2009/a/1768.
[27]Dr Chris Davies.The‘Comfortable Satisfaction’Standard Of Proof:Applied By The Court Of Arbitration For Sport In Drug-Related Cases[J].U.Notre Dame Austl.L.Rev.,2012,14:1-46.
[28]Rigozzi A,Haas U,Wisnosky E,et al.Breaking down the process for determining a basic sanction under the2015 World Anti-Doping Code[J].International Sports Law Journal,2015,15(1-2):1-46.
[29]杨春然.论惩罚性赔偿的证明标准[J].证据科学,2012(4):438-448.
[30]Gandert D J.The WADA Code:Optimal on Paper[J].Maryland Journal of International Law,2017,32(1):274-336.
[31]Claudia Pechstein v International Skating Union Cas2009/a/1912;Duetsche Eisschnelllauf Gemeinschaft v International Skating Union Cas 2009/a/1913.
[32]Paul C.McCaffrey,Note,Playing Fair:Why the United States Anti-Doping Agency's Performance-EnhancedA djudications Should Be Treated as State Action[J].22WASH.U.J.L.&POL'Y,2006:22.
[33]Masters A.Corruption in sport:From the playing field to the field of policy[J].Policy&Society,2015,34(2):111-123.
[34]杨春然,董兴佩.从政府、协会到个人:集体责任影响运动员比赛权的根据:兼论俄罗斯兴奋剂丑闻的处理[J].武汉体育学院学报,2018,52(4):59-67.
[35]Gandert D J.The WADA Code:Optimal on Paper[J].Maryland Journal of International Law,2017,32(1):274-336.
[36]Ryan Reszel,Guilty Until Proven Innocent,And Then,Still Guilty:What The World Anti-Doping Agency Can Learn From The National Football League About FirstTime Anti-Doping Violations[J].Wisconsin International Law Journal,2012,29(4):807-832.