对2015版《世界反兴奋剂条例》3.2条的评析

详细信息    查看全文 | 推荐本文 |

英文篇名：Analysis on Article 3.2 of the 2015 Edition of World Anti-doping Regulations 作者：曹绍芳 ; 郭树理 英文作者：CAO Shaofang;GUO Shuli;School of Physical Education,Changsha University of Science and Technology; 关键词：反兴奋剂 ; 推定 ; 国际体育仲裁院 ; 反兴奋剂组织 ; 世界反兴奋剂条例 ; 世界反兴奋剂机构 ; 检测方法 ; 检测决定限 英文关键词：anti-doping;;presumption;;Court of Arbitration for Sports;;anti-doping organization;;world anti-doping regulations;;world anti-doping agency;;testing method;;detection decision limit 中文刊名：BTSF 英文刊名：Journal of Capital University of Physical Education and Sports 机构：长沙理工大学体育学院; 出版日期：2019-01-15 出版单位：首都体育学院学报 年：2019 期：v.31 基金：国家社会科学基金项目(11CFX076) 语种：中文; 页：BTSF201901010 页数：7 CN：01 ISSN：11-4513/G 分类号：51-56+61

摘要

对《世界反兴奋剂条例》3.2条进行分析和阐释,以探析此条规定对当事人的证明责任及其权益造成的影响,以期为我国处理兴奋剂案件提供参考。《世界反兴奋剂条例》3.2条推定规则的设置更多是为了证明的便捷,但是是针对反兴奋剂组织的证明便捷,而并没有针对运动员的便利而设置的推定。在这种情形下,要避免反兴奋剂组织和运动员利益的过度失衡。2015年版《世界反兴奋剂条例》3.2条有较大的变化,对当事人证明责任的影响很大,对推定规则的适用进行辨析,同时发现存在一些有待澄清的问题。对国际体育仲裁院的案例进行考察,以进一步促进对3.2条的含义的理解和掌握。
        Article 3.2 of the World Anti-doping Regulations is analyzed and explained in order to explore the effect of this article on the parties' burden of proof and their rights and interests, so as to provide reference for the treatment of doping cases in China. The setting of Article 3.2 of the World Anti-doping Regulations is more convenient to prove, but it is easy to prove for the anti-doping organization, but it has not been presumed for the convenience of the athletes. In this case, the excessive imbalance of the interests of anti-doping organizations and sportsmen should be avoided. Article 3.2 of the 2015 edition of the World Anti-doping Regulations has undergone some great change, which has a great influence on the parties' burden of proof, discriminates the application of the presumption rules, and finds some problems to be clarified. The case of the Court of Arbitration for Sports is inspected to further promote the understanding and mastery of the meaning of Article 3.2.

引文

[1]何家弘.论推定规则适用中的证明责任和证明标准[J].中外法学,2008(6):866.
    [2] CASarbitrationNCAS11/2353[EB/OL].[2017-02-09].http://www.centrostudisport.it/PDF/TAS_CAS_ULTIMO/85.pdf,2016-04-25.
    [3]CASarbitrationNCAS11/2566[EB/OL].[2017-02-09].http://www.tascas.org/d2wfiles/document/6633/5048/0/256620FINAL20Award20_internet_.pdf,2016-04-25.
    [4]CASarbitrationNCAS10/2185[EB/OL].[2017-02-09].http://arbitration law.com/files/free_pdfs/CAS%202009-A-1768%20H%20v%20FEI%20Award.pdf,2016-04-25.
    [5]CASarbitrationNCAS09/1931[EB/OL].[2017-02-09].http://www.tascas. org/d2wfiles/document/3730/5048/0/Award20193120internet. pdf,2016-04-25.
    [6] KOLLER D L.How the united states government sacrifices athletes’constitutional rightsin the pursuit of national prestige[J].Brigham Young University Law Review,2008,(5):1465-1544.
    [7] CASarbitration NCAS09/1786[EB/OL].[2017-02-09].http://arbitrationlaw.com/files/free_pdfs/CAS%202009-A-1768%20H%20v%20FEI%20Award.pdf,2016-04-25.
    [8]张海燕.民事推定法律效果之再思考[J].法学家,2014(5):50.
    [9] CASarbitration NCAS14/3487[EB/OL].[2017-02-09].http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/3487.pdf,2016-04-25.
    [10]王舸.证据与事实推论要论[D].北京:中国政法大学,2008.
    [11] CASarbitration NCAS14/3639[EB/OL].[2017-02-09].http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/FINAL_AWARD_3639__internet_.pdf,2016-04-25.
    [12] CAS arbitration NCAS05/884[EB/OL].[2017-02-09].http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/884.pdf,2016-04-25.
    [13] CASarbitrationNCAS09/1912[EB/OL].[2017-02-09].http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/1912,%201913.pdf,2016-04-25.
    [14]WADA.AthleteBiologicalPassportOperatingGuidelines[EB/OL].[2017-02-09].https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada_abp_operating_guidelines_2014_v5.0_en.pdf,2016-04-25.
    [15] VIRET M.Evidencein Anti-Dopingatthe Intersectionof scienceandLaw[M].Hague:T.M.C.Asser Institute,2016:298-300.
    [16] CAS arbitration NCASOG09/1879[EB/OL].[2017-02-09].http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/sites/Case Law/Shared%20Documents/1879.pdf,2011-09-18.