| In cases involving positive doping samples, athletes will often start with the subjective state of mind, claiming that they bear No Fault or No Significant Fault, or alternatively, claiming that the use of the Prohibited Substance is not intentional. Athletes will usually adduce character evidence to prove such claims, and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panels have almost always accepted that athletes are entitled to adduce character evidence. However, there are still problems with the adoption of character evidence, for example, different panels have different views on whether character evidence can be applied in particular cases, the logic of proof for assertion of innocence is not rigorous and the standards for determining character evidence vary, all of which can make the arbitral awards unconvincing. The CAS panels should always be cautious about character evidence due to its limitations, and could further regulate its application with reference to the rules on character evidence in criminal proceedings. First, in the doping cases where a Prohibited Substance is found in the Athletes' body, CAS panels should only accept character evidence when the Athletes try to establish that the use of the Prohibited Substance is not intentional and cannot identify the exact source of the Prohibited Substance. What's more, it should be made clear that character evidence can only play a supporting role in determining the Athlete's subjective state of mind. Last but not least, to maintain fairness and justice, as well as the consistency of the rules, CAS panels should consider all aspects of character evidence in a more objective manner. |
沪公网安备 31010402002917号