《世界反兴奋剂条例》“篡改”规定的不足与完善

Deficiencies and improvement on "tampering" provisions in "World Anti-Doping Code"

投稿时间：2018-07-26

DOI：

英文关键词:"World Anti-Doping Code" "tampering" important documents about results intention improvement

基金项目:国家社科基金项目（17BTY007）

作者	单位	E-mail
赵永如	苏州大学王健法学院	yaron.z@foxmail.com

摘要点击次数: 2728

全文下载次数: 2459

中文摘要:

2015年《世界反兴奋剂条例》规定了有“篡改或企图篡改兴奋剂管制过程中的任何环节”（简称“篡改”）违规的相关规定（简称“篡改”规定）。“篡改”规定本身具有规制范围广泛、认定标准不明确、违规处罚裁量范围小、补充性等特点，使得该规定在反兴奋剂实践中的适用存在问题。2015年国际体育仲裁院审理的瑞塔·吉普图案和卡尔·穆里案较为典型地反映出了“篡改”规定的适用问题，同时也为“篡改”条款以及《世界反兴奋剂条例》其他相关规定的完善提供了思路。本研究认为，今后《世界反兴奋剂条例》的修订中可以进一步明确“篡改”违规的主客观要件，同时通过增加加重情节规定、加强反兴奋剂调查阶段运动员辩护权保护等方法，促进反兴奋剂规则体系的进一步完善。

英文摘要:

The 2015 "World Anti-Doping Code" stipulates the relevant provisions (shortened form: "tampering" provisions) on "tampering or attempting to tamper with any part of the doping control process" (shortened form: "tampering"). "Tampering" provisions are of a wide-range and have unclear identification standards, small discretionary range of violations and complementariness, which lead to problems of the application of these provisions in anti-doping practices. The Kenya Rita Jeptoo case and the New Zealand Carl Muri case, which were heard by Court of Arbitration for Sport in 2015, typically reflected the application problems of the "tampering" provisions and at the meantime, offered some ideas about how to improve the "tampering" provisions as well as other relevant provisions in "World Anti-Doping Code." This study believes that in the future development and revision of "World Anti-Doping Code", the subjective and objective conditions of "tampering" violations can be further specified. At the same time, anti-doping regulation system can be further improved by increasing provisions in terms of aggravated circumstances and strengthening the protection of athletes' defense rights during anti-doping investigation.

查看全文查看/发表评论下载PDF阅读器

关闭