兴奋剂处罚中违规运动员提供实质协助的认定标准探析——弗拉基米尔·奥布霍夫国际体育仲裁案件评述

Analysis on the Criteria for Determining the Substantial Assistance Provided by the Athlete Committing the Violation in Doping Sanctions: A Commentary on Vladimir Obukhov's International Sports Arbitration Case

投稿时间：2024-07-22

DOI：10.12064/ssr.2024072201

中文关键词:实质协助国际体育仲裁兴奋剂违规《世界反兴奋剂条例》立功

英文关键词:substantial assistance international sports arbitration anti-doping rule violation WADC meritorious service

基金项目:国家社会科学基金项目（23BTY036）

作者	单位
李雨辰	苏州大学王健法学院，江苏苏州 215006

摘要点击次数: 0

全文下载次数: 5

中文摘要:

《世界反兴奋剂条例》在第10.7.1条中规定了实质协助条款，以暂缓执行部分原本适用的禁赛期等处罚后果的方式，鼓励违规运动员或者其他当事人揭发他人兴奋剂违规等事项。该条款对促进纯洁体育具有重要意义，然而在奥布霍夫案中，不同机构对当事人提供的协助是否构成实质协助的判断不一，揭示了实质协助条款在行为定性上存在模糊性。通过分析实质协助的相关案例，探究体育法原则，从刑法学立功视角进行研究，可以发现当违规运动员提供的信息足以促使对被检举人启动违规案件的调查时，就应视为满足实质协助的条件。为了进一步明确实质协助条款的认定要求，结合2027年版《世界反兴奋剂条例》修改草案的内容，认为在相关条款注释中应当公开实质协助的信息类别，将优势证据标准作为实质协助的认定标准，并删除以“兴奋剂违规的严重程度”作为暂缓禁赛期幅度的判断依据。中国有关方面也应准确理解实质协助条款的真实含义，并使国内有关实质协助认定标准的规定与国际保持一致。

英文摘要:

The World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) provides for substantial assistance in Article 10.7.1. By suspending a part of the otherwise applicable consequences, such as the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility, it encourages the athlete or other person to expose an anti-doping rule violation by another person, etc. Article 10.7.1 is of great significance to promote clean sports. However, in the Vladimir Obukhov case, different institutions had inconsistent judgments on whether the assistance provided by the athlete constituted substantial assistance, revealing the ambiguity in the qualitative issue of substantial assistance. This article analyzes relevant cases of substantial assistance, explores the principles of sports law, evaluates from the perspective of meritorious service in criminal law, and finally finds that when the information provided by the athlete is sufficient to bring a case against the person being reported, the conditions for substantial assistance are met. Combined with the WADA 2027 code draft-version 1, in order to further clarify the identification requirements of the substantial assistance, the author insists on opening the categories of information that might qualify for substantial assistance in relevant provisions; using the balance of probability as the identification standard for substantial assistance and deleting "the seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation" as a criterion for determining the extent of suspended ineligibility. Meanwhile, relevant Chinese parties should also accurately understand the true meaning of the substantial assistance and make domestic laws and regulations consistent with the international standards for identifying substantial assistance.

查看全文查看/发表评论下载PDF阅读器

关闭