兴奋剂仲裁案件中非法证据的可采性研究——对国际体育仲裁院沃尔沃德案的法理思考

在沃尔沃德案中,国际体育仲裁院对违反法院命令或侵犯人格权收集的证据在仲裁中是否可采的问题作出裁决。这一裁决对我国兴奋剂仲裁案件中非法证据的可采性将造成一定的影响。我国公安司法机关在刑事案件中非法收集到的兴奋剂违纪证据,在刑事案件中被排除后同样不可以在兴奋剂违纪处理程序中使用。对于反兴奋剂组织非法搜集的证据,在兴奋剂仲裁案件中应参考刑事诉讼中的证据排除规则予以处理。     

放心满意证明标准在非检测阳性兴奋剂违规案件中的适用性探讨

国际体育仲裁院（CAS）仲裁庭认定澳大利亚埃森登足球俱乐部34名运动员构成兴奋剂违规且对违规行为有重大过错,推翻了澳大利亚足球联盟（AFL）的决定,并对违规运动员均处以2年的禁赛期。区别于样本检测阳性的案件,CAS仲裁庭认定在非检测阳性案件中运用的证明标准是“放心满意标准”（Comfortable Satisfaction）,认为世界反兴奋剂机构（WADA）可以通过运动员的承认、证人证言、书面证据等任何可靠的方式对兴奋剂违规事实加以证明。CAS仲裁庭在上诉审理中对证据审查适用的是全面审查原则,上诉程序中可以提交新证据的条件是申请方不存在对诉讼权利的滥用和主观恶意。研究认为：在非检测阳性案件中,有必要加强间接证据的独立定案功能,对放心满意标准确立统一的认定规则,并且完善证据排除规则的相关规定。     

非药检阳性兴奋剂案件的举证责任和证明标准

在阐述举证责任和证明标准相关理论的基础上,分析<世界反兴奋剂条例>制定、修订前后,非药检阳性案件举证规则的变化,并以国际体育仲裁院裁决的美国反兴奋剂机构诉蒙哥马利等案件为例,对非药检阳性案件的指控方和被指控方的举证责任和证明标准进行阐述.<世界反兴奋剂条例>制定后与制定前相比,反兴奋剂组织承担的证明标准降低了,而<世界反兴奋剂条例>修订后与修订前相比,被指控兴奋剂违规方承担的证明标准提高了.目前所适用介于"优势证据标准"与"排除合理怀疑标准"之间的弹性证明标准,值得我国在今后立法实践中借鉴吸收.     

国际体育仲裁院中证明标准的适用问题研究

国际体育仲裁院仲裁裁决在体育法治秩序的构建中发挥日益重要的作用,然证明标准是影响体育仲裁结果的关键因素,适用不同的证明标准可能导致不同仲裁结果,从而影响裁决公正性。国际体育仲裁院根据案件主体和客体不同,区别适用不同的证明标准。如在兴奋剂案件中,其对体育组织适用的标准区别于普通法系传统的两大证明标准,采用特殊标准——“放心满意”。研究该证明标准不仅对各国体育仲裁机构和其他体育纠纷解决机构借鉴吸收具有重大价值,而且符合新修订《体育法》中兴奋剂的治理目标,对运动员权利保护具有一定借鉴意义。运用文献资料和案例分析法,探讨该证明标准的概念和性质,并进一步分析其在国际体育仲裁院中的具体适用。不难发现,该证明标准在国际体育仲裁院的具体适用存在裁决缺乏先例效力,对间接证据适用该标准缺乏具体指导,案件严重性认定模糊,兴奋剂案件性质认定不明确等若干问题。为提高国际体育仲裁院仲裁裁决的公正性、一致性和权威性,结合国际体育仲裁院具体实践情况对具体问题提出思考与建议。     

兴奋剂违规案件的证明责任问题——以“Contador案”为视角

运用案例分析法，将证据法学和体育法学交叉综合，对国际体育仲裁院仲裁庭（CAS）就“Contador案”所作的裁决进行分析。以从CAS的裁决中寻找有益的观点，为完善《世界反兴奋剂条例》及以之为蓝本的其他反兴奋剂条例中关于证明责任分配与证明标准的规定提供借鉴。“Contador案”的裁决采纳了证据法学中将证明责任分为法定说服责任与提供证据的责任的观点，认为不承担法定说服责任的当事人在对方当事人举证困难的情况下，也应承担提供证据协助查明案情的责任。这一观点应当为《世界反兴奋剂条例》所借鉴，以补充细化第3.1条中关于证明责任的规定。     

运动员兴奋剂违纪重大过错的认定——以莎拉波娃案为例

体育仲裁院（CAS）仲裁庭认定俄罗斯著名运动员莎拉波娃的兴奋剂违纪行为并非故意，且不构成重大过错，将她的禁赛期由2年减缩到15个月。但该案的裁决存在若干问题。运动员在没有医药专业背景或专业人士的帮助下自行核对兴奋剂禁用清单存在重大风险。适用于马术案件的“委托理论”对其他体育项目内的兴奋剂案件并不合适，代理人的错误应当由运动员本人承担责任。运动员在兴奋剂检测时故意隐瞒自己的药物使用情况可能构成重大过错的证据之一。由于运动员有义务知悉禁用清单的内容，体育组织未能即时告知禁用清单新修订的情况并不能减轻运动员兴奋剂违纪的过错。违禁物质的代谢时间长可能会对判断运动员的过错程度产生影响。在认定运动员兴奋剂违纪的故意时，以客观主义的解释方法代替主观主义的解释方法，来分析运动员对兴奋剂违纪高风险的认知程度，更有利于打击兴奋剂违纪行为。     

建立独立的兴奋剂纠纷处理程序机制的思考

兴奋剂违纪行为有着与一般违纪行为不同的特征,因此对兴奋剂纠纷的处理也应该与一般违纪案件的处理程序不同.在我国有必要建立独立的兴奋剂纠纷处理程序,即在整体体育仲裁程序之下设立一个专门处理兴奋剂案件的分支程序,并在此程序中增加一系列刑事程序保障措施,包括确定以公正优先的价值导向、适用刑事证据规则、刑法的基本原则、增加对被追诉人利益的保障措施等.     

确认体内违禁物质来源对兴奋剂违规非故意认定的意义——从阿德米诉欧洲足联案谈起

世界反兴奋剂条例在“无过错和无重大过错”的定义中明确要求运动员要证明违禁物质如何进入体内,而关于“非故意”则无明文规定。在阿德米兴奋剂违规案中,国际体育仲裁院在运动员未能证实样本中违禁物质来源的前提下,运用优势证据认可其违规行为为非故意,将4年的禁赛期缩减为2年。通过对该案例的分析和对类似案件的对比,得出结论：运动员的举证责任和他获得的利益原则上成正比,运动员必须确立违禁物质如何进入体内以证明自己无过错或无重大过错,从而达到免除或缩减禁赛期的目的,参照上述规则,对于非故意可以减少一半的禁赛期这样巨大的利益也应当明确运动员的这一举证责任是必需的。     

兴奋剂违禁处罚中“过罚相当”原则的适用——从接吻引发的兴奋剂违禁处罚案件谈起

网球明星加斯奎特因接吻而引发的兴奋剂处罚案件,反映出兴奋剂违禁处罚过程中,“过罚相当”原则与“严格责任”原则是同等重要的,前者还是维护运动员基本权益的保障.但”过罚相当”在实施中也存在一些问题,如:证据事实的认定主体不清晰,证明标准不明确,规则规定不够详尽等.为了更好地适用这一原则,应明确兴奋剂处罚的程序介于民事诉讼和刑事诉讼之间,具有专门性;《世界反兴奋剂条例》对运动员提出申辩等程序权利宜明确和细化.     

论兴奋剂违规处罚抗辩中的非故意证明新路径

2021版《世界反兴奋剂条例》认可了自国际体育仲裁法庭判例中发展出来的、根据故意定义证明非故意路径之价值。根据故意定义证明非故意时,不要求运动员说明禁用物质来源,只要证据所反映的相关事实能够证明运动员既不是为提高竞赛成绩而故意使用兴奋剂,也没有无视可能存在的违规风险,就可以推翻故意推定从而减免禁赛处罚。通过对《世界反兴奋剂条例》相关规定变化的梳理,以及对国际体育仲裁法庭代表性案例要点的整理与归纳,可知该路径仅在无法说明禁用物质的确切来源且案件特殊的前提下适用,适用时运动员要根据实际情况说明可反驳故意违规的情形、对禁用物质的可能来源作出合理解释并举证证明自己的说法。考虑到食品安全状况,运动员和体育组织应当从不同角度关注非故意证明新路径实施方式的具体变化,以便在反兴奋剂实践中积极运用。     

Ego involvement increases doping likelihood

Achievement goal theory provides a framework to help understand how individuals behave in achievement contexts, such as sport. Evidence concerning the role of motivation in the decision to use banned performance enhancing substances (i.e., doping) is equivocal on this issue. The extant literature shows that dispositional goal orientation has been weakly and inconsistently associated with doping intention and use. It is possible that goal involvement, which describes the situational motivational state, is a stronger determinant of doping intention. Accordingly, the current study used an experimental design to examine the effects of goal involvement, manipulated using direct instructions and reflective writing, on doping likelihood in hypothetical situations in college athletes. The ego-involving goal increased doping likelihood compared to no goal and a task-involving goal. The present findings provide the first evidence that ego involvement can sway the decision to use doping to improve athletic performance.     

Sport supplement use predicts doping attitudes and likelihood via sport supplement beliefs

The aim of this study was to examine: 1) whether sport supplement use is related to doping and 2) whether sport supplement beliefs mediated this relationship. In Study 1, athletes (N = 598), completed measures of sport supplement use, sport supplement beliefs, and doping attitudes. In Study 2, athletes (N = 475) completed measures of sport supplement use, sport supplement beliefs, and doping likelihood. In both studies, sport supplement use predicted doping outcomes indirectly via sport supplement beliefs. Our findings provide novel evidence to suggest that sport supplement users, who strongly believe that sport supplements are effective, are more likely to dope. For anti-doping organisations wishing to prevent doping, targeting an athlete’s beliefs about sport supplements may improve the effectiveness of anti-doping prevention programmes.     

白俄罗斯皮划艇协会与国际皮划艇联合会体育仲裁案例评述

通过对2016年白俄罗斯皮划艇协会与国际皮划艇联合会体育仲裁案例的分析,得出研究结论：禁用药物超长的代谢时间不能成为反兴奋剂规则具有溯及力的理由;虽然《世界反兴奋剂条例》第11条的规定因为存在"集体项目"这一前提而没有违反个人责任原则,但该条第12条由于规定得过于简单仍然违反了该原则;国家司法机关刑事诉讼程序中发现的兴奋剂药物证据,在刑事诉讼程序终止而证据未经质证的情况下,不能直接作为兴奋剂违规行为的认定证据。     

Analgesics use in competitive triathletes: its relationship to doping and on predicting its usage

The two major objectives of this study were (i) to assess variables that predict the use of analgesics in competitive athletes and (ii) to test whether the use of analgesics is associated with the use of doping. A questionnaire primarily addressing the use of analgesics and doping was distributed among 2,997 triathletes. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to predict the use of analgesics. Moreover, the randomised response technique (RRT) was used to estimate the prevalence of doping in order to assess whether users of analgesics have a higher potential risk for doping than non-users. Statistical power analyses were performed to determine sample size. The bootstrap method was used to assess the statistical significance of the prevalence difference for doping between users and non-users of analgesics. Four variables from a pool of 16 variables were identified that predict the use of analgesics. These were: “version of questionnaire (English)”, “gender (female)”, “behaviour in case of pain (continue training)”, and “hours of training per week (>12 h/week)”. The 12-month prevalence estimate for the use of doping substances (overall estimate 13.0%) was significantly higher in athletes that used analgesics (20.4%) than in those athletes who did not use analgesics (12.4%). The results of this study revealed that athletes who use analgesics prior to competition may be especially prone to using doping substances. The predictors of analgesic use found in the study may be of importance to prepare education material and prevention models against the misuse of drugs in athletes.     

The role of self-regulatory efficacy,moral disengagement and guilt on doping likelihood: A social cognitive theory perspective

Given the concern over doping in sport, researchers have begun to explore the role played by self-regulatory processes in the decision whether to use banned performance-enhancing substances. Grounded on Bandura’s (1991) theory of moral thought and action, this study examined the role of self-regulatory efficacy, moral disengagement and anticipated guilt on the likelihood to use a banned substance among college athletes. Doping self-regulatory efficacy was associated with doping likelihood both directly (b = ?.16, P < .001) and indirectly (b = ?.29, P < .001) through doping moral disengagement. Moral disengagement also contributed directly to higher doping likelihood and lower anticipated guilt about doping, which was associated with higher doping likelihood. Overall, the present findings provide evidence to support a model of doping based on Bandura’s social cognitive theory of moral thought and action, in which self-regulatory efficacy influences the likelihood to use banned performance-enhancing substances both directly and indirectly via moral disengagement.     

兴奋剂样本检测阳性案件中品格证据的适用

在兴奋剂样本检测呈阳性的案件中,运动员往往会从主观心态着手,主张无过错或无重大过错,或者至少是非故意。为了证明这类主张,运动员通常会提出品格证据,国际体育仲裁院(CAS)仲裁庭也几乎都认可运动员有权提出品格证据。然而仲裁庭对品格证据的采纳仍然存在着诸多问题,例如对于某些特定的案件能否适用品格证据,不同的仲裁庭有不同的看法,同时清白声明的证明逻辑不严谨,品格证据的认定标准也不一致,这些都会使裁决结果难以令人信服。由于品格证据存在一定的局限性,CAS仲裁庭应当始终对其保持谨慎的态度,可以在适当参考刑事诉讼中品格证据规则的基础上,进一步规范品格证据的适用。具体而言,CAS仲裁庭有必要将品格证据的适用限定在运动员欲证明非故意又无法确定禁用物质来源的案件,并明确品格证据在认定运动员的主观心态时只能起到辅助作用。此外,为了维护公平公正和规则的一致性,CAS仲裁庭应当考虑各方面的因素,更加客观地认定各类品格证据。     

Basic values predict doping likelihood

ABSTRACT

Basic values, defined as trans-situational goals that vary in importance and act as guiding principles in life, have been linked with unethical cognitions, emotions and actions. Their roles in doping, a form of cheating in sport, have yet to established. College athletes reported doping likelihood in hypothetical scenario-based situations and completed measures of basic values, moral disengagement, and anticipated guilt. Correlation analysis showed that doping likelihood was positively associated with self-enhancement values but negatively associated with self-transcendence values and conservation values. Moral disengagement correlated positively with self-enhancement values and negatively with self-transcendence values, whereas guilt correlated positively conservation values and negatively with self-enhancement values and openness to change values. Regression analyses showed that self-enhancement values positively predicted doping likelihood directly, self-transcendence values negatively predicted doping likelihood indirectly via moral disengagement and guilt, and conservation values negatively predicted doping likelihood indirectly via guilt. In line with theory and evidence concerning the relationship between basic value systems and moral thought and action, we found that the values of athletes are directly (self-enhancement) and indirectly (self-transcendence, conservation) linked with likely use of banned performance enhancing substances, an expression of cheating in sport.     

兴奋剂检测及反兴奋剂的必要性分析

尽管兴奋剂对运动员的身体、心理以及高尚的奥林匹克体育精神都是有百害而无一利,兴奋剂检测越来越严格,检测技术也越来越先进,但近年来兴奋剂的使用仍在继续。基于使用兴奋剂对人体所造成的危害以及对社会所造成的负面影响,社会各界都应该联合起来开展反兴奋剂运动。本文通过对大量有关兴奋剂及反兴奋剂的文献资料的分析,提出了兴奋剂的原理、危害及反兴奋剂的必要性,希望对相关人员有所启发以推动反兴奋剂运动的发展。     

Contamination of dietary supplements and positive drug tests in sport

The use of dietary supplements is widespread in sport and most athletes competing at the highest level of competition use some form of dietary supplementation. Many of these supplements confer no performance or health benefit, and some may actually be detrimental to both performance and health when taken in high doses for prolonged periods. Some supplements contain excessive doses of potentially toxic ingredients, while others do not contain significant amounts of the ingredients listed on the label. There is also now evidence that some of the apparently legitimate dietary supplements on sale contain ingredients that are not declared on the label but that are prohibited by the doping regulations of the International Olympic Committee and of the World Anti-Doping Agency. Contaminants that have been identified include a variety of anabolic androgenic steroids (including testosterone and nandrolone as well as the pro-hormones of these compounds), ephedrine and caffeine. This contamination may in most cases be the result of poor manufacturing practice, but there is some evidence of deliberate adulteration of products. The principle of strict liability that applies in sport means that innocent ingestion of prohibited substances is not an acceptable excuse, and athletes testing positive are liable to penalties. Although it is undoubtedly the case that some athletes are guilty of deliberate cheating, some positive tests are likely to be the result of inadvertent ingestion of prohibited substances present in otherwise innocuous dietary supplements.     

Contamination of dietary supplements and positive drug tests in sport

The use of dietary supplements is widespread in sport and most athletes competing at the highest level of competition use some form of dietary supplementation. Many of these supplements confer no performance or health benefit, and some may actually be detrimental to both performance and health when taken in high doses for prolonged periods. Some supplements contain excessive doses of potentially toxic ingredients, while others do not contain significant amounts of the ingredients listed on the label. There is also now evidence that some of the apparently legitimate dietary supplements on sale contain ingredients that are not declared on the label but that are prohibited by the doping regulations of the International Olympic Committee and of the World Anti-Doping Agency. Contaminants that have been identified include a variety of anabolic androgenic steroids (including testosterone and nandrolone as well as the pro-hormones of these compounds), ephedrine and caffeine. This contamination may in most cases be the result of poor manufacturing practice, but there is some evidence of deliberate adulteration of products. The principle of strict liability that applies in sport means that innocent ingestion of prohibited substances is not an acceptable excuse, and athletes testing positive are liable to penalties. Although it is undoubtedly the case that some athletes are guilty of deliberate cheating, some positive tests are likely to be the result of inadvertent ingestion of prohibited substances present in otherwise innocuous dietary supplements.