《反兴奋剂运动员权利规则》审思

《反兴奋剂运动员权利规则》是由世界反兴奋剂机构下属的运动员委员会制定,执行委员会批准通过的首个明确规定运动员在反兴奋剂活动中权利的文件。作为运动员参与反兴奋剂活动的基础,该文件的制定与修订争议不断,多集中于文件名称、法律地位及其内容中不具有强制执行力的部分。在体育组织的干预下,起草者修改了文件的名称并澄清“这不是一份法律文件”,使该文件的意义与价值存疑。建议在日后的修订中慎重考虑文件名称的匹配性,在厘清该文件与《世界反兴奋剂条例》及国际标准关系的基础上,赋予其法律效力或给予象征性法律规则的地位,完善对受侵犯权利救济的指引,加快建立申诉处理机制。     

兴奋剂个人违纪的经济处罚初探

世界反兴奋剂机构授权各反兴奋剂组织对违规的运动员可施加经济处罚或合理回收成本费用,同时提出了以\"施加最长禁赛期\"为前提和比例原则的限制,却未明示该限制的目的,这直接影响了各反兴奋剂组织对该条款的解读。不同版本的经济处罚规则反映制定者对授权条款中\"最长禁赛期\"条件的解释,在符合比例原则的前提下均具有合理性。但我国反兴奋剂政策文件中的经济处罚条款另辟蹊径,以\"负担兴奋剂检测费用\"为名义施加罚款,混淆了《世界反兴奋剂条例》授权的两类经济后果间的界限。为明确经济处罚的目的和限度,应对条文的表述进行修正并完善可减免经济处罚的条件。     

《体育法》修改中反兴奋剂制度之完善

反兴奋剂问题是发展体育事业过程中必须关注的重点问题,而具有体育基本法地位的《中华人民共和国体育法》(《体育法》)对反兴奋剂问题规定过于原则,已严重滞后于国家反兴奋剂工作的发展。在《体育法》修改的大背景下,通过文献资料、专家访谈的方法对《体育法》修改中的反兴奋剂问题进行研究,认为《体育法》中对反兴奋剂问题进行修改是当前国家体育法治发展的必然要求,也是推动反兴奋剂工作发展的保障,且有利于运动员权利的保护 ;同时分析《体育法》修改应重点关注反兴奋剂领域中的基本问题——管理体制、信息公开机制、教育制度的不完善 ;最后结合《体育法》的基本法地位以及上述基本问题,提出需要在《体育法》修改文本中设置反兴奋剂专章,且明确反兴奋剂的工作方针、管理体制、信息公开、宣传教育、科研与国际合作 5.个方面内容     

可卡因管制在反兴奋剂实践中的探析：以2021年实施版《世界反兴奋剂条例》为例

2021年实施版《世界反兴奋剂条例》在第五届世界反兴奋剂大会上正式获得通过,并将于2021年1月1日起正式生效。新版条例有关可卡因的规定变化颇多。对可卡因是否应被列为非特定物质,以及可卡因能否提高比赛成绩一直以来存在争议,这些争议对反兴奋剂实践影响颇深。违规背景的多样性使得运动员说明禁用物质来源的难度较大,而不同裁决机构对可卡因争议所持的不同观点易加剧处罚结果的差异化。2021年实施版《世界反兴奋剂条例》对于可卡因等社会毒品的规定的变革使得体育仲裁裁决的指引作用能够得到进一步发挥,同时也避免严格责任原则的严厉性进一步加剧。当然,在未来的反兴奋剂进程中,在不触动政府层面药物管制原则的前提下,变革禁用清单,将可卡因纳入特定物质的范畴,既可缓和有关可卡因的争议,又可增强裁决处理的一致性与稳定性,为运动员规范自身行为提供合理预期。     

国际反兴奋剂立法发展趋势与我国反兴奋剂立法

运用文献综述和分析对比的方法,通过对国际反兴奋剂法规和部分国家反兴奋剂法的分析研究认为,当今国际反兴奋剂立法呈现出国际化、等级高层化、标准一体化、处罚严厉化等发展趋势.我国反兴奋剂立法现状与国际反兴奋剂立法发展趋势存在的差距,已难以适应和满足反兴奋剂斗争的需要.应当从深入社会调查、加强科学研究,加快专门立法步伐,修改相关法律,加大处罚力度等方面加强我国反兴奋剂的法制建设工作.     

Sport and doping: from WADA’s monopoly to collective arrangements and new model of anti-doping

Abstract

On April 1, 2018, the new standards of compliance to the code of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) came into force. The new standards impact all sports. An important amendment has been made to an article of the existing code ‘Additional Roles and Responsibility of the Parties’. Now, all international federations and the unions in agreement with WADA are obliged to reject applications for holding all sporting events from countries that do not comply with the WADA code. By then, Russian elite sport remained in isolation because the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) had no license from WADA until a compromise agreement allowed Russia back into international sports in September 2018. The probability of obtaining permanent return to international sport was extremely low. In order to obtain the license, Russian sport authorities were asked to agree with the reports of Professor McLaren and to admit the existence of doping support in the country at the state level, which seemed improbable. In Russia, although the new standards of the World Anti-Doping Agency code have not caused special concerns it directly impact Russian elite sport. Unless certain conditions were met by 2019, there was a high probability that Russia would not be able to attend large international competitions in the near future, including the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. The situation dictates the choice of the new strategy of development for Russian sport and new model for the fight against doping, which can be not dependent on WADA. To date, there have been no real checks on WADA’s authority other than occasional decisions in the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Academics who are critical of WADA’s functions often find themselves marginalized when the purported global doping “crisis” should bring “all hands on deck” to provide a humanistic and scientific approach that is best for athletes past, present and future. The functions of WADA in investigating, charging and punishing athletes do not contribute to sustainable development of sport and the sports industry around the world, and create unipolar environment of influence on sports development. Therefore, in this article, we describe some alternative forms and new order of regulation of the anti-doping relations in sport.     

The IOC and the doping issue—An institutional discursive approach to organizational identity construction

To show why the 1998 doping scandals led to the establishment of the World Anti-Doping Agency, this paper investigates how the IOC has created its organizational identity once confronted with the emergence of doping in sport. The paper endorses a new institutional understanding of organizations, which is combined with a critical discourse analytical framework. Through a systematic reading of the Olympic Review between 1960 and 2003 four main anti-doping discourses are outlined: health scientific, ethical, legal and educational discourses construct the meaning-providing horizon of IOC anti-doping commitment. The 1988 Ben Johnson doping incident is crucial for the understanding of the organizational changes occurring 10 years later. Immediately following the Seoul Olympic Games the IOC applies a warfare genre, which frames anti-doping as a declaration of war and constructs a narrative of the IOC as leading a successful battle against doping. The 1998 doping scandals reveal the opposite. Subsequently, WADA can be labelled IOC's institutionalization failure.     

捍卫公信:世界反兴奋剂机构的组织架构改革实践及启示

为捍卫体育精神和保护运动员的利益,国际体坛将纯洁体育视为不懈追求的目标。作为全球反兴奋剂最高权威机构,世界反兴奋剂机构为了能更好地完成纯洁体育的使命、回应质疑、捍卫公信力,进行了深入的组织架构调整,特别是在2018年和2022年对组织架构进行了较大的改革。通过文献资料、逻辑分析等方法梳理了世界反兴奋剂机构的建立及组织架构的概况,从世界反兴奋剂机构的独立性改革、开放性改革、管理职能改革、反兴奋剂能力改革四个维度阐述其改革实践,最后提出我国反兴奋剂中心组织机构的完善建议。     

“WADA诉俄罗斯反兴奋剂机构案”评析与启示

“WADA诉俄罗斯反兴奋剂机构案”作为史无前例的“史诗级”案件,值得深入研究。通过文献资料、逻辑分析等方法对该案进行了系统性分析,研究发现,“WADA诉俄罗斯反兴奋剂机构案”在仲裁庭组成、仲裁庭审查权行使、签约后果性质、运动员权利保护、比例原则、集体惩罚等方面存在一些值得探讨的问题。同时,该案也暴露出体育仲裁中存在的一些问题,例如国际体育仲裁院(CAS)仲裁庭的审查程度及审查内容等。最后,结合案件情况与反兴奋剂领域现状,提出该案对未来完善兴奋剂治理体系和签约方合规方面的启示