从政府、协会到个人:集体责任影响运动员比赛权的根据——兼论俄罗斯兴奋剂丑闻的处理  

From Government and Federations to Individuals:Treatment of Russian Doping Scandal-On Normal Grounds of Collective Responsibility Affecting Athletes' Competition Right

作　　者：杨春然 董兴佩 YANG Chunyan;DONG Xingpei(East China Campus,China Univ.of Petroleum,Qingdao 266580,China;Editoral Department,Shandong Univ.of Sci.&Tech.,Qingdao 266590,China)

机构地区：[1]华东石油大学法律系,山东青岛266580 [2]山东科技大学学报编辑部,山东青岛266590

出　　处：《武汉体育学院学报》2018年第4期59-67,共9页Journal of Wuhan Sports University

基　　金：教育部规划基金项目(17YJA820038)

摘　　要：对于俄罗斯系统使用兴奋剂的行为,国际奥委会执委会以特别决议的方式,授权各国际体育联合会根据自己的规则进行处理。有的联合会,如国际田联,间接通过中止国家协会会籍的方式,也有联合会,如国际举联,直接通过适用决议或自己的规则,使政府责任演变为对比赛权的否定,导致很多俄罗斯运动员无缘于里约奥运会。俄罗斯运动员以违反责任主义原则或者比例原则为由,提起国际仲裁。CAS以这种处理并非是兴奋剂违规处罚,而是其不具备比赛条件,使之避开了法律的限制。当然,《决议》第3条规定除外,因其有悖于"禁止双重危险原则"而被CAS宣布为无效。经过此事件,体育法的一个最大变化是,运动员的比赛权开始与国家协会的管理权解构。The IOC Executive Board decided to accredit IFS to treat the Russian doping scandal according to its own rules,while some International Federations,for example the IAAF,suspended the Russian Athletics Federation,and the others,such as the RWF,appled the IOC decision and its own rules directly to make the government responsibility to deny the athletes’competition right.The result was that many Russian athletes were not able to participate in the Rio Olympic Games.Therefore,some athletes appealed for the CAS that they thought the sanction had violated the responsibility doctrine and principle of proportionality.According to CAS,the treatments did not comply with the principles because CAS took them not for anti-doping sanctions but for not being in the condition of participating in the games.Of course,Article 3 of the IOC Decision was invalid for going against prohibition against double jeopardy.However,what was the biggest change was s the fact that the athletes’competition right deconstructed the power of NFS in sports law.

关 键 词：俄罗斯 兴奋剂 比例原则 自然正义权 禁止双重危险原则 

分 类 号：G80-05[文化科学—运动人体科学]