《世界反兴奋剂条例》第2.3条构成要件的法教义学审视  

Legal Dogmatic Review of the Article 2.3 of the World Anti-doping Code

作　　者：宋彬龄[1] 王颖 SONG Binling;WANG Ying(School of Law,Xiangtan University,Xiangtan 411105,China)

机构地区：[1]湘潭大学法学院,湖南湘潭411105

出　　处：《天津体育学院学报》2023年第1期93-98,共6页Journal of Tianjin University of Sport

基　　金：国家社会科学基金重大项目(项目编号:20ZD337);湖南省教育厅科学研究重点项目(项目编号:20A504);湘潭大学教学改革研究项目。

摘　　要：在第2.3条兴奋剂违纪的主观构成要件问题上,通过结合国际体育仲裁院多年来的相关案例与《世界反兴奋剂条例》第2.3条三个版本的释义分析发现,过失可以成为“拒绝样本采集”行为的主观构成要件,所以若是因过失造成“拒绝样本采集”,可以适用《世界反兴奋剂条例》10.5条,即基于非重大过失或疏忽而减轻处罚。而在第2.3条兴奋剂违纪的客观构成要件问题上,除第2.3条明确规定的要件外,检查行为的合法性也是构成2.3条违规的客观构成要件,但是只有重大违法检查行为才可以抗辩,轻微违法行为不构成运动员合理的抗辩理由。在分析2.3条违规构成及当事人主观过错时还应注意区分分析法律认识错误、事实认识错误和反向错误问题,这都应在案件中予以全面考虑。By analyzing the relevant case of court of arbitration for sport and the interpretation of versions of article 2.3 of the world antidoping code,it is found that negligence can be the subjective component of the act of refusing to collect samples.If the refusal of sample collection is caused by negligence,article 10.5 of the World Anti-Doping Code should be applied,which stipulates the reduction of the period of ineligibility based on no significant fault or negligence.Besides the explicit requirements of article 2.3,the legality of the inspection act is also the objective component of the violation of article 2.3.If the inspection act constitutes illegality,then it should be considered whether the party’s refusal is reasonable,thus denying the party’s subjective intention.When analyzing the constitution of violation of article 2.3 and the subjective fault of the parties,attention should be paid to distinguishing the analysis of legal error,factual error and reverse error.

关 键 词：《世界反兴奋剂条例》第2.3条 拒绝样本采集 体育仲裁 

分 类 号：G80-05[文化科学—运动人体科学]