兴奋剂案件中程序偏离证明规则的变化与检视  

Changes and Examinations of the Rules of Proof for Procedural Deviation in Doping Case

作　　者：熊英灼[1] 曹绍芳 XIONG Yingzhuo;CAO Shaofang(Investigation Department,Hunan Police Academy,Changsha 410138,China;Sport School,Changsha University of Science and Technology,Changsha 410076,China)

机构地区：[1]湖南警察学院侦查系,湖南长沙410138 [2]长沙理工大学体育学院,湖南长沙410076

出　　处：《体育学研究》2023年第6期99-109,共11页Journal of Sports Research

基　　金：国家社会科学基金一般项目(18BTY070)。

摘　　要：在兴奋剂案件中,面对兴奋剂违规指控,运动员常以兴奋剂检查行为中存在程序不合规为由进行抗辩。2021年版《世界反兴奋剂条例》对这一抗辩的证明规则作出了较大的修改,主要表现为程序偏离行为举证责任的类型化、重大程序偏离的宽容化、因果关系证明标准的具体化。通过比较研究法、逻辑分析法研究发现,这一系列的修改依然会引发诸多法律适用的分歧。为了更好地平衡程序安定和程序正当的关系,应取消目前规则中对程序偏离行为的分类,承认“严格遵守标准”的独立性,确定重大程序偏离的识别标准,明确程序偏离和阳性检测结果因果关系的较低的证明标准。In doping cases,athletes often defend themselves against allegations of doping violations on the grounds of procedural non-compliance in their doping testing.The 2021 World Anti-Doping Code has made significant modification to the rules of proof of this defense,manifesting mainly in the classification of the burden of proof for procedural deviations,the tolerance of major procedural deviations,and the specification of the standard for proving causal relationships.Through comparative research and logical analysis,it is found that these changes will nonetheless cause many differences in legal application.In order to better balance the relationship between procedural stability and procedural legitimacy,we should abolish the classification of procedures deviation behavior in the current rules,recognize the independence of the “strict compliance test”,determine the identification criteria of major procedural deviation,and specify the standard of proof for weak causal relationships between procedural deviations and positive test results.

关 键 词：运动员 反兴奋剂案件 世界反兴奋剂条例 程序偏离 举证责任 

分 类 号：D99[政治法律—国际法学] D925.3[政治法律—法学] G803[文化科学—运动人体科学]