期刊文献+

兴奋剂纠纷中证据调查的可证实性 被引量:2

Verifiability of Evidence Investigation in Doping Cases
下载PDF
导出
摘要 在兴奋剂案件中,对是否应该准许运动员提出的请求实验室提供包括标准操作程序资料、一般质量管理资料等文件的证据调查申请有很大的争论。证据调查需要有可证实性,否则会拖延裁判,也会给当事人造成很大的负担,但在像兴奋剂纠纷一样的现代型纠纷中,过度强调证据调查的可证实性会产生新的不公平,需要通过设置有限的证据开示制度,同时辅以适当的控制措施以平衡双方当事人的利益。 There have been disputes over whether in the doping cases athletes involved should be allowed to have access to evidence regarding standard lab operating procedures and general quality management material or not. Evi- dence investigation should be verifiable or the arbitration will be delayed or harm can be done to the concerned par- ty. However, excessive emphasis on evidence investigation leads to new unfairness. Therefore, limited discovery with appropriate controls to balance the profit of all the parties should be encouraged.
作者 宋彬龄
机构地区 湘潭大学法学院
出处 《武汉体育学院学报》 CSSCI 北大核心 2012年第7期36-42,共7页 Journal of Wuhan Sports University
基金 国家社会科学基金项目(11CFX076) 湖南省研究生科研创新项目(CX2011B239)
关键词 兴奋剂纠纷 证据调查 可证实性 体育仲裁 doping case evidence investigation verifiability sports arbitration
  • 相关文献

参考文献17

  • 1Daniel Friebe. Landis Takes Case to US Federal Court [EB/ OL ] .http ://www.cyclingnews.com/news/landis-takes-case-to- us-federal-cour, 2012-01-13.
  • 2CAS arbitration N CAS OG 08/1394[EB/OL]. http://jurispru- dence.tas-cas.org/sites/CaseLaw/Shared% 20Documents/1394. pdf, 2011-12-13.
  • 3WADA Technical Document- TD2009LDOC [EB/OL].http:// www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/ WADP-IS-Laboratories/Technical_Documents/WADA_ TD2009_LDOC_Laboratory_Documentation_Packages_EN. pdf, 2011-12-13.
  • 4I Andrew Goldstone. The Arbitration Process for Anti-Doping Vi- olations During the Olympic Games [J]. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2006,7 (2) : 361-3922.
  • 5Michael S. Straubel. Lessons from USADA v. Jenkins: You Can't Win When You Beat a Monopoly [Jl. Pepperdine Displzte Resolution Law Journal,2009, 10( 1 ) : 119-156.
  • 6铃木正裕.民事诉讼法史的展开[M].东京:有斐阁,2002:611.
  • 7Sujja A. Thomas. The new summary judgment motion: the mo- tion to dismiss under Iqbal and Twombly [Jl. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 2010, 14( 1 ) : 15-42.
  • 8Nicholas Tymoczko. Between the Possible and the Probable: Defining the Plausibility Standard After Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v ~ Iqbal [J]. Minnesota Law Review, 2009,94(2) : 505-540.
  • 9Subrin Stephen N. Discovery in Global Perspective: Are we Nuts [J]. DePaul Law Review, 2002,52 ( 2 ) : 299-318.
  • 10高桥宏志.重点讲义民事诉讼法[M].东京:有斐阁,2004:80.

共引文献192

同被引文献19

二级引证文献18

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部