论兴奋剂处罚的归责原则与WADC目的的冲突及协调

Conflict of Criterion of Liability of Anti-Doping with WADC's Purpose and Compromise

《世界反兴奋剂条例》对兴奋剂处罚规定了三个归责原则:兴奋剂违规适用严格责任,一般性处罚适用过失责任,加重处罚适用故意责任。由于心理要素事实具有模糊性,且证据无法记述其存在,故在实践中很难将三者区分,以心理要素作为处罚的条件,极易造成兴奋剂处罚权的失控,危及运动员的权利,使兴奋剂处罚与反兴奋剂运动的目的发生冲突。为了协调两者的关系,有效地控制兴奋剂的使用,条例应当以惩罚性赔偿制度为理论基础,借鉴美国橄榄球联盟的药品政策,一则加强对兴奋剂的日常监管,二则降低处罚,三则以刑事处罚做补充。这种药品政策不仅能确保兴奋剂处罚的正当性和打击使用兴奋剂行为的有效性,而且,还符合我国的国情,有利于维护我国体育在国际上的正面形象。

World Anti-doping Code regulates that the punishment of doping can be divided three criteria of liability, name- ly, the strict liability that applies the anti-doping rules violation, the negligent liability that applies the general anti-doping punishment, and the international liability that applies the aggravated punishment. However, because the forms of liabil- ity per se are blurred and cannot be confirmed with the fact, the athletes＇ right may be endangered and the punishment de- viates from the WADC purpose. In order to reconcile the conflict and control the doping effectively, WAEC should base on the theory of punitive damages and draw lessons from the NFL＇ drug policy, which not only enforces the general regu- lation, but also lowers the punishment in addition to the criminal punishment, helpful to build the positive image of the Chinese sports.