《世界反兴奋剂条例》第2.3条中“令人信服的理由”的抗辩

Defense of"Compelling Justification"in Article 2.3 of the World Anti-Doping Code

《世界反兴奋剂条例》(WADC)作为全球反兴奋剂工作的纲领性文件,在世界反兴奋剂体系中发挥着重要作用。运动员必须要遵守WADC,一旦违反相关条款,就会受到处罚。“令人信服的理由”作为一种完全抗辩,是运动员权利保护的重要规则依据,值得深入研究。从“孙杨案”入手,结合WADC第2.3条中的其他案例,发现“令人信服的理由”的认定标准存在概念不明、适用上过于严苛、仲裁员认定不一减损可预见性、运动员主观认识错误和价值衡量单一等问题,导致运动员权利无法获得有效的救济。为进一步完善“令人信服的理由”的适用,在反兴奋剂领域逐步落实、扩张运动员权利,提出要在兴奋剂检查程序问题上适用“令人信服的理由”,在WADC第2.5条中增加“令人信服的理由”条款,在归责处罚上予以减轻,完善国际体育仲裁院(CAS)内部机构设置、规章制度,加强对运动员的培训和拓宽价值衡量的因素(比例原则和严格责任)等。

The World Anti-Doping Code(WADC)plays an important role in the world anti-doping system as a programmatic document for global anti-doping efforts.Athletes must comply with the WADC and are punished if they violate the relevant provisions.As a complete defense,"compelling justification"is an important rule basis for the protection of athletes′rights and deserves in-depth study.This article starts with the"Sun Yang case"and combines it with other cases in Article 2.3 of the WADC,and finds that the criteria for determining"compelling justification"have issues such as unclear definition,too harsh application,excessive discretionary power and inconsistent discretionary standards,subjective misperceptions by athletes and single value measurement,which result in ineffective relief for athletes.In order to further improve the application of"compelling justification"and to progressively implement and expand athletes′rights in the field of anti-doping,the author insists on the application of"compelling justification"to doping control procedures,addition of a"compelling justification"provision to WADC Article 2.5,mitigation of penalties,improvement of the CAS internal organization as well as its rules and regulations,and strengthening athlete training and multiplying factors of value measurement(proportionality and strict liability).