| 摘要: |
| “孙杨抗检”事件以瑞士联邦最高法院撤销国际体育仲裁法庭的仲裁裁决并发回重审而告一段落。回顾事件发展脉络，可以厘清国际泳联、国际兴奋剂检测与管理公司、世界反兴奋剂机构、国际体育仲裁法庭与该事件的关联关系和权责划分。在兴奋剂检测样本采集程序中，孙杨与采样人员的法律关系因国际泳联的授权委托而建立，采样人员的资质牵涉到运动员的重大人身权益和检测结果的准确性，未提供明确授权和资质证明的样本采集属于程序违规，无法期待孙杨配合样本采集工作。在国际体育仲裁法庭的仲裁程序中，有关证明责任、证明标准、品格证据和证人出庭作证的问题并未违反程序正义的基本要求。“孙杨抗检”事件反映出我国体育事业在辅助人才建设、法治精神培养和反兴奋剂重视程度方面存在不足。世界反兴奋剂机构的改革也刻不容缓，避免落入“谁来监督监督者”的窠臼。 |
| 关键词: “孙杨抗检”事件 世界反兴奋剂机构 国际体育仲裁法庭 样本采集 程序正义 |
| DOI： |
|
| 基金项目: |
|
| A Study on Sun Yang’s Anti doping Test from the Perspective of Procedural Justice |
| QU Shuyang |
| (Law School, Yunnan University of Finance and Economics, Kunming 650221,China) |
| Abstract: |
| The case of “Sun Yang’s AntiDoping Test” ended when the Supreme Court of Switzerland revoked the arbitration award of WADA and sent it back for retrial.Reviewing the development of the case, we can clarify the relationship and division of powers and responsibilities between FINA, IDTM, WADA and CAS. In the procedure of sample collection for doping test, the legal relationship between Sun Yang and samplers is established by the authorization of FINA. The qualification of samplers is related to the major personal rights and interests of athletes and the accuracy of test results. The sample collection without clear authorization and qualification certificate is a violation of the procedure, so Sun Yang can not be expected to cooperate with the sample collection.In the arbitration procedure of CAS, the issues of burden of proof, standard of proof, character evidence and witness appearing in court do not violate the basic requirements of procedural justice.The case of “Sun Yang AntiDoping Test” reflects that there are deficiencies in the construction of auxiliary talents, the cultivation of the spirit of the rule of law and the importance of antidoping in China’s sports industry.The reform of WADA is also urgent to avoid the stereotype of “who will supervise the supervisor”. |
| Key words: the case of “Sun Yang’s Anti Doping Test” WADA CAS sample collection procedural justice |
