| 237 | 2 | 82 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
《世界反兴奋剂条例》在第10.7.1条中规定了实质协助条款，以暂缓执行部分原本适用的禁赛期等处罚后果的方式，鼓励违规运动员或者其他当事人揭发他人兴奋剂违规等事项。该条款对促进纯洁体育具有重要意义，然而在奥布霍夫案中，不同机构对当事人提供的协助是否构成实质协助的判断不一，揭示了实质协助条款在行为定性上存在模糊性。通过分析实质协助的相关案例，探究体育法原则，从刑法学立功视角进行研究，可以发现当违规运动员提供的信息足以促使对被检举人启动违规案件的调查时，就应视为满足实质协助的条件。为了进一步明确实质协助条款的认定要求，结合2027年版《世界反兴奋剂条例》修改草案的内容，认为在相关条款注释中应当公开实质协助的信息类别，将优势证据标准作为实质协助的认定标准，并删除以“兴奋剂违规的严重程度”作为暂缓禁赛期幅度的判断依据。中国有关方面也应准确理解实质协助条款的真实含义，并使国内有关实质协助认定标准的规定与国际保持一致。
Abstract：The World Anti-Doping Code(WADC) provides for substantial assistance in Article 10.7.1.By suspending a part of the otherwise applicable consequences, such as the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility, it encourages the athlete or other person to expose an anti-doping rule violation by another person, etc. Article 10.7.1 is of great significance to promote clean sports. However, in the Vladimir Obukhov case, different institutions had inconsistent judgments on whether the assistance provided by the athlete constituted substantial assistance, revealing the ambiguity in the qualitative issue of substantial assistance. This article analyzes relevant cases of substantial assistance, explores the principles of sports law, evaluates from the perspective of meritorious service in criminal law, and finally finds that when the information provided by the athlete is sufficient to bring a case against the person being reported, the conditions for substantial assistance are met. Combined with the WADA2027 code draft-version 1, in order to further clarify the identification requirements of the substantial assistance, the author insists on opening the categories of information that might qualify for substantial assistance in relevant provisions; using the balance of probability as the identification standard for substantial assistance and deleting "the seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation" as a criterion for determining the extent of suspended ineligibility. Meanwhile, relevant Chinese parties should also accurately understand the true meaning of the substantial assistance and make domestic laws and regulations consistent with the international standards for identifying substantial assistance.
[1] WADA. World Anti-Doping Code 2021[EB/OL].(2021-01-01)[2024-09-25].https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2021_wada_code.pdf.
[2] CAS. Arbitration CAS 2021/A/8296 World Anti-Doping Agency(WADA)v. FédérationInternationale de Football Association(FIFA)&Vladimir Obukhov[EB/OL].(2022-06-16)[2024-06-28].https://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/8296.pdf.
[3] LEWIS A, TAYLOR J. Sport:Law and practice[M].London:Bloomsbury Professional, 2021:1064-1066.
[4] FIFA. FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations 2012[EB/OL].[2024-09-25].https://www.pdffiller.com/jsfiller-desk10/?flat_pdf_quality=high&requestHash=4ce7938a88188ae44b5bf62448e3c345ae375273cc5d4291d1c36af5705750ee&lang=en&projectId=1640205510&PAGE_REARRANGE_V2_MVP=true&richTextFormatting=rue&isPageRearrange V2MVP=true&jsf-page-rearrange-v2=true&jsf-redesignfull=true&act-notary-pro-integration=rue&jsf-fake-edittembedded=true&isSkipEditorLoadFrequency=true&jsfdesktop-ux-for-tablets=false&jsf-proba-bility-70=true&jsfsocket-io=false&routeId=c3cb69813fbbdd5201a5f8cbda63fde7#2b9b277c8d504352b8127d008cee3918.
[5] FIFA. FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations 2021[EB/OL].(2024-06-18)[2024-09-25].https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/ed5f1ae5d0d28f62/original/brfeg8c6j9wpn8gykakh-pdf.
[6] IRB.2012 IRB vs Simbarashe Michael Chirara[EB/OL].(2013-03-08)[2024-06-28].https://www.doping.nl/media/kb/4927/IRB%202012%20IRB%20vs%20Simbarashe%20Michael%20Chirara%20%28S%29.pdf.
[7] IRB.2012 IRB vs Dyland Coetzee[EB/OL].(2013-08-27)[2024-06-28].https://www.doping.nl/media/kb/4923/IRB%202012%20IRB%20vs%20Dyland%20Coetzee%20%28S%29.pdf.
[8] IRB. 2012 IRBvs lan Wilson Muza[EB/OL].(2013-02-13)[2024-06-28].https://www.doping.nl/media/kb/4924/IRB%202012%20IRB%20vs%20Ian%20Wilson%20Muza%20%28S%29.pdf.
[9] CAS. Arbitration CAS 2014/A/3820 World Anti-Doping Agency(WADA)v. Damar Robinson&Jamaica AntiDoping Comission(JADCO)[EB/OL].(2015-07-14)[2024-06-28].https://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/3820.pdf.
[10] CAS. Arbitration CAS 2005/A/847 Hans Knauss v. FIS[EB/OL].(2005-07-20)[2024-06-28].https://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/847.pdf.
[11]冷根源.统一合同法对格式合同的规制及不足[J].社会科学,2000(7):44-48.
[12] CAS. Arbitration CAS 2019/A/6330 Sara Castillo Martí-nez v. World Skate, award of 18 February 2020(operative part of 9 July 2019)[EB/OL].(2019-07-09)[2024-06-28].https://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/6330.pdf.
[13]威廉姆·威尔逊.刑法理论的核心问题[M].谢望原,罗灿,王波,译.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2009:74.
[14]宋雅馨.论“一事不再罚原则”在兴奋剂处罚中的适用：以国际体育仲裁院案例为视角[D].湘潭：湘潭大学,2015.
[15]刘畅.刑法基本原则在反兴奋剂实践中的借鉴[J].体育科研,2017,38(5):1-7,21.
[16]郭树理.揆情审势、宽严相济：《世界反兴奋剂条例》之新发展[J].上海体育学院学报,2021,45(2):1-12,21.
[17]中华人民共和国最高人民法院刑事审判第一、二、三、四、五庭.刑事审判参考案例（总第100集）[M].北京：法律出版社, 2015:103-110.
[18]土耳其刑法典[M].陈志军,译.北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,2009:49.
[19]智利刑法典[M].陈志军,译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2015:7-8.
[20]高锋志.自首与立功制度及司法适用[M].北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,2012:160.
[21]杰里米·边沁.论道德与立法的原则[M].程立显,宇文利,译.西安：陕西人民出版社,2009:2.
[22]黄曙,陈艳.立功司法认定的若干疑难问题[J].人民检察,2009(20):15-18.
[23]张霞.中国运动员廖辉国际体育仲裁案件述评[J].西安体育学院学报,2015,32(1):16-21.
[24] PAUL D. A guide to the World Anti-Doping Code[M].United Kingdom:Cambridge University Press,2017:792.
[25] WADA. 2027 Code&IS Update Process:World AntiDoping Code-Concepts for Consideration and Feedback[EB/OL].(2023-09-26)[2024-06-28].https://www.sportintegrity.gov.au/sites/default/files/2027%20Code%20Review%20-%20Concept%20paper%20-%20Code.pdf.
[26] WADA.2027 Code&International Standard Update Process:Stakeholder Engagement Phase-World Anti-Doping Code[EB/OL].(2024-01-11)[2024-06-28].https://www.www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/2024-01/world_anti-doping_code_-_concept_paper_-_stakeholder_comments_2.pdf.
[27] World Anti-Doping Agency Version 1[EB/OL].(2024-08-02)[2024-09-27]. https://www. wada-ama. org/sites/default/files/2024-08/wada%202027%20code%20draft%20-%20version%201%20%28final%20formatted%29.pdf.
[28] CAS. Arbitration CAS 2009/A/2012 Doping Authority Netherlands v. N[EB/OL].(2010-06-11)[2024-06-28].https://jurisprudence. tas-cas. org/Shared%20Documents/2012.pdf.
[29]王学棉.证明标准研究：以民事诉讼为中心[M].北京：人民法院出版社,2007:76.
[30]贝洛夫.体育法[M].郭树理,译.武汉：武汉大学出版社,2008:206.
[31] CAS. Arbitration CAS 2009/A/1926 International Tennis Federation(ITF)v. Richard Gasquet&CAS 2009/A/1930World Anti-Doping Agency(WADA)v. ITF&Richard Gasquet[EB/OL].(2009-12-17)[2024-06-28].https://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/1926,%201930.pdf.
[32]罗小霜.反兴奋剂工作中运动员权利保护与公共利益的冲突及协调研究[J].首都体育学院学报,2022,34(1):100-108.
[33]邵月月.反兴奋剂行踪规则合法性分析[D].苏州：苏州大学,2022.
[注1]实质协助的英文原文为substantial assistance，官方中文译文是切实协助。但因本文认为“substantial”翻译为“实质”更贴合原义，所以下文中统一将“substantial assistance”翻译为实质协助。
[注2]《奥林匹克宪章》第41条附则第2款：曾代表一个国家参加奥林匹克运动会、大陆或地区运动会或有关国际单项体育联合会认可的世界或地区锦标赛的运动员，如果改变了国籍或获得了新的国籍，可以代表新的国家参加奥林匹克运动会，但该运动员上次代表其原国家参赛至少已满3年。
[注3]《联合国打击跨国有组织犯罪公约》原文，Article26:To provide factual,concrete help to competent authorities that may contribute to depriving organized criminal groups of their resources or of the proceeds of crime。
[注4]《联合国反腐败公约》原文，Article 37:to pro vide factual,specific help to competent authorities that may contribute to depriving offenders of the proceeds of crime and to recovering such proceeds。
[注5]比如2021年版WADC第2.3条中关于运动员逃避、拒绝或未完成样本采集的规定中，正文仅将这一违规行为描述为“没有令人信服的正当理由的情况下拒绝或未完成样本采集”，但是在注释中展开了进一步说明，举例当运动员“故意避开兴奋剂检查官以逃避通知或检查”就已经符合了本条“逃避样本采集”的行为样式。
[注6]2021年版WADC第3.1条规定：这一证明标准（放心满意标准）在所有案件中都高于优势证明的标准，但低于排除合理怀疑的证明标准。
基本信息:
中图分类号:G803;D99
引用信息:
[1]李雨辰.兴奋剂处罚中违规运动员提供实质协助的认定标准探析——弗拉基米尔·奥布霍夫国际体育仲裁案件评述[J].体育科研,2024,45(06):24-35+91.
基金信息:
国家社会科学基金项目（23BTY036）
2024-11-15
2024-11-15