兴奋剂处罚中程序公正.docVIP

兴奋剂处罚中程序公正 　　摘 要：通过案例分析和比较对国际奥委会和美国悉尼奥运会前后的兴奋剂处罚的程序公正问题进行研究。指出悉尼奥运会改革后的国际奥委会和美国兴奋剂控制系统更有效率。美国兴奋剂控制中听证、无偏私的仲裁员、不听证不处罚的原则是程序公正原则的体现，能够保护运动员的权利。目前我国兴奋剂处罚虽然按照《反兴奋剂章程》的规定建立了听证制度，但是程序公正并未作为一项制度明确规定下来；我国对兴奋剂处罚的听证程序中的无偏私的听证者、告知、答辩、期间、法律代理、申诉几乎未涉及；应参照国际奥委会和美国的做法完善我国兴奋剂处罚程序；应建立审查委员会和体育仲裁制度，对兴奋剂违禁进行听证仲裁；听证程序应遵循以下原则：及时召开听证会；仲裁员应由体育专家、法律专家和医学专家构成；仲裁员无偏私；当事人聘请代理人出席听证会的权利；告知、答辩和举证的权利。 　　关键词：兴奋剂；体育纪律处罚；程序公正；体育法 　　中图分类号：G812.0 　　文献标识码：A 　　文章编号：1007-3612(2008)08-1038-04 　　 　　Process Justice in Doping Penalty 　　HAN Yong 　　（Capital Institute of Physical Education, Beijing 100088, China） 　　Abstract:This paper studies the process penalty in doping penalty by case study and comparison in the situations of IOC and USA before and after Sydney Olympic Games. It argues the post-2000-Olympic doping control system of IOC and USA are more effective than before, some principles in doping control systems of the United States Anti-Doping Agency, such as hearing of witnesses, unbiased arbitrators, principle of no hearing no penalty, are indicating process justice and can protect the right of athletes. Although followed the Anti-Doping Regulation of International Olympic Committee, there are hearings of witnesses in doping control established, process justice is not a written provision of Chinas sports law or sports police; there are few provisions about unbiased arbitrators, notice, defense, duration, legal representation and appeal in the rules of doping control proceedings of hearing of witnesses in China. The review board and sports arbitration should be established with the examples of the USADA and the doping penalty cases should be heard. The hearing procedure should follow the principles such as, holding the hearing on time, arbitrators should be unbiased and be experts of sports, law and medicine, the right of recruiting agency to legal representation, the right of notice, defense and the right to call witnesses and present oral and written evidence. 　　Key words: doping; sports p