China News Agency, Beijing, February 29 (Reporter Gao Kai) On the 28th, the International Sports Arbitration Tribunal (CAS) arbitrated an eight-year ban on Chinese swimmer Sun Yang. Experts here believe that the Sun Yang case may attract more attention to the rights of athletes than ever before.
The World Anti-Doping Agency v. Sun Yang and the FINA case originated on September 4, 2018 when Sun Yang was undergoing an out-of-race doping inspection by the International Doping Inspection Management Corporation (IDTM) due to the qualifications presented to the inspectors It turned out to be suspicious, and the inspection could not be completed. The FINA subsequently ruled that the inspections performed by IDTM at that time were invalid, and two months later, the World Anti-Doping Agency did not recognize the FINA ruling and brought the case to the International Sports Arbitration Tribunal.
Due to the identity of Sun Yang's Chinese swimmer, the case has received much attention. Previously, relevant details were disclosed by multiple parties. What happened that night during the "anti-prosecution" was publicly justified, and his wife was justified. Sun Yang emphasized that the other party did not have compliance qualifications. The World Anti-Doping Agency emphasizes that there must be very convincing reasons to interfere with the sampling, otherwise the athletes should unconditionally obey doping testing.
According to current rules, Sun Yang was sentenced to interfere with sampling and was suspended for 8 years. Regarding this arbitration, Ma Hongjun, director of the Institute of Sports Law of the China University of Political Science and Law and executive director of the Sports Law Research Association of the Chinese Law Society, pointed out, "From the side of Sun Yang, there must be some radicals. CAS believes that Sun Yangfang believes that the other party Either it is difficult to prove his identity, there are problems in the procedure, and there can be objections to protest in accordance with the existing procedures. However, Sun Yang eventually fell off the bottle and had an overwhelming reaction. At the hearing, Sun Yang was mainly demonstrating why he was This is due to a problem with the sampling procedure. "
The final statement given by the International Sports Arbitration Tribunal is that Sun Yang must not undermine the sampling because he unilaterally believes that the sampling procedure is illegal. Ma Hongjun believes that there are problems in this. He pointed out that a basic theory of law should strictly require public power, and those who enforce the law must strictly abide by the law, which should be a prerequisite.
Regarding the final arbitration result, Ma Hongjun believes that this is actually a choice of value in the end. "At both ends of the balance, the athletes themselves are required to check compliance, and the anti-doping association is absolutely required by them."
The International Court of Arbitration for Sports ultimately accepted the World Anti-Doping Association's point of view: it cares more about athletes' obeying procedures. Ma Hongjun was "sad" for this bluntness. "It's not that Sun Yang's approach is completely okay, but in a legal context, this is a law enforcement agency. For a counterparty, one is the execution of public power, the other is Private rights protection. In this case, from a legal perspective, the more advanced approach should of course be to choose to regulate the former. "
Ma Hongjun in the 1990s in the United States as an example of the Simpson case said that the same police illegally obtained evidence, accused the football star of killing his wife, American judges can not indulge the police illegally, ruled out the illegal collection of evidence, and ultimately declared Simpson innocent. The Sun Yang case has also been questioned by suspects for illegal evidence collection, but at the cost of punishing athletes.
Facing the eight-year suspension ruling, Sun Yang has publicly stated on his personal social platform: "Considering the problems existing in the trial of the International Sports Arbitration Court, I have entrusted a lawyer to appeal to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in accordance with the law. Let's change Many people know the truth. "
Ma Hongjun expressed support for this. Although the Swiss federal court only reviews the arbitration process for legality and does not review factual verification, the rate of revelation has not reached 10% in ten years. "But Sun Yang's case should and must be pursued to the end. On the one hand, the so-called procedure cannot be completely divorced from the facts, and the final result is still unknown. On the other hand, I think this case has a meaning beyond itself. "
"This case, which attracted a lot of attention, was a question of some of the existing standards, and a problem was very eye-catching: the unconditional maintenance of the so-called institutional procedures and the protection of some basic rights of athletes, Whether it must be one of the two. "Ma Hongjun said. (Finish)