兴奋剂违规基准罚的认定机制:从法律类推到一般条款——兼论故意与过失的规范化

发布时间：2018-02-24 17:38

本文关键词： 反兴奋剂处罚基准罚无(重大)过失故意法律类推　出处：《天津体育学院学报》2017年01期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：不同于2009年版的《世界反兴奋剂条例》,新条例直接将兴奋剂违规的基准罚建构在故意与过失的基础之上。故意性违规对应的基准罚是4年的禁赛,非故意性违规对应的基准罚是严厉批评、不禁赛和最高2年的禁赛。这样,如何判断故意性违规和过失性违规,则成为确认兴奋剂违规基准罚的关键。但是,故意和过失缺乏证据法上的可知性,以其为基础建构法律制度,则存在证明难的问题。为了解决故意和过失与证据法的冲突,新条例借助法律类推制度将故意和过失等主观要素客观化,使其适用直接成为事实判断,即,一旦运动员体内发现有非特定物质,即推定这是故意使用的结果;发现是特定物质的,则推定为非故意使用。但是,这种类推存在概念过宽和过窄的问题,为此,新条例又为故意和无(重大)过失规定了一般条款。对于故意而言,由于其核心是"欺诈",所以,条例规定中的故意仅仅是指直接故意,不包括间接故意。对于无(重大)过失而言,条例存在着特殊规定之间以及特殊规定与一般规定(定义)之间的竞合问题。就特殊规定之间的竞合,应当尊重运动员的选择;特殊规定与一般定义之间并不是特殊法与一般法的关系,而是其像故意的特殊规定与一般规定一样,是"烟"与"火"的关系,前者具有推定功能,后者具有解释、矫正和补充作用。
[Abstract]:Unlike the World Anti-Doping regulations, published in 2009, the new regulation directly establishes the benchmark penalty for doping violations on the basis of intent and negligence. The corresponding benchmark penalty for intentional sexual violation is a four-year ban. The benchmark penalty for unintentional sexual misconduct is harsh criticism, non-suspension and a maximum 2-year ban. Thus, how to judge intentional and negligent violations becomes the key to confirming the benchmark penalty for doping violations. In order to solve the conflict between intentional and negligent and evidence law, it is difficult to prove that intentional and negligent lack of knowability in evidence law, and construct legal system on the basis of it. With the aid of the legal analogies, the new regulations objectify the subjective elements such as intent and negligence, making their application directly a factual judgment, that is, once the athletes discover that there is no specific substance in the body, they assume that it is the result of intentional use; The discovery of a specific substance is presumed to be unintentional use. However, this analogy has problems of too broad and too narrow a concept, and for this reason, the new regulations provide general provisions for intent and no (gross) negligence... in the case of intent, Since its core is "fraud", the regulation provides for intent to refer only to direct intent and not to indirect intent. In the case of no (gross) negligence, Regulations exist between special provisions and between special provisions and general provisions (definitions). The competition between special provisions should respect the choice of athletes; The relationship between special provisions and general definitions is not the relationship between special law and general law, but is the relationship between "smoke" and "fire", just like the special provisions of intent and general provisions. The former has the function of presumption and the latter has interpretation. Corrective and supplementary effects
【作者单位】：中国石油大学(华东);
【分类号】：D997.1;G803

【相似文献】