The case of World Anti Doping Agency v. Sun Yang and fina was caused by Sun Yangs failure to complete the inspection at last due to his doubts about the qualification certificate presented by the inspectors when he accepted an out of competition doping inspection by IDTM on September 4, 2018. Two months later, the World Anti Doping Agency did not recognize the finas ruling and brought the case to the international sports arbitration court.
Because of Sun Yangs identity as a famous Chinese swimmer, the case has always been of great concern. Prior to the disclosure of relevant details, what happened on the night of anti inspection was that the public said it was fair and reasonable, and the mother said it was fair and reasonable. Sun Yang stressed that the other party has no compliance qualification. The World Anti Doping Agency emphasizes that there must be convincing reasons to interfere with sampling, otherwise athletes should obey the doping test unconditionally.
According to the current rules, Sun Yang was sentenced to interfere with sampling and was suspended for 8 years. For this arbitration, Ma Hongjun, director of the Institute of sports law of China University of political science and law and executive director of the Institute of sports law of China law society, pointed out that from Sun Yangs side, there must be something radical. CAS believes that Sun Yangs side thinks that its difficult to prove the identity of the other side, there are problems in the procedure, and any objection can be protested according to the existing procedure. But Sun Yang finally fell off the bottle and had an over reaction. At the hearing, Sun Yangs side mainly demonstrated that it was because of the sampling procedure.
According to the final statement of the international sports arbitration court, Sun Yang cant destroy the sampling procedure because he thinks its illegal unilaterally. According to Ma Hongjun, there are some problems in it. He pointed out that one of the basic theories of law should be strict requirements for public power, and law enforcement personnel must strictly abide by the law, which should be the premise.
For the final arbitration result, Ma Hongjun thinks that this is actually a choice of value quantity at the end of the scale, both ends of the scale are the requirements of the athletes themselves for testing compliance, and the requirements of the Anti Doping Association for their absolute compliance.
The International Court of sports arbitration finally adopted the view of the World Anti Doping association that athletes must obey the procedure. Ma Hongjun said that he was sad about this. Its not that Sun Yangs practice is totally OK, but in a legal context, this is a law enforcement agency for a relative person, one is the implementation of public power, the other is the protection of private rights. In this case, from a legal point of view, the more advanced approach should, of course, be to choose to regulate the former.
Ma Hongjuns Simpson case in the United States in the 1990s, for example, is also a case of illegal evidence collection by police, accusing football stars of killing their wives. American judges ruled out illegal evidence collected by police, and finally acquitted Simpson. Sun Yang case is also suspected of illegal evidence collection by inspectors, but at the cost of punishing athletes.
In the face of the eight-year suspension decision, Sun Yang has publicly stated in his personal social platform: considering the problems existing in the trial process of the international sports arbitration court, I have entrusted a lawyer to appeal to the Supreme Court of the Swiss Federation in accordance with the law. Let more people know the truth.
Ma Hongjun expressed support for this. Although the Swiss federal court only reviews whether the arbitration procedure is legal, and does not review the fact certification, the rate of overturning cases in the past ten years is less than 10%, but Sun Yangs case should and must be solved to the end. On the one hand, the so-called procedure cannot completely separate from the facts, and the final result is still unknown. On the other hand, I think this case is super The more it means.
This case, which has attracted great attention, is a question about some existing measurement standards, and a question has been put in front of people: whether it is necessary to choose between unconditionally safeguarding the so-called system procedure and protecting some basic rights of athletes. Ma Hongjun said.
Source of this article: China News Network Editor in charge: Cao Liqiao and ns1806