發(fā)布時間：2018-02-24 17:38

  本文關(guān)鍵詞： 反興奮劑處罰 基準罰 無(重大)過失 故意 法律類推　出處：《天津體育學院學報》2017年01期 　論文類型：期刊論文

【摘要】：不同于2009年版的《世界反興奮劑條例》,新條例直接將興奮劑違規(guī)的基準罰建構(gòu)在故意與過失的基礎(chǔ)之上。故意性違規(guī)對應(yīng)的基準罰是4年的禁賽,非故意性違規(guī)對應(yīng)的基準罰是嚴厲批評、不禁賽和最高2年的禁賽。這樣,如何判斷故意性違規(guī)和過失性違規(guī),則成為確認興奮劑違規(guī)基準罰的關(guān)鍵。但是,故意和過失缺乏證據(jù)法上的可知性,以其為基礎(chǔ)建構(gòu)法律制度,則存在證明難的問題。為了解決故意和過失與證據(jù)法的沖突,新條例借助法律類推制度將故意和過失等主觀要素客觀化,使其適用直接成為事實判斷,即,一旦運動員體內(nèi)發(fā)現(xiàn)有非特定物質(zhì),即推定這是故意使用的結(jié)果;發(fā)現(xiàn)是特定物質(zhì)的,則推定為非故意使用。但是,這種類推存在概念過寬和過窄的問題,為此,新條例又為故意和無(重大)過失規(guī)定了一般條款。對于故意而言,由于其核心是"欺詐",所以,條例規(guī)定中的故意僅僅是指直接故意,不包括間接故意。對于無(重大)過失而言,條例存在著特殊規(guī)定之間以及特殊規(guī)定與一般規(guī)定(定義)之間的競合問題。就特殊規(guī)定之間的競合,應(yīng)當尊重運動員的選擇;特殊規(guī)定與一般定義之間并不是特殊法與一般法的關(guān)系,而是其像故意的特殊規(guī)定與一般規(guī)定一樣,是"煙"與"火"的關(guān)系,前者具有推定功能,后者具有解釋、矯正和補充作用。
[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
【作者單位】： 中國石油大學(華東);
【分類號】：D997.1;G803

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 劉明然;;關(guān)于高校家庭經(jīng)濟困難學生認定問題的探討[J];學理論;2009年08期

2 宋雅芳;試論財產(chǎn)征用的公共利益目的[J];河南社會科學;2005年01期

3 ;[J];;年期

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前2條

1 記者楊連成;珠海出臺企業(yè)技術(shù)中心認定機制[N];光明日報;2002年

2 寧波市北侖區(qū)檢察院 董書關(guān) 劉操 《華東政法大學學報》;完善“坦白從寬”認定機制[N];中國紀檢監(jiān)察報;2013年

相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前2條

1 陳柯潔;尋求公平與倡導誠信[D];西南財經(jīng)大學;2010年

2 王麗;強制拆違中違法建筑的認定與處理[D];蘇州大學;2014年

，

本文編號：1531130