Legal Issues Of Delaying Doping Test In Doping-related Cases

The behavior of athletes delaying doping test is regulated by Article 2.3 of the World Anti-Doping Code.The composition of such anti-doping rule violations are not necessary for the emergence of prohibited substances.First,it closely follows the rulings directly related to the subject of this study by the Court of Arbitrations for Sports and the UK National Anti-Doping Panel.It analyzes the constituent elements that constitute the detection of delaying doping test.The results show that the constituent elements are generally subject to violations and subjective aspects.,objective aspects,and object composition.The subjects that constitute the delay doping test violation usually include athletes,related support personnel,and sports organizations.The subjective aspect of the delay doping test in the result of ADRV is intentional or negligent.The object that constitutes a delay in doping test is not the testing schedule made by the anti-doping agency,but a deeper anti-doping order.The objective aspect of the delayed doping is constituted by any act of “evasion,refusal or failure” in Article 2.3 of the World AntiDoping Code.The constituent elements of the delayed doping control violation are the basic premise for the sports organization to make doping penalty.Using case studies and theoretical analysis methods to study the factors that mitigate and exempt such stimulant penalties,the results show that the factors that can alleviate penalties usually come from external influences and internal special causes.Among them,when the doping rules of the country where the athlete is located are inconsistent with the provisions of the World Anti-Doping Code,the athletes act in accordance with the national anti-doping rules and cannot be considered to constitute a stimulant violation.The logic that a stimulant athlete is exempted from punishment for special reasons is that the sports organization first recognizes that the athlete’s behavior constitutes a stimulant violation.When the punishment agency considers that the athlete is suffering from a disease or has other lenient reasons,the stimulant punishment for him is removed.Whether the offending subject misunderstands the meaning of the behavior due to the fault of others,whether or not it has a causal relationship with the non-compliant subject constitutes a stimulant violation is the key to the athlete exercising the right of defense.Finally,using the method of comparative research and normative analysis,this paper studies the issue of how to carry out rights relief after the Chinese athlete violates Article 2.3 of the World Anti-Doping Code.First,it introduces the ordinary path of rights remedy,usually with internal appeals.As a starting point for relief,it will be extended to third-party,independent institutions.The results of the study here show that if the arbitrator’s ruling on the third-party arbitral institution is still not satisfied,it can file an application for “revision of the arbitral award”.This form of remedy against the arbitral “one ruling”.The effectiveness is a form of rights relief that is worthy of our athletes’ understanding.