The Source Of Prohibited Substance In Proving Doping Violations Is Unintentional

In the doping case,when an athlete wants to prove that his or her violation is not intentional,the source of the prohibited substance is a controversial content.In addition to the "No Fault or Negligence" and "No Significant Fault or Negligence" clauses which stipulated the obligation of proving the source of the prohibited substance,there is also a general "unintentional" situation.However,neither the specific rules of World Anti-Doping Code nor the relevant rulings of the Court of Arbitration for Sports have given a clear attitude to this issue.That loophole in the rule has given an excuse for athletes to exculpate themselves,and become even more violent.The proof of the source of the prohibited substance is equivalent to the burden of proof in some sense,athletes who failed to put to the proof must bear the adverse consequences.Based on the legal certainty and the coherence between right and obligation,it must be clear that athletes need to prove how the prohibited substance entered his or her system when they try to prove that their violations are unintentional,to minimize the randomness and inconsistency in the application and interpretation of the rules,and to ensure that the application of law is basically uniform in similar cases.As the standard of proof that athletes establish specified facts or circumstances,balance of probability is quite reasonable and plays an important role in both litigation value and maintaining athletes’innocence.The revision of the World Anti-Doping Code is supposed to take this dispute into full consideration,add corresponding content to the new version,and establish the necessity of proof the source of the prohibited substance in proving doping violations is unintentional with the form of written rules.When adjudicating the similar cases,the Court of Arbitration for Sports should fully consider the particularity of the case and reduce the negative impact of the arbitrator’s personal value bias.Based on the relevant rules and judicial practice in Chinese anti-doping work,the research on this issue has positive reference significance for solving similar cases in China.