A Study Of The "Compelling Justification" Defense In Article 2.3 Of The World Anti-Doping Code

The World Anti-Doping Code(WADC)plays an important role in the world anti-doping system as a programmatic document for global anti-doping efforts.Athletes must comply with the Code and are punished if they violate the relevant provisions.Sun Yang’s "violent resistance to testing" case has successively gone through the original trial and retrial procedures of the Court of Arbitration for Sport(CAS),in which the CAS tribunal’s determination of whether Sun Yang has a "compelling justification" defense is one of the focus of the dispute on the substance of the case.As a complete defense,"compelling justification" is an important rule basis for the protection of athletes’ rights and deserves in-depth study.This article will start with the "Sun Yang case",in which the arbitral tribunal held that Sun Yang’s destruction of blood samples violated both Article 2.3 and Article 2.5 of FINA DC,and there was no "compelling reason" to exempt him from liability when failing to complete the blood test.Based on the facts of the case,the outcome of the ruling and the focus of the dispute,it is found that the "compelling justification" defense in the CAS ruling result in the "Sun Yang case" has vague application standards and is biased towards public value.Although section 2.3 of the WADC provides the defence of "compelling justification",it does not provide a detailed explanation of "compelling justification".In general,invoking "compelling justification" when an athlete has not completed the sample collection work does not constitute a doping violation.For subjective and intentional"refusal" and "evasion" of sample collection,after the development of practice,the athlete’s "refusal" to complete the sample collection can still invoke the defense of"compelling justification",but for the behavior of "evasion" sample collection,as long as the athlete does not complete the sample collection,it constitutes a doping violation,and it is no longer considered whether the athlete has a "compelling justification",because the evasion violation is the behavior prohibited by WADC itself.Combined with other cases in Article 2.3 of the WADC,it is found that the criteria for determining "compelling justification" are unclear in concept,too strict in application,excessive discretionary power and inconsistent discretionary standards,single value measurement,and insufficient consideration of the principle of proportionality in punishment,resulting in ineffective relief for athletes.In order to further improve the application of "compelling reasons",the rights of athletes in the field of anti-doping have been gradually implemented and expanded,and the application criteria for "compelling justifications" have been relaxed,the "compelling justification" are allowed to be invoked by athletes to defend and "compelling justification"are added to Article 2.5 In addition,the protection of athletes’ rights should be gradually strengthened in anti-doping work,including strengthening the protection of athletes in the notification process,mitigating liability,achieving a win-win situation between procedural justice and substantive justice,improving the internal rules and regulations of CAS tribunals,and broadening the factors of value measurement(proportionality and strict liability).