HEINONLINE

DATE DOWNLOADED: Fri Oct 25 09:39:04 2024
下载日期：2024 年 10 月 25 日 星期五 09:39:04

SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline
来源：内容从海因在线下载

Citations:
引用： Translated Text:

Please note: citation s are provided as a general guideline. Users should consult their preferred citation format's style manual for proper citation formatting.
请注意：引用仅供参考。用户应查阅其首选引用格式的样式手册以获取正确的引用格式。

Bluebook 21st ed.
蓝皮书第 21 版

Evgenia G. Vetrova, Raisa l. Khalatova & Anastasia A. Kashaeva, Exceptional Circumstances beyond International Swimming Federation Doping Control Rules: The Sun Yang Case of Court of Arbitration for Sport,2021 VESTNIK SAINT PETERSBURG U. L. 131(2021).
叶琳娜·G·韦托娃，拉里萨·l·哈拉托娃与安娜斯塔西娅·A·卡沙耶娃，国际游泳联合会禁药控制规则之外的特殊情况：体育仲裁院孙杨案，2021 年圣彼得堡大学法律杂志 131 期(2021)。

ALWD 7th ed.
ALWD 第 7 版

Evgenia G. Vetrova, Raisa l. Khalatova & Anastasia A. Kashaeva, Exceptional Circumstances beyond International Swimming Federation Doping Control Rules: The Sun Yang Case of Court of Arbitration for Sport, 2021 Vestnik Saint Petersburg U. L. 131(2021).
叶琳娜·G·韦托娃，拉伊斯亚·l·哈拉托娃 & 安娜斯塔西娅·A·卡舍耶娃，国际游泳联合会禁药控制规则之外的特殊情况：体育仲裁院孙杨案，2021 年圣彼得堡大学法学报 131 期(2021)。

APA 7th ed.
APA 7 版

Vetrova,E. G., Khalatova,R. I., & Kashaeva,A. A.(2021). Exceptional circumstances beyond international swimming federation doping control rules: the sun yang case of court of arbitration for sport. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University Law,2021(1),131-143.
Vetrova, E. G., Khalatova, R. I., & Kashaeva, A. A. (2021). 超出国际游泳联合会兴奋剂控制规则的特殊情况：孙杨案的体育仲裁法庭案例。圣彼得堡大学法律学报，2021(1)，131-143。

Chicago 17th ed.
芝加哥第 17 版

Evgenia G. Vetrova; Raisa l. Khalatova; Anastasia A. Kashaeva, " Exceptional Circumstances beyond International Swimming Federation Doping Control Rules: The Sun Yang Case of Court of Arbitration for Sport," Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University Law 2021, no.1 (2021):131-143
叶甫根尼娅·G·韦托娃；拉伊斯亚·l·哈拉托娃；安娜斯塔西娅·A·卡沙耶娃, "超越国际游泳联合会反兴奋剂控制规则的特殊情况：体育仲裁院孙杨案"，《圣彼得堡大学法律学报》2021 年第 1 期（2021）：131-143

McGill Guide 9th ed.
麦吉尔指南第 9 版

Evgenia G. Vetrova, Raisa I. Khalatova & Anastasia A. Kashaeva, " Exceptional Circumstances beyond International Swimming Federation Doping Control Rules: The Sun Yang Case of Court of Arbitration for Sport" [2021]2021:1 Vestnik Saint PetersburgUL 131.
叶琳娜·G·韦托娃，拉伊斯亚·I·哈拉托娃与安娜斯塔西娅·A·卡舍耶娃，“超越国际游泳联合会反兴奋剂控制规则的特殊情况：体育仲裁院孙杨案”[2021]2021:1 圣彼得堡 UL 学报 131。

AGLC 4th ed.

Evgenia G. Vetrova, Raisa l. Khalato va and Anastasia A. Kashaeva,' Exceptional Circumstances beyond International Swimming Federation Doping Control Rules: The Sun Yang Case of Court of Arbitration for Sport' [2021]2021(1) Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University Law 131
叶琳娜·G·韦罗娃，拉伊斯拉·哈拉托娃和安娜斯塔西娅·A·卡舍耶娃，《国际游泳联合会禁药控制规则之外的特殊情况：体育仲裁院的孙杨案》[2021]2021(1) 圣彼得堡大学法律学报 131

MLA 9th ed.
MLA 9 版

Vetrova, Evgenia G., et al. " Exceptional Circumstances beyond International Swimming Federation Doping Control Rules: The Sun Yang Case of Court of Arbitration for Sport." Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University Law, vol.2021, no.1,2021, pp.131-143. HeinOnline.
Vetrova, Evgenia G. 等人. "超越国际游泳联合会反兴奋剂控制规则的特殊情况：体育仲裁院孙杨案." 圣彼得堡大学法律学报, 第 2021 卷, 第 1 期, 2021 年, 第 131-143 页. HeinOnline.

OSCOLA 4th ed.

Evgenia G. Vetrova, Raisa l. Khalatova & Anastasia A. Kashaeva,' Exceptional Circumstances beyond International Swimming Federation Doping Control Rules: The Sun
叶甫根尼娅·G·韦托娃，拉伊斯亚·L·哈拉托娃与安娜斯塔西娅·A·卡舍耶娃, '超越国际游泳联合会禁药控制规则的特殊情况：阳光

2021 BECTHИK CAHKT-ПETEPByPTCKOFO УHИBEPCИTETA T.12. Bып.1
2021 年 BECTHИK CAHKT-ПETEPByPTCKOFO УHИBEPCИTETA T.12. 第 1 期

ПPABO
ПPABO 翻译为简体中文是：ПPABO

3APyБEЖHOEПPABO

UDC 349

Exceptional circumstances beyond International Swimming Federation Doping Control Rules: The Sun Yang case of Court of Arbitration for Sport
国际游泳联合会兴奋剂控制规则下的特殊情况：体育仲裁院的孙杨案

E. G. Vetrova¹, R. I. Khalatova², A. A. Kashaeva³
埃. G. 维托娃¹，R. I. 哈拉托娃²，A. A. 卡沙耶娃³

12, Gavrskaya ul., St. Petersburg, 194017, Russian Federation
12, Gavrskaya ul., St. Petersburg, 194017, 俄罗斯联邦

2 55, pr. Stachek, St. Petersburg, 198096, Russian Federation
2 55, pr. Stachek, 圣彼得堡, 198096, 俄罗斯联邦

3 28, Zavodskaya ul., Morshansk, Tambovskaya obl., 393955, Russian Federation
3 28，工厂街，莫尔斯坎，坦波夫州，俄罗斯联邦，393955

For citation: Vetrova, Evgenia G., Raisa I. Khalatova, Anastasia A. Kashaeva. 2021.“ Exceptional circumstances beyond International Swimming Federation Doping Control Rules: The Sun Yang case ofCourtofArbitrationforSport”.VestnikofSaintPetersburgUniversity.Law1:131-143.https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2021.109
引用：韦托娃，叶甫根尼娅·G.，拉里萨·I. 卡拉托娃，安娜斯塔西娅·A. 卡沙耶娃。2021。“超越国际游泳联合会反兴奋剂控制规则的特殊情况：体育仲裁院的孙杨案”。圣彼得堡大学法律学报 1：131-143。https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2021.109

The authors refer to the exceptional circumstances surrounding Sun Yang's violation. The athlete intervened in the doping control procedure in several ways. First, he questioned the proper accreditation of the IDTM's ( The company “ International Doping Tests and Management”) Samples Collection Personnel, one of which photographed him. This officer was suspended from urine sampling, but there was no longer a male specialist on the IDTM's Samples Collection Personnel. Therefore, the collection of urine samples did not take place due to the athlete's actions. A general distrust of IDTM's Samples Collection Personnel due to inappropriate photographing was the catalyst for follow- up action. Secondly, the athlete required IDTM's Samples Collection Personnel to confirm his credentials ( accreditation) from the anti- doping organization, despite the submission of documents by IDTM's Samples Collection Personnel following the International Standard for Testing and Investigations. Not having received the additional and, in the opinion of the athlete, necessary documents, he refused to participate in the doping control procedure as a whole, tearing up his previously given written consent. Finally, the athlete took part in the destruction of blood samples with a hammer, but his role in this process was controversial. A prerequisite for the destruction process of the samples was the assistance of the IDTM's Samples Collection Personnel, who handed them over to the athlete in response to insistent demands. The listed circumstances, which are exceptional, however, could not affect the reduction of Sun Yang's period of ineligibility, since the FINA ( International Swimming Federation) Doping Control Rules, based on WADA ( World Anti- Doping Agency) Code 2015, do not imply such a basis. The new
作者提到了孙杨违反规定时所处的特殊环境。运动员以多种方式干预了兴奋剂检测程序。首先，他质疑了 IDTM（国际反兴奋剂测试与管理公司）采样人员的身份认证，其中一人拍摄了他。该官员被暂停了尿样采集，但 IDTM 的采样人员中已不再有男性专家。因此，由于运动员的行为，尿样采集并未进行。对 IDTM 采样人员的不当拍照导致了后续行动。其次，运动员要求 IDTM 采样人员确认来自反兴奋剂组织的认证（身份认证），尽管 IDTM 采样人员已经提交了根据国际测试和调查标准提交的文件。由于没有收到额外的，运动员认为必要的文件，他拒绝参与整个兴奋剂检测程序，撕毁了他之前给出的书面同意书。 最终，运动员参与了用锤子破坏血样，但他在这一过程中的角色存在争议。破坏样本的先决条件是 IDTM 的样本收集人员的协助，他们在运动员坚持要求后将样本交给他。然而，列出的这些例外情况，无论如何都无法影响孙杨禁赛期的减少，因为根据 WADA（世界反兴奋剂机构）2015 年代码的国际游泳联合会（FINA）反兴奋剂控制规则，并不包含这样的基础。新

© St. Petersburg State University, 2021
© 圣彼得堡国立大学，2021

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2021.109 131

WADA Code 2021 offers a more flexible concept of liability and takes into account exceptional circumstances that in subsequent disputes about tampering can be established based on the example of the dispute CAS 2019/A/6148.
WADA 2021 代码提供了一个更灵活的责任概念，并考虑了特殊情况，这些特殊情况可以在后续关于篡改的争议中根据 CAS 2019/A/6148 案例建立。

Keywords: anti- doping rule violation, World Anti- Doping Agency Code, tampering, Doping Control Official, the doping control process, exceptional circumstances, fault or negligence.
关键词：禁药规则违规，世界反禁药机构条例，篡改，禁药检查官员，禁药检查过程，特殊情况，过错或疏忽。

… the logic of anti- doping tests and of the [ Doping Control] Rules demands and expects that, whenever physically, hygienically and morally possible, the sam- ple be provided despite objections by the athlete. If that does not occur, athletes would systematically refuse to provide samples for whatever reasons, leaving no op- portunity for testing¹.
……反兴奋剂检测的逻辑和[兴奋剂控制]规则要求和期望，在身体、卫生和道德允许的任何情况下，无论运动员提出何种反对意见，都必须提供样本。如果这种情况没有发生，无论出于何种原因，运动员都会系统性地拒绝提供样本，从而完全剥夺了测试的机会¹。

1. Introduction
1. 引言

The case of Sun Yang²( hereafter —— athlete), a world- class Chinese swimmer, is im- pressive not only due to its public hearings, but also the swimmer's disqualification for a period of 8 years. Most impressive with this case is that tampering, prohibited by Art.3.1 ofFINA ( International Swimming Federation) Doping Control Rules ( hereafter — FINADC)³, was not investigated in any of the hidden actions of the athlete. On the contrary, he publicly(1) instructed a security guard to des troy a glass ampoule containing blood he had previously provided, (2) tore up the Doping Control Form that he had signed at the outset of the samples collection session, and (3) prevented the Doping Control Official( hereafter — DCO) from collecting urine samples.
孙杨²（以下简称运动员）的案件不仅因其公开听证会而引人注目，而且这位世界级中国游泳运动员被禁赛 8 年的判决也十分惊人。最令人震惊的是，根据国际游泳联合会（FINA）反兴奋剂规则（以下简称 FINADC）第 3.1 条，禁止运动员在任何隐蔽行动中篡改样本，但在孙杨的案件中，这一规定并未得到调查。相反，他公开地（1）指示一名保安破坏了他之前提供的含有血液的玻璃安瓿；（2）撕毁了他在样本采集开始时签署的兴奋剂检测表；（3）阻止了兴奋剂控制官员（以下简称 DCO）收集尿样。

First, let us look at the legal definitions in the FINA DC, which are necessary for the case Court of Arbitration for Sport( hereinafter —— CAS) 2019/A/6148.
首先，我们来看看 FINA DC 中的法律定义，这是处理国际体育仲裁院（以下简称 CAS）2019/A/6148 案件所必需的。

Article 2.5 of FINA DC states that“ tampering or attempted tampering with any part of doping control” is“ conduct which subverts the Doping Control process but which would not otherwise be included in the definition of Prohibited Methods. Tampering shall include, without limitation, intentionally interfering or attempting to interfere with a Doping Control official, providing fraudulent information to an Anti- Doping Organiza- tion, or intimidating or attempting to intimidate a potential witness”. The main feature of this illegal action is the intention of an athlete, who must interfere / attempt to interfere, or provides fraudulent information, or intimidate/ attempt to intimidate. The intention has to be proven on a relevant standard of proof with burden, which lies on one of the parties. Following this, Art.3.1 and 10.3.1 of FINA DC can be taken into account. Art.3.1 of FINADC states:“FINA and its Member Federations shall have the burden of establishing that an anti- doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether FINA or the Member Federation has established an anti- doping rule violation to the comfortable
《国际泳联规则》第 2.5 条指出，“对任何部分的兴奋剂控制进行篡改或企图篡改”是“破坏兴奋剂控制过程的行为，但不属于禁止方法的定义。篡改应包括但不限于故意干扰或试图干扰兴奋剂控制官员、向反兴奋剂组织提供欺诈信息，或恐吓或试图恐吓潜在证人”。此非法行为的主要特征是运动员的意图，必须进行干扰/试图干扰，或提供欺诈信息，或恐吓/试图恐吓。必须以相关证明标准和负担来证明意图，这取决于一方。随后，可以考虑《国际泳联规则》第 3.1 条和第 10.3.1 条。《国际泳联反兴奋剂规则》第 3.1 条指出：“国际泳联及其会员联合会应承担证明违反反兴奋剂规则的责任。证明标准应为国际泳联或会员联合会是否已成功证明违反了反兴奋剂规则，达到令人满意的程度。”

¹ CAS 2005/A/925 Laura Dutra de Abreu Mancini de Azevedo v. FINA, para 75. 24.01.2006. AccessedAugust 13, 2020. https://cdn.swimswam.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/CAS-2005 A 925-Laura-Dutra-de-Abreu-Mancini-de-Azevedo-vs-FINA-S.pdf.
CAS 2005/A/925 Laura Dutra de Abreu Mancini de Azevedo 对 FINA，第 75 条。2006 年 1 月 24 日。2020 年 8 月 13 日访问。https://cdn.swimswam.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/CAS-2005 A 925-Laura-Dutra-de-Abreu-Mancini-de-Azevedo-vs-FINA-S.pdf。

² CAS 2019/A/6148 World Anti- Doping Agency v. Sun Yang & Fédération International e de Natation.AccessedAugust13,2020.https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user upload/CAS Award 6148 website.pdf.
CAS 2019/A/6148 世界反兴奋剂机构诉孙杨及国际游泳联合会。2020 年 8 月 13 日访问。https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_6148_website.pdf。

³FINADopingControlRules.AccessedAugust13,2020https://www.fina.org/sites/default/files/fina dc rules.pdf.
FINA 反兴奋剂控制规则。访问日期：2020 年 8 月 13 日。https://www.fina.org/sites/default/files/fina dc rules.pdf。

132 Becmhuk Cпбгу.Праео.2021. T.12. Вып.1

satisfaction of the hearing panel bear ing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a me re balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Where these Anti- Doping Rules place the burden of proof upon the Athlete or other Person alleged to have committed an anti- doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability”. So, the burden of proof of the athlete's intention for an Art. 2.5 violation lies in the FINA as Anti- Doping Organization. In continuation, Art.10.3.1 of FINA DC states:“ For violations of DC 2.3 or DC 2.5, the Ineligibility period shall be four years unless, in the case of failing to submit to Samples collection the Athlet e can establish that the commission of the anti- doping rule violation was not intentional( as defined in DC 10.2.3), in which case the period of Ineligibility shall be two years”. This article demonstrates the shift of the burden of proof onto the athlete who must establish his non- intentional violation. The problem of burden of proof in anti- doping disputes was recently discussed in a study by Russian sports lawyers ( Vasilyev, Yurlov, Kisliakova 2019).
听证会的满意结果需考虑到所提出的指控的严重性。在所有情况下，这一证明标准高于简单概率平衡，但低于合理怀疑的证明。当反兴奋剂规则将证明责任置于被指控违反反兴奋剂规则的运动员或其他人身上，要求反驳假设或证明特定事实或情况时，证明标准应为简单概率平衡”。因此，运动员对违反第 2.5 条意图的证明责任在于国际泳联作为反兴奋剂组织。继续，国际泳联 DC 第 10.3.1 条指出：“对于违反 DC 2.3 或 DC 2.5 的行为，禁赛期为四年，除非运动员能够证明违反反兴奋剂规则的行为并非故意（根据 DC 10.2.3 定义），在这种情况下，禁赛期为两年”。该条款表明了证明责任的转移，要求运动员证明其非故意违反。 反兴奋剂纠纷中的举证责任问题最近在俄罗斯体育律师（Vasilyev, Yurlov, Kisliakova 2019）的研究中进行了讨论。

2. Basic research
2. 基础研究

2.1. What is“ tampering”?
2.1. 什么是“篡改”？

How does FINA understand the“ tampering” as an anti- doping violation? Appendix1 to the FINA DC provides us with a definition:“ Tampering: Altering for an improper purpose or in an improper way; bringing improper influence to bear; interfering improp- erly; obstructing, misleading or engaging in any fraudulent conduct to alter results or pre- vent normal procedures from occurring”. This definition, implemented from the World Anti- Doping Agency ( hereinafter — WADA) Code 2015⁴, covers all specters of actions, which influence the doping control procedures in an aim to prevent the blood and urine samples from being gathered.
国际泳联如何理解“篡改”为违反反兴奋剂规定？《国际泳联纪律规则》附件 1 为我们提供了定义：“篡改：为了不正当目的或以不正当方式更改；施加不正当影响；不当干预；阻碍、误导或从事任何欺诈行为以更改结果或阻止正常程序的进行”。这一定义从世界反兴奋剂机构（以下简称 WADA）2015 年代码实施，涵盖了所有影响兴奋剂控制程序的行动，目的是防止血液和尿液样本的收集。

The“ doping control” is defined in Appendix 1 to the FINA DC:“ Doping Control: All steps and processes from test distribution planning through to ultimate disposition of any appeal including all steps and processes in between such as the provision of wherea- bouts information, Samples collection and handling, laboratory analysis, therapeutic use exemptions, results management, and hearings”.
“兴奋剂检测”在国际泳联 DC 附录 1 中被定义为：“兴奋剂检测：从测试分发计划到最终处理任何上诉的所有步骤和过程，包括其间的所有步骤和过程，如提供行踪信息、样本收集和处理、实验室分析、治疗使用豁免、结果管理以及听证会”。

Did Sun Yang tamp er or did he make an attempt to tamper with the doping control? He and his group have chosen a strategy to refute DCO's authorization in the blood and urine samples collection process. We will explore whether their efforts were effective.
孙杨是否篡改了药检，还是试图篡改药检？他和他的团队选择了反驳药检收集过程中的授权的有效性策略。我们将探讨他们的努力是否有效。

The International Doping Tests and Management Company ( hereinafter — IDTM) was represented by a Doping Control Officer ( the DCO), a Blood Collection Assistant( the BCA), a Doping Control Assistant ( the DCA), and a fourth unidentified individual who was the team's car driver.
国际禁药测试与管理公司（以下简称 IDTM）由一名禁药控制官员（DCO）、一名血液采集助手（BCA）、一名禁药控制助手（DCA）以及一名身份不明的第四名个人组成，该人为团队的汽车驾驶员。

There is no doubt that every athlete has the right to proper doping control, which means the DCO, Chaperones and other Samples Collection Personnel not only affiliated by some matters with the Anti- Doping Organization ( such as the Testing Authority Sam-
毫无疑问，每位运动员都有接受适当兴奋剂检测的权利，这意味着检测官、监护人和其他样本采集人员不仅与反兴奋剂组织（如检测机构）有关联

⁴WADA Code2015. Accessed August 13, 2020https://www.wada-amazon.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wada-2015-world-anti-doping-code.pdf.
2015 年世界反兴奋剂组织（WADA）代码。访问日期：2020 年 8 月 13 日。https://www.wada-amazon.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wada-2015-world-anti-doping-code.pdf。

Becmhuk ClI6Ty. Праео.2021. T. 12. Bbun.1 133
贝克姆克利蒂，2021 年，第 12 卷，第 1133 页

ples and the Collection Authority), but also those in possession of the necessary docu- ments. The WADA International Standard for Testing and Investigations⁵ proposed a nor- matively defined guide in Art.5.3.3 for authorization of the Samples Collection Authority:(1) it should have official documentation( authorization letter) from the Testing Authority plus(2) the DCO should carry complementary identification which includes their name and photograph. The mentioned WADA International Standard does not identify theBCA and DCA, but this abbreviation had been used during the proceedings in the case. In terms of the International Standard, they should not be interpreted in the same man- ner. The DCA is similar to the DCO and as a result, they should also have identification. On the other hand, the legality of Chaperons, as for the DCO, has to be presumed by the presence of the authorization letter.
源文本翻译为简体中文如下： 根据世界反兴奋剂机构（WADA）的测试和调查国际标准第 5.3.3 节中规范定义的指南，授权样本收集机构不仅应有测试机构提供的官方文件（授权信），还应携带包含其姓名和照片的补充身份证明。WADA 的国际标准并未明确提及 BCA 和 DCA，但在案件审理过程中，这两个缩写被使用过。根据国际标准，BCA 和 DCA 不应被解释为相同。DCA 类似于 DCO，因此也应有身份证明。另一方面，根据 DCO 的情况，陪审员的合法性应通过授权信的存在来假定。

There is no space for the interpretation of Art. 5.3.3 of the FINA DC in another man- ner that obligates the DCO to have only two mentioned documents without any addition- al identification or authorization. The conclusion was presented by the Panel indisputably.
第 5.3.3 条 FINA DC 的解释没有其他方式要求 DCO 仅拥有提及的两个文件，而无需任何额外的身份验证或授权。该结论由委员会无可争议地提出。

In comparison, the new WADA Code 2021⁶ in Appendix 1 defined tampering as an“ Intentional conduct which subverts the Doping Control process, but which would not otherwise be included in the definition of Prohibited Methods…” The emphasis on the in- tentional character of violation resulted in only one possible defense for future athletes — there is no infraction. In addition to the comments regarding tampering in the WADA Code 2021, breaking the bottle is an example of tampering.
与之相比，2021 年新版 WADA 规则第 1 附录中对操纵的定义为“故意行为，颠覆了反兴奋剂控制过程，但这种行为本身并不包含在禁止方法的定义中……”强调违规行为的故意性质，使得未来运动员只有唯一的辩护——没有违规行为。除了关于 2021 年 WADA 规则中操纵的评论外，打破瓶子就是操纵的一个例子。

2.2. Chai n ofcustody and doping control
2.2. 负责保管和兴奋剂控制

Firstly, the DCO presented the athlete with a copy of his IDTM- issued ID card and a generic Letter of Authority from FINA to IDTM. This letter stated that IDTM was ap- pointed and authorized by FINA to collect urine and blood samples from athletes within the framework of the doping controls organized as part of the FINA Unannounced out- of- Competition Testing Program. The DCA gave the athlete his government- issued ID card. The BCA presented the athlete with a copy of his Specialized Technical Qualification Certificate for Junior Nurses. The athlete questioned the documentation which was shown to him. Nevertheless, he signed the Doping Control Form and cooperated in providing two blood samples. The last action was, as we are concerned, one of the primary facts that oppose his future actions and de fense strategy. Sun Yang was satisfied with the official documentation and complementary identification as he had taken part in the doping con- trol procedure.
首先，DCO 向运动员出示了由 IDTM 颁发的身份卡复印件以及 FINA 向 IDTM 发出的一般授权信。这封信表明，IDTM 被 FINA 指定并授权，在 FINA 未通知离赛外检程序框架内从运动员处收集尿液和血液样本。DCA 向运动员出示了他的政府颁发的身份卡。BCA 向运动员出示了他作为初级护士的专业技术资格证书复印件。运动员对展示给他的文件提出了质疑。然而，他签署了兴奋剂控制表格，并合作提供了两份血液样本。作为我们关心的最后一步行动，这是反对他未来行动和辩护策略的主要事实之一。孙杨对官方文件和补充身份表示满意，因为他参与了兴奋剂控制程序。

The whole process of doping control seemed to be quite ordinary until the DCA took a picture of the athlete. The athlete thought that it was unprofessional, and then he decided to re- review the documentation presented by IDTM's Samples Collection Personnel in more detail, in particular the credentials of the DCA.
整个兴奋剂控制过程似乎相当平常，直到 DCA 为运动员拍了一张照片。运动员认为这是不专业的，然后他决定详细审查 IDTM 采样人员提供的文件，特别是 DCA 的资质。

The athlete considered the information provided by the DCA insufficient, so theDCA was removed from the testing mission upon the initiative or with the consent of the
运动员认为国际反兴奋剂机构提供的信息不足，因此在国际反兴奋剂机构主动或得到许可的情况下，其被从检测任务中移除

5WADAInternationalStandardforTestingandInvestigations.AccessedAugust13,2020.https://www.wada-amazona.org/en/resources/world-anti-doping-program/international-standard-for-testing-and-investigations-isti.
5WADA 国际测试与调查标准。访问日期：2020 年 8 月 13 日。https://www.wada-amazona.org/en/resources/world-anti-doping-program/international-standard-for-testing-and-investigations-isti。

6WADA Code2021. Accessed August 13,2020https://www.wada-amazon.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2021 wada code.pdf.
2021 年 WADA 规则。访问日期：2020 年 8 月 13 日，https://www.wada-amazon.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2021 wada code.pdf。

134 Becmhuac CII6ry. Право.2021. T.12. Bbln.1
134 Becmhuac CII6ry. 权利.2021. 第 12 卷. 第 1 期

DCO. The DCA was the only male in that“ team” and as a result, after his exclusion from the testing mission the athlete's urine could not be collected.
DCO。DCA 是那个“团队”中唯一的男性，因此，在他被排除在测试任务之外后，无法收集运动员的尿样。

Following this, the athlete raised concerns about the documentation presented by theDCO and BCA. The athlete and his mother then summoned the athlete's support staff and asked for advice. Dr. Ba Zhen, the athlete's medical doctor, came over to the athlete's resi- dence. Dr. Ba Zhen was consulted by Dr. Han Zhaoqi, Chief Doctor of the School where Dr. Ba Zhen works, and Chief Doctor in the Affiliated Sports Hospital of Zhejiang College of Sport, by telephone. Mr. Cheng Hao, Team Leader of the Chinese national swimming team, was also consulted by telephone.
随后，运动员对 DCO 和 BCA 提供的文件提出了疑虑。运动员和他的母亲随后召集了运动员的支持团队，并寻求建议。Ba Zhen 医生，运动员的医疗医生，来到运动员的住所。Ba Zhen 医生是 Han Zhaoqi 主任医生的同事，Han Zhaoqi 是 Ba Zhen 医生工作的学校校长，同时也是浙江体育学院附属体育医院的主任医生，他们通过电话咨询了 Ba Zhen 医生。中国国家游泳队的队长 Cheng Hao 也通过电话咨询了。

The discussion then began between Dr. Ba Zhen, Dr. Han Zhaoqithen, and the DCO about the accreditation and authorization presented by IDTM's Samples Collection Per- sonnel ( the DCO, DCA, BCA). The athlete's support staff informed both the athlete and the DCO that the documents, which were presented by the IDTM team, did not comply with the required standards, and decided that the collected blood samples could not be taken away by the DCO. Due to this, the athlete and his entourage started to take action to recover the athlete's blood samples.
讨论开始涉及巴振博士、韩兆琪博士以及 DCO，关于 IDTM 样本收集人员提供的认证和授权问题。运动员的辅助团队向运动员和 DCO 通报，IDTM 团队提供的文件不符合要求标准，因此决定 DCO 无法带走收集的血液样本。因此，运动员及其随行人员开始采取行动，试图取回运动员的血液样本。

In response to these actions, the DCO sought to warn the athlete that any removal of the blood samples could be considered as a failure to comply with the samples collection process and that such action might give rise to serious consequences. Nevertheless, under pressure from the athlete, the DCO or the BCA took the glass containers from the storage box and handed them to the athlete. The DCO told the athlete that no IDTM material could be left behind. Then the athlete instructed his entourage to break one of the glass containers to extract the blood samples so that the DCO could retrieve the broken con- tainer, but not the blood samples themselves.
针对这些行为，DCO 试图警告运动员，任何移除血液样本的行为都可能被视为未能遵守样本采集过程，并且这样的行为可能会导致严重的后果。然而，在运动员的压力下，DCO 或 BCA 从存储箱中取出了玻璃容器，并交给了运动员。DCO 告诉运动员，不能留下 IDTM 材料。然后，运动员指示他的随行人员打破一个玻璃容器以提取血液样本，这样 DCO 可以取回破碎的容器，但不是血液样本本身。

The glass container with the blood vessel was destroyed with a hammer by a security guard. The athlete assisted the security guard by illuminating the blood container with the flashlight of his mobile phone. The blood vessel remained intact and was retrieved by the athlete.
装有血管的玻璃容器被保安用锤子砸碎。运动员协助保安，用手机手电筒照亮血液容器。血管保持完整，被运动员取出。

In conclusion, the IDTM“ team” did not collect the athlete’s blood and urine that night, and the analysis could not be made. The collected blood vessels were taken by Dr. Ba Zhen ( although they are no longer eligible to be tested because the chain of custody was broken).
总之，IDTM“团队”并没有在那个晚上收集运动员的血液和尿液，因此无法进行分析。收集到的血管被巴振博士拿走了（尽管由于证据链被破坏，它们已经不再符合测试条件）。

While the DCO was still in the residence, the athlete destroyed the Doping Control Form. Upon the request of the athlete, Dr. Ba Zhen added his comments in regard to the collection process on a separate sheet of paper. This document was signed by Dr. Ba Zhen, the athlete, the DCO, DCA, and BCA. After some time, the IDTM reported to FINA that the requested samples ( blood and urine) could not be collected.
当 DCO 还在住处时，运动员破坏了兴奋剂控制表格。根据运动员的要求，包真博士在另一张纸上就收集过程添加了他的评论。这份文件由包真博士、运动员、DCO、DCA 和 BCA 签署。经过一段时间，IDTM 向 FINA 报告称，无法收集到要求的样本（血液和尿液）。

The strategy of the athlete's defense was formulated in the following way:“ However, in the following process of blood and urine samples collection, [ the Athlete] found that[ the BCA], Blood Collection Officer, only provided her Nurse Qualification Certificate( Number [……]) but did not provide any other proof of certification for Blood Collection Officer. [ The DCA]( classmate of [ the DCO]), the Doping Control Officer for urine test, only provided his resident ID card ([…]) and did not provide any other certification of Doping Control Officer for urine. They were unrelated personnel. Under our repeated inquiries, among them, only [ the DCO]( Card No.[…]) provided the certification of Dop- ing Control Officer, and the rest two could not provide Doping Control Officer certifica-
运动员的辩护策略如下：“然而，在采集血液和尿液样本的过程中，[运动员]发现[BCA]，采血官员，只提供了她的护士资格证书（编号[……]），却没有提供任何其他关于采血官员的认证证明。[DCA]（[DCO]的同学），尿检的反兴奋剂官员，只提供了他的居民身份证（[……]），没有提供任何关于尿检反兴奋剂官员的其他认证。他们是无关人员。在我们反复询问后，其中只有[DCO]（卡号[……]）提供了反兴奋剂官员的认证，其余两人无法提供反兴奋剂官员认证。

Becmhuk CII óTY. Право.2021. T. 12. Bыn.1 135
贝克姆 CII 法律.2021. 第 12 卷. 第 1 期 135

tion and any other relevant authority. Therefore, the urine test and blood test cannot be completed.( The blood samples that has been collected could not be taken away.)”7.
因此，尿检和血液检无法完成。（已采集的血样无法带走。）

The athlete could have been subjected to the influence of his mother and support staff, and this could be why he changed his behavior from cooperation with the DCO to confrontation. Notwithstanding the decision to take part in doping control, his interrup- tion turned out to be useless for him. There is no doubt, that the manner of decisions made at the particular time had a direct impact on CAS, albeit venire contra fact um proprium was not mentioned in the Panel process of issuing decisions. That principle could be used in the case, which may have jurisdictional value, but Sun Yang by interrupting the doping control had only one proper outcome which did not impact his previous action in coop- eration with the DCO.
运动员可能受到了母亲和支援团队的影响，这可能是他从与 DCO 合作转变为对抗的原因。尽管参加了兴奋剂控制，但他的中断对他来说毫无用处。毫无疑问，特定时间做出的决定直接影响了 CAS，尽管“与自己事实相反”的原则并未在委员会发布决定的过程中提及。这个原则可能在具有司法价值的案件中适用，但孙杨通过中断兴奋剂控制只有正确的结果，这并未影响他之前与 DCO 合作的行为。

2.3. Contradictions in estimating the factual background
2.3. 事实背景估算中的矛盾

Comparing the Factual Background and the Submission of the Appellant, we discov- ered several contradictions.
比较事实背景和上诉人的提交，我们发现了几个矛盾。

First of all, there are two versions of when the athlete questioned the DCA' s authoriza- tion and documentation for a second time. According to the submission of the appellant,“ When asked by the DCO to provide urine samples, the Athlete questioned the DCA's authorization and documentation to serve as a chaperone to observe the Athlete provide the samples. The Athlete refused to provide u rine samples in the DCA’s presence. The Athlete and his growing entourage ( his mother and personal doctor were present at the clubhouse, and two other Chinese sports officials participated by telephone) steadfastly insisted that the DCA had not presented sufficient documentation so no urine samples would be provided”8.
首先，关于运动员第二次质疑 DCA 授权和文件的时间，有两种版本。根据上诉人的提交，“当 DCA 要求提供尿样时，运动员质疑了 DCA 作为观察员提供文件以监督运动员提供样本的授权和文件。运动员拒绝在 DCA 在场的情况下提供尿样。运动员和他的随行人员（他的母亲和私人医生在俱乐部，另外两名中国体育官员通过电话参与）坚持认为 DCA 没有提供足够的文件，因此不会提供尿样”8。

According to the factual background, given by CAS,“ At some point shortly thereafter, the Athlete discovered that the DCA had taken, or was taking, one or more photographs of him. The Athlete did not consider this to be professional, and it seems to have prompted him to re- review the documentation presented by IDTM's Samples Collection Personnel in more detail, in particular the credentials of the DCA. Because the Athlet e considered the information provided by the DCA insufficient, the DCA was removed from the test- ing mission upon the initiative or with the consent of the DCO. Because the DCA was the only male member of the testing team, no urine samples could be collected from the Athlete”⁹.
根据 CAS 提供的事实背景，“在那之后的某个时候，运动员发现 DCA 对他进行了或正在对他进行一两张照片的拍摄。运动员认为这不是专业的行为，这似乎促使他更详细地审查了 IDTM 样本收集人员提供的文件，特别是 DCA 的资质。因为运动员认为 DCA 提供的信息不足，DCA 在 DCO 的倡议或同意下被从测试任务中移除。因为 DCA 是测试团队中唯一的男性成员，所以无法从运动员那里收集尿样”。

It turns out that there are two fundamentally different versions of events, each of which has its own logic, and is contradictory. In the first version, it is said that the athlete, in response to a request to submit an analysis, asked to check the documentation, and in the second version, it says that the athlete asked to double- check the documentation after discovering that he was being photographed.
结果有两种根本不同的事件版本，每种都有自己的逻辑，并且相互矛盾。在第一种版本中，据说运动员在收到提交分析的请求后，要求检查文件，而在第二种版本中，说运动员在发现他正在被拍照后，要求再次检查文件。

Secondly, there is a contradiction in how the events with the guard took place. Ac- cording to the appellant,“ Much argument ensued between the IDTM team and the Ath- lete, who was egged on by his support team. The stalemate eventually ended with blows
其次，关于守卫事件的描述存在矛盾。根据上诉人的说法，“IDTM 团队与运动员之间发生了激烈的争论，运动员的团队支持人员煽动了他。僵局最终以拳脚收场。”

7 CAS 2019/A/6148 World Anti- Doping Agency v. Sun Yang & Fédération International e de Natation. Para.17.28.02.2020.
第 7CAS 2019/A/6148 号，世界反兴奋剂机构诉孙杨及国际游泳联合会。第 17 段。2020 年 2 月 28 日。

⁸ Ibid. Para.128.
参考文献. 第 128 段。

9 Ibid. Para. 10.
9 同上，第 10 段。

136 Becmhuk CΠ6ry. Праео.2021. T.12. Вып.1
136 伯姆赫克 CΠ6ry. 2021 年期. 第 12 卷. 第 1 期

from a hammer — specifically, with a security guard taking one of the Athlete’s blood samples containers outside to break it with a hammer. As the security guard recalls,‘ Then a man who was not very tall handed me a bottle and told me to use the hammer to open the bottom of the bottle”10.
从一把锤子——具体来说，是一名保安将运动员的血样容器带出去用锤子敲碎。根据保安的回忆，“然后一个不太高的男人递给我一个瓶子，让我用锤子敲开瓶子底部”。

In the factual background used by CAS it is said that“ When the DCO indicated to the Athlete that no IDTM material could be left behind, the Athlet e instructed his entourage to break one of the glass containers to extract the blood samples so that the DCO could take back the broken container but not the blood samples. The glass container containing the blood vessel was destroyed with a hammer by a security guard”11.
CAS 在使用的事实背景中表示，“当 DCO 指示运动员不能留下 IDTM 材料时，运动员指示他的随行人员打破一个玻璃容器以提取血液样本，这样 DCO 可以带走破碎的容器，但不是血液样本。装有血管的玻璃容器被保安人员用锤子破坏。”

Thus, here we see that there is a difference in the versions of who ordered the guard to break the container. The appellant insists that someone unfamiliar to the guard gave him the container and told him to break it. The fa ctual background contains information that the athlete immediately instructed his entourage about further actions.
因此，我们看到关于谁命令守卫破坏容器的版本存在差异。上诉人坚持认为，是某个守卫不熟悉的人给了他容器并让他破坏它。事实背景包含的信息是，运动员立即指示他的随行人员关于后续行动。

Despite the fact that there are two contradictions of the facts presented in this case,CAS obviously made a decision in favor of the information provided from the factual background. CAS indirectly admitted the fact that the athlete asked to double- check the documentation after discovering he was being photographed. But still according to its position,“ For the reasons set out above, which the Panel will not here repeat, it concludes that none of these circumstances have been established as justifying the cautions taken. The Panel finds no merit in this argument, which is not supported by the evidence before it or the legal principles that are applicable”¹². On the contrary CAS confidently admitted that“ It is not contested that the Athlet e instructed a security guard to des troy a glass con- tainer containing a blood vessel with blood he had previously provided”¹³.
尽管本案中存在两个事实矛盾，但 CAS 显然根据提供的事实背景信息做出了有利于该信息的决定。CAS 间接承认了运动员在发现自己的照片被拍摄后要求复查文件这一事实。但根据其立场，“鉴于上述原因，委员会在这里不会重复，它得出结论，这些情况都没有被证明为合理解释所采取的警告。委员会发现，这一论点没有根据，因为它没有得到委员会面前的证据或适用的法律原则的支持”¹²。相反，CAS 自信地承认了“不争的事实是，运动员指示一名保安销毁了一个装有他之前提供的血液血管的玻璃容器”¹³。

2.4. Are there misunderstandings or illegal actions in the doping control process?
2.4. 是否存在兴奋剂检测过程中的误解或非法行为？

The act of taking a picture during the doping control process seems to have a very important role. This action of the DCA could not be found in the WADA International Standard for Testing and Investigations and it can be deemed an act of a voluntary behav- ior by one the IDTM's Samples Collection Personnel. The International Standard for Test- ing and Investigations does not have any rule which would permit pictures to be taken of the athlete. The Standard does not even contain the word“ picture”; it only mentions photo identification which is not applicable to the present situation.
在兴奋剂控制过程中拍摄照片的行为似乎具有非常重要的作用。DCA 的这一行动在 WADA 的测试和调查国际标准中无法找到，可以被认为是 IDTM 采样人员自愿行为的一部分。测试和调查的国际标准中没有允许拍摄运动员照片的规则。标准中甚至不包含“照片”这个词，只提到了照片识别，这在当前情况下并不适用。

What should the world- class athlete think when somebody is taking a picture of him? Perhaps he believes that the person is violating his rights as an athlete not only out of idle interest, but also for illegal purposes. Should the doping control group allow the DCO or the chaperons to depart from the WADA International Standard for Testing for a dubious purpose? Surely not.
世界级运动员在有人给他拍照时会想些什么？也许他会认为，这个人不仅出于闲暇的兴趣，而且出于非法目的侵犯了他的运动员权利。反兴奋剂小组是否应该允许 DCO 或陪护人员出于可疑的目的偏离 WADA 的国际检测标准？当然不应该。

When the DCA made the photo, the adequate reaction of the athlete was to re- check his and all the samples collection personnel's authorization and identification cards. There was not any other male person in the doping control group — this demonstrated a fatal
当 DCA 拍摄照片时，运动员的适当反应是重新检查他和他的所有样本收集人员的身份授权和身份证明。在兴奋剂控制小组中没有其他男性人员——这表明这是一个致命的情况。

10 Ibid. Para. 128.
参考文献. 第 128 段.

11 Ibid. Para. 14.
11 同上，第 14 段。

12 Ibid. Para.354.
12 同上，第 354 段。

13 Ibid. Para. 198.
13 同上，第 198 段。

Becmhuk ClI órY. Праео.2021. T. 12. Bbln.1 137
贝姆赫克 C1 俄 Y. 2021 年. 第 12 卷. 第 1 期 137

mistake by the IDTM. Then, as we think, Sun Yang did not refuse to submit an analysis of urine; he had reasons not to trust the DCA and to deny taking part in any further proceed- ing s before new male samples collection personnel would join the IDTM. CAS approved this manner of the athlete’s action:“ Further, the evidence before the Panel shows, and it is not disputed, that the Athlete suggested that he should await the arrival of another DCA to be able to provide his urine samples. Accordingly, the Panel considers that it cannot be concluded that the Athlete failed to provide urine samples”¹⁴.
IDTM 的错误。然后，正如我们所认为的，孙杨并没有拒绝提交尿样分析；他有理由不相信 DCA，并在新的男性样本收集人员加入 IDTM 之前拒绝参与任何进一步的程序。CAS 批准了运动员行动的方式：“此外，委员会面前的证据显示，并且没有争议，运动员建议他应该等待另一位 DCA 的到来，以便提供他的尿样。因此，委员会认为不能得出结论，运动员未能提供尿样”。

With that, the Panel did not comment on the peculiar situation with the photo taken, but“ the me re fact that [ one of the sample collection team) acted inappropriately in taking at least three photographs of the Athlete did not, as such, warrant the Athlete to abort the entire ( blood and urine) testing mission”15.
随着这句话，委员会没有对拍摄的照片的奇特情况发表评论，但“样本采集团队中的一名成员不恰当地拍摄了至少三张运动员的照片这一事实，并不意味着运动员需要中止整个（血液和尿液）检测任务”。

Breaking the container with the blood samples of the athlete is highly likely to be considered tampering in connection with the meanings of the FINA DC. There is no pos- sibility to justify such violent action. Although, were there any circumstances influenced by the past event? On the one hand, influencing the doping control is tampering, whether the athlete gave instructions himself or instructed his entourage. But on the other hand, the appellant could not present any pieces of evidence that the athlete had instructed the security guard. In their submission, WADA quoted the security guard that the initiator of breaking the blood samples was“a man who was not very tall”. The athlete's victimization as a mastermind of destroying the container with his samples was not mentioned suffi- ciently,“ the Athlete crouched next to the security guard during the hammering process, illuminating the blood samples container with the flashlight on his cell phone”¹⁶.
打开运动员血液样本的容器很可能被认为是与 FINA DC 含义相关的篡改。这种暴力行为无法得到正当理由。然而，过去事件是否对某些情况产生了影响？一方面，影响药检就是篡改，无论是运动员亲自指示还是指示其随行人员。但另一方面，上诉人无法提供任何证据证明运动员指示了保安。在他们的陈述中，WADA 引用了保安的话，称破坏血液样本的发起人“个子不高”。作为破坏装有其样本的容器的主谋，运动员的受害情况没有得到充分提及，“运动员在敲击过程中蹲在保安旁边，用手机的手电筒照亮了血液样本容器”¹⁶。

Formally, from the position of the standard of proof, his role in planning such a vio- lent act has to be proven.
正式地，从证据标准的角度来看，他策划如此暴力行为的角色需要被证明。

Why did the factual background highlight the athlete as a provocateur — it is a dis- cussion. The burden of proof should be applied to the appellant as in the statement it was not mentioned that the athlete was the person, who had given the command to the security guard. We suppose that this question was not properly investigated by the CAS, the Panel simply relied on re- constructed grounds of contradiction. At the end, the CAS postulated that Sun Yang had decided“ to take matters into his own hands by destroying a blood container, tearing up the Doping Control Form and refusing to let the DCO leave his house with the blood samples”17.
为什么事实背景强调运动员是挑衅者——这是一个讨论。举证责任应该由上诉人承担，在陈述中没有提到运动员是发出命令给保安的人。我们假设这个问题没有被 CAS 充分调查，委员会只是依赖于构建的矛盾理由。最后，CAS 提出孙杨“决定自行处理，破坏血液容器，撕毁兴奋剂检测表，并拒绝让 DCO 带着血液样本离开他的房子”17。

As a result, the Panel decided, claiming that proof was provided, that the athlete played a primary role in planning and destroying the samples. Although this does not in- fluence the sanction itself, the question of satisfying the standard of proof is still relevant.
因此，委员会决定，声称提供了证据，运动员在策划和破坏样本中扮演了主要角色。尽管这不影响制裁本身，但满足证据标准的问题仍然相关。

Tearing up the doping control form can be assessed in two ways. On the one hand, by destroying the form the athlete violated the doping control process: this action is tan- tamount to refusing to take part in the process. But on the other hand, did the athlete destroy the form with the purpose of denying the following anti- doping procedures? As we mentioned, this situation was connected with the destroying of the blood samples con- tainer, and it happened before the container was destroyed. In our opinion, the athlete de-
破坏兴奋剂检测表格的行为可以从两个方面进行评估。一方面，通过破坏表格，运动员违反了兴奋剂检测流程：这一行为等同于拒绝参与流程。但另一方面，运动员是否是故意破坏表格以否认后续的反兴奋剂程序？正如我们提到的，这种情况与破坏血液样本容器有关，并且发生在容器被破坏之前。在我们看来，运动员破坏表格的行为-

¹⁴ CAS 2019/A/6148 World Anti- Doping Agency v. Sun Yang & Fédération International e de Natation. Para.306.
第 14 条 CAS 2019/A/6148 世界反兴奋剂机构诉孙杨与国际游泳联合会。第 306 段。

15 Ibid. Para.310.
15 同上，第 310 段。

16 Ibid. Para. 128.
16 同上，第 128 段。

17 Ibid. Para. 355.
17 同上，第 355 段。

Becmhuk ClI6Ty. Право.2021. T.12. Вып.1
贝克姆克利蒂. 权利.2021. 第 12 卷. 第 1 期

stroyed the form without the desire of preventing the continuation of the doping control process, and his actions cannot be deemed as tampering. Sun Yang's decision had another dimension — he was tearing up the doping control form because of the uncertainty in the authorization of the IDTM's Samples Collection Personnel. At the same time, we under- stand that the border between the intention and motivation of the action is not presented in the FINA DC and it did not influence the sanction issued. Did the athlete understand that in the wording of the FINA DC( and also the WADA Code)“ he was taking a huge risk by withdrawing a consent he had already given to cooperate in the blood samples collec- tion session having refused to allow the samples”18.
破坏了表格，没有阻止兴奋剂控制过程的意图，他的行为不能被视为篡改。孙杨的决定有另一层含义——他撕毁了兴奋剂控制表格，是因为 IDTM 采样人员授权的不确定性。同时，我们理解行为的意图和动机之间的界限在 FINA DC 中没有呈现，并且没有影响所发出的处罚。运动员是否理解，在 FINA DC（以及 WADA 代码）的措辞中，“他冒着巨大风险，撤销了他已同意在拒绝允许采样时合作进行血液样本收集的同意”18。

2.5. Was Art. 2.5 FINA DC applied correctly?
2.5. 是否正确应用了国际泳联 DC 的第 2.5 条？

“ Tampering” requires proof that the athlete had an intention of violating the doping control. This can be understood as cheating or the intention to cheat. Was this aspect con- sidered in the case at hand? We suggest examining two situations with the participation of Sun Yang separately.
“篡改”需要证明运动员有违反 doping 控制的意图。这可以理解为作弊或作弊的意图。在本案中，是否考虑了这一方面？我们建议分别考虑孙杨参与的两种情况。

The first situation is the question of asking for DCA's authorization and documenta- tion for the second time. We agree with the CAS that there are no double or additional authorization procedures that then follow from the WADA International Standard forTesting¹⁹.
第一种情况是第二次请求 DCA 的授权和文档。我们同意 CAS 的观点，不存在随后需要遵循的双重或额外的授权程序，这源于世界反兴奋剂机构的测试国际标准 19。

Therefore, refusal on the grounds of non- authorization is not legal and it should be considered as a violation of the FINA DC: tampering as a“ conduct which subverts the Doping Control process”. Doping control essentially includes the collection of blood and urine samples. Then the athlete refused to begin the process of collecting urine samples which was tampering and committing an anti- doping violation( art.2.5 FINA DC). FINADC like WADA Code does not provide athletes with the right to reduce the period of disqualification on the basis exceptional circumstances. The concept of mitigating cir- cumstances is also not addressed in the WADA Code 2015 and the FINA DC. That is whyDCO's actions of taking the athlete's picture could not receive an adequate judgement and did not influence the sanction. The refusal to proceed with urine samples in the case of proper authorization of the Samples Authority Person, although it was connected with the illegal photo taken, has no chance of being justified²⁰.
因此，基于未经授权的拒绝是不合法的，应被视为违反国际泳联反兴奋剂规则（FINA DC）中的“破坏兴奋剂控制过程”的行为。兴奋剂控制本质上包括收集血液和尿液样本。然后运动员拒绝开始收集尿液样本的过程，这是破坏和违反反兴奋剂规则（FINA DC 第 2.5 条）。类似世界反兴奋剂机构（WADA）规则的 FINADC 并未赋予运动员在特殊情况下缩短禁赛期的权利。WADA 2015 规则和 FINA DC 中也没有提到减轻情况的概念。这就是为什么兴奋剂控制官拍摄运动员照片的行为无法得到适当判断，也没有影响制裁。在样本授权人员正确授权的情况下，拒绝进行尿液样本收集，尽管与非法拍摄照片有关，但无法得到正当理由的辩护。

Only the concept of exceptional circumstances may be introduced, but it was not presented in the FINA DC.
可能引入的唯一概念是特殊情况，但在 FINA DC 中未呈现。

The second situation is the role of the athlete in the events with the guard and the blood samples. In the factual background, CAS stated that the athlete was the person who commanded the security guard to destroy the container with his blood samples. No matter how this action was done, it was tampering and illegal interruption of the doping control process. For this violation, the athlete was finally punished by CAS²¹.
第二种情况是运动员在有安保人员和血液样本的事件中的角色。在事实背景中，CAS 表示运动员是命令安保人员破坏装有其血液样本容器的人。无论这一行为如何进行，都是对兴奋剂检测过程的篡改和非法干扰。对于这一违规行为，最终 CAS 对运动员进行了处罚。

The intentional character of tampering excludes any reasons for the“ no significant fault or negligence”. This is the athlete's last chance to prove“ no- fault or negligence”. As Art. 10.3.1 of FINA DC declares:“ For violations of DC 2.3 or DC 2.5, the Ineligibility
故意篡改的行为排除了“无重大过失或疏忽”的任何理由。这是运动员证明“无过失或疏忽”的最后机会。正如国际泳联规则第 10.3.1 条所声明的：“对于违反规则 2.3 或 2.5 的行为，不得参赛。”

18 Ibid. Para.355.
18 同上，第 355 段。

¹⁹ Ibid. Paras.254,264,282,293.
参考文献.19. 第 254,264,282,293 段。

²⁰ Ibid. Para.309.
见上文.第 309 段。

21 Ibid. Para.382.
21 同上，第 382 段。

Becmhuk ClI6ry. Право.2021. T.12. Bbln.1 139
贝克姆·克里 6. 权利.2021. 第 12 卷. 第 119 页

period shall be four years unless, in the case of failing to submit to Samples collection the Athlete can establish FINA DC Rules, that the commission of the anti- doing rule viola- tion was not intentional ( as defined in DC 10.2.3), in which case the period of Ineligibil- ity shall be two years”. Art. 10.2.3 of FINA DC:“ As used in DC 10.2 and 10.3, the term“ intentional” is meant to identify those Athletes who cheat. The term, therefore, requires that the Athlete or other Person engaged in conduct which he or she knew constituted an anti- doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti- doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk”. The Panel concluded with a discussion on the athlete's argument of the precedent's role in case CAS 2013/A/3341,“ where the sole arbitrator articulated“a certain surprise in noting the circumstances surrounding the destruction of two urine samples collection containers”, but found that on the facts of that case the requisite intent of the Athlete was not established and he was found not to be responsible for“ tampering”²².
期限为四年，除非在未能提交样本收集的运动员能够证明国际泳联 DC 规则，违反反兴奋剂规则并非故意（如 DC 10.2.3 中所定义），在这种情况下，禁赛期应为两年”。国际泳联 DC 第 10.2.3 条：“在 DC 10.2 和 10.3 中使用的术语“故意”指的是那些作弊的运动员。因此，该术语要求运动员或其他参与行为的人知道其行为构成了反兴奋剂规则违反，或者知道其行为可能构成或导致反兴奋剂规则违反，并明显忽视了这种风险”。委员会以讨论了运动员在 CAS 2013/A/3341 案例中的先例作用，其中唯一的仲裁者表示“对破坏两个尿样收集容器的背景感到一定的惊讶”，但发现在这起案件的事实中，运动员的必要意图并未得到证实，他被认定不应对“篡改”负责。

CAS pointed out that despite the DCO's repeated warnings, the athlete persisted in demanding that the blood samples be returned to him, to allow him to prevent the DCO from leaving with them. The evidence before the Panel established that the athlete inten- tionally sought to interfere with the doping control process by destroying an external con- tainer and tearing up the doping control form, intending to prevent the DCO from leaving the premises with the blood samples that had already been collected. The Panel found that such actions necessarily comprise intent. CAS determined that, on any reasonable and objective basis, the situation faced by the Athlete did not amount to a compelling justifica- tion to allow him to take the steps he did to prevent the DCO from leaving his home with the blood samples which were provided.
CAS 指出，尽管 DCO 一再警告，但运动员坚持要求归还血液样本，以便允许他阻止 DCO 携带它们离开。委员会面前的证据表明，运动员故意试图通过破坏外部容器和撕毁兴奋剂控制表格来干扰兴奋剂控制过程，目的是阻止 DCO 携带已经收集的血液样本离开现场。委员会发现，此类行为必然包含意图。CAS 确定，从任何合理的客观标准来看，运动员面临的状况不足以成为允许他采取阻止 DCO 从家中带走提供血液样本的步骤的充分理由。

As was postulated by the Panel, it cannot be excluded that serious flaws in the noti- fication process, or during any part of the doping control process, can mean that it might not be appropriate to require an athlete to continue a samples collection. Rather, they could invalidate the samples collection process as a whole. In the view of CAS, this could only be in the most exceptional circumstances²³.
正如委员会所提出的，不能排除在通知过程或在任何部分的兴奋剂控制过程中出现严重错误，这可能意味着可能不需要要求运动员继续样本收集。相反，这可能导致整个样本收集过程无效。在 CAS 看来，这种情况只能在极其特殊的情况下发生。

And the factual circumstances in the case of Sun Yang were not among them, so it can be claimed that Art. 2.5 of FINA DC was applied correctly on legal grounds.
案中孙杨的情况并非如此，因此可以声称根据法律依据正确应用了国际泳联 DC 第 2.5 条。

2.6. Factual circumstances for removing or reducing the sanction
2.6. 撤销或减轻制裁的事实情况

Was it possible to find factual circumstances for applying Art. 10.4 of FINA DC( Elimination of the Period of Ineligibility where there is No- Fault or Negligence), Art.10.5.1 of DC( Reduction of Sanctions for Specifi ed Substances or Contaminated Products for Violations), Art. 10.5.2 of DC ( Application of No Significant Fault or Negligence be- y ond the Application of DC 10.5.1 DC, Art. 10.6.1 of FINA DC ( Substantial Assistance in Discovering or Establishing Anti- Doping Rule Violations), Art. 10.6.1 (DC 10.6.1 Sub- stantial Assistance in Discovering or Establishing Anti- Doping Rule Violations), Art.10.6.2 ( Admission of an Anti- Doping Rule Violation in the absence of other evidence), or Art. 10.6.3 ( Prompt admission of an anti- doping rule violation after being confronted with a violation sanctioned under DC 10.2.1 or 10.3.1) in the case of Sun Yang?
在孙杨的案件中，是否有可能找到事实情况来应用 FINA DC 的第 10.4 条（无过错或疏忽时的不适用期消除），第 10.5.1 条（特定物质或污染产品违规的制裁减轻），第 10.5.2 条（无重大过错或疏忽的 DC 10.5.1 应用之外的 DC 10.5.2 应用），第 10.6.1 条（发现或证实反兴奋剂规则违规的实质性协助），第 10.6.1 条（DC 10.6.1 实质性协助发现或证实反兴奋剂规则违规），第 10.6.2 条（在缺乏其他证据的情况下承认反兴奋剂规则违规），或第 10.6.3 条（在被指控违反 DC 10.2.1 或 10.3.1 并受到制裁后迅速承认反兴奋剂规则违规）？

22 CAS 2019/A/6148 World Anti- Doping Agency v. Sun Yang & Fédération International e de Natation. Para. 338.
第 22 号 CAS 2019/A/6148 世界反兴奋剂机构诉孙杨与国际游泳联合会。第 338 段。

23 Ibid. Para. 208.
23 同上，第 208 段。

140 Becmhuk CII6TY. Право.2021. T.12. Bun.1
140 贝克姆赫特城市。法律。2021 年。第 12 卷。第 1 期

Article 10.4 requires the existence of exceptional circumstances. The main focus is to prove that an athlete demonstrates no fault or negligence. Looking ahead, not one of the circumstances we pointed out in the case of the athlete could prove no fault or negligence. It is very difficult to prove even the balance of probabilities that Sun Yang took due care during the doping control process. Refusal to provide u rine samples based on doubts, although without legal grounds and justification on the FINA DC, has no chances of be- ing interpreted as due diligence of the athlete. Simultaneously, interruption of the blood samples testing ended with the destruction of the container with samples, and this appears different from due diligence. It does not matter if Sun Yang was the person who ordered the security guard to des troy the blood samples, or if he was the only person who helped the security guard to retrieve samples. Due diligence was not applicable to this situation.
第十条第四款要求存在特殊情况。主要焦点是证明运动员没有过错或疏忽。展望未来，在我们提出的运动员案例中的任何一种情况都无法证明没有过错或疏忽。很难证明在兴奋剂检测过程中孙杨采取了适当照顾的可能性。基于怀疑而不提供尿样，尽管没有法律依据和对国际泳联兴奋剂检测的解释，这不太可能被解释为运动员的尽职行为。同时，血液样本测试的中断以破坏样本容器结束，这与尽职行为不同。无论孙杨是否是命令保安破坏血液样本的人，或者是否是唯一帮助保安获取样本的人，这种情况下都不适用尽职行为。

Article 10.5.1 of FINA DC concerns only anti- doping violations, in regard to Speci- fied Substances and Contaminated Products, this was not the basis of Sun Yang's case. The Comment to Art. 10.5.2 of FINA DC hindered it from being used in regard to intentional violations such as tampering.
第 10.5.1 条 FINA DC 仅涉及反兴奋剂违规行为，针对特定物质和受污染产品，这不是孙杨案件的基础。第 10.5.2 条 FINA DC 的注释阻碍了其用于处理故意违规行为，如篡改的情况。

Article 10.6.1 of FINA DC requires substantial assistance in discovering or establish- ing anti- doping rule violations and accordingly do not apply to Sun Yang's case. Also, Art.10.6.2 of FINA DC is not relevant here because it corresponds to the admission of an anti- doping rule violation in the absence of other evidence. At last, Art. 10.6.3 is clearly not relevant for the case as it applies to prompt admission of an anti- doping rule violation after being confronted with a violation sanctioned by the FINA DC Art. 10.2.1 or Art. 10.3.1.
第 10.6.1 条 FINA DC 要求在发现或建立违反反兴奋剂规则的证据方面提供实质性的帮助，因此不适用于孙杨的案件。此外，第 10.6.2 条与这里无关，因为它对应于在缺乏其他证据的情况下承认违反反兴奋剂规则。最后，第 10.6.3 条显然与本案无关，因为它适用于在被 FINA DC 第 10.2.1 条或第 10.3.1 条制裁的违规行为后立即承认违反反兴奋剂规则的情况。

3. Conclusions
结论：3

The Sun Yang case cannot be typically regarded as“ tampering” in connection with anti- doping regulations. The athlete was extremely self- confident and those present, the night of the incident, encouraged such self- confidence, which ultimately negatively im- pacted his own interests. As some sports lawyers point out:“ The case is a painful set- back for Sun Yang at personal level and Chinese sports at an institutional level”( Guo 2020). And we can add that perhaps changes are also necessary to the country's criminal law( Pan, Zhao, Vasiljev 2019) in terms of the distribution of the burden of responsibility between the athlete and his environment in the case of anti- doping regulation violations.
孙杨案不能典型地被视为与反兴奋剂规则相关的“篡改”。运动员极其自信，事发当晚在场的人都助长了这种自信，最终对他的自身利益产生了负面影响。正如一些体育律师指出的：“从个人层面和机构层面来看，此案对孙杨和中国体育都是痛苦的挫折”(郭，2020)。我们还可以补充说，可能也需要对国家的刑法进行一些调整(潘，赵，瓦西列夫，2019)，特别是在违反反兴奋剂规定的情况下，运动员及其环境之间的责任分配方面。

The athlete's obstructions in the doping control process demonstrated several prob- lems. Firstly, there were some flaws demonstrated by the IDTM's Samples Collection Per- sonnel. We have not commented previously on the behavior of the IDTM who did not prevent the situation with the destruction of the blood samples. Perhaps the Samples Col- lection Personnel were nervous due to the tension of the situation and they decided to give the samples box to the security guard. Nevertheless, this only triggered a continuation of the violation. Without the passive role of the IDTM, the situation would have likely ended differently. Secondly, by taking a picture of Sun Yang one of the Samples Collection Per- sonnel provoked the athlete not to trust the doping control process in general . We have no right to recognize this fact as one of the key elements of the case, nevertheless it played a role in the behavior of the athlete. However, the athlete's refusal to continue with the urine samples collection process was justified by CAS due to the absence in the IDTM of the necessary male personnel.
运动员在兴奋剂控制过程中遇到的障碍揭示了几个问题。首先，IDTM 的样本收集人员的行为显示了一些缺陷。我们之前没有对 IDTM 未能阻止血液样本被破坏的情况发表评论。可能是因为情况紧张，样本收集人员感到紧张，决定将样本盒交给保安。然而，这只会导致违规行为的继续。如果没有 IDTM 的被动角色，情况可能会以不同的方式结束。其次，样本收集人员之一拍摄孙杨的照片引发了运动员对兴奋剂控制过程的整体不信任。我们没有权利将这一事实视为案件的关键要素，但它在运动员的行为中扮演了角色。然而，CAS 认为，由于 IDTM 中缺乏必要的男性人员，运动员拒绝继续收集尿样过程是合理的。

Becmhuk ClI6ΓY. Праео.2021. T.12. Bbln.1 141
贝克姆克利 6ΓY. 前沿.2021. 第 12 卷. 第 1141 页

What is the role of Sun Yang in destroying the blood samples? Despite the CAS con- cl usion that the athlete ordered all persons involved in illegal activity, we are not satisfied. The burden of proof was on the athlete and his legal position was far from optimal. In our opinion, there is a distinction between a“ mastermind” and the role of an individual, who only benefits from a situation in which tampering is in question. If we are talking about the second version, exceptional circumstances may have allowed this to occur. Then we should take a look on the following question of whether CAS satisfied with the burden of proof when determining that Sun Yang was the mastermin d of destroying the samples? Apparently, yes, but this is not convincing.
孙杨在破坏血样事件中的角色是什么？尽管 CAS 的结论是运动员命令所有涉及非法活动的人，但我们并不满意。证明的责任在运动员身上，他的法律地位远非最佳。在我们看来，策划者与仅从存在篡改情况中获益的个人角色之间存在区别。如果我们在谈论第二种情况，那么可能有特殊情况允许这种情况发生。然后我们应该看看 CAS 在确定孙杨是破坏样本的策划者时是否满足了证明责任？显然，是的，但这并不令人信服。

In this dispute, the arbitration has confirmed an important conclusion for the pros- pect of considering anti- doping cases:“… cannot be excluded that serious flaws in the notification process, or during any part of the Doping Control process, could mean that it might not be appropriate to require an athlete to subject himself to, or continue with,a sample collection session”²⁴. Accordingly, Sun Yang should have performed the doping control procedure and only filed a complaint about this procedure upon completion. Since the athlete chose a different algorithm, he was obliged to meet the standard of proof, dem- onstrating to the arbitration that he had objective reasons for this.
在这次争议中，仲裁确认了一个对于考虑反兴奋剂案件前景的重要结论：“……不能排除在通知过程或兴奋剂控制过程的任何部分中出现严重错误，这可能导致要求运动员接受或继续进行样本采集程序可能不适当。”因此，孙杨应该执行兴奋剂控制程序，并在完成程序后提出投诉。由于运动员选择了不同的算法，他必须满足证明标准，向仲裁证明他有客观理由这样做。

The current version of the FINA DC, based on WADA Code 2015, does not take into consideration the exceptional circumstances mentioned in this article. Therefore, some sports lawyers have been discussing the fairness of the sanction:“ In the author's view, this does seem somewhat harsh on the athlete in question considering what was at stake for the athlete and the unfamiliarity of the surroundings and proceedings. Moreover, the ex- tant CAS process does not provide in any meaningful way for a separate sentencing/ plead- ing s element to proceedings and, if the above is to be an element or factor in sanctioning in doping cases etc...”( Anderson 2020).
当前版本的 FINA DC，基于 WADA 2015 代码，没有考虑到本文中提到的特殊情况。因此，一些体育律师一直在讨论制裁的公平性：“根据作者的观点，考虑到运动员所面临的赌注，以及环境和程序的不熟悉，对运动员似乎有些苛刻。此外，现有的 CAS 程序并没有以任何实质方式为程序中提供单独的量刑/认罪部分，如果上述因素是制裁等案件中的一个因素或考虑因素......”(Anderson 2020)。

The new WADA Code 2021 and Art. 10.3.1 permits the reduction of a sanction for tampering from two to four years, depending on the athlete's degree of fault, if exceptional circumstances are justified by the athlete. Through repeat violations in the future, in situa- tions with circumstances like in Sun Yang's case, the flexibility of the new Code ( and then new FINA DC) could result in rulings that are fairer.
新 WADA 规则 2021 和第 10.3.1 条允许根据运动员的过错程度，将篡改制裁从两年减少到四年，如果运动员能证明存在特殊情况。通过未来多次违反，在类似孙杨案件中的情况下，新规则（然后是新 FINA DC）的灵活性可能会导致更公正的裁决。

Nowadays ( if we do not take into account the ghostly prospects of an appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal), the athlete has to wait for the new WADA Code to take effect on January 1, 2021. As noted by CAS in the considered case:“ The Panel notes that the new edition of the WADA Code, which enters into force on 1 January 2021, provides for ad- ditional exceptions to potentially reduce the period of ineligibility for violations of Article2.5 WADA Code below four years, as well as for second anti- doping rule violations”²⁵.
如今（如果不考虑瑞士联邦法院上诉的鬼魅前景），运动员需要等待新的 WADA 代码于 2021 年 1 月 1 日生效。CAS 在考虑的案例中指出：“委员会注意到，从 2021 年 1 月 1 日生效的新版 WADA 代码提供了额外的豁免，以减少违反 WADA 代码第 2.5 条的禁赛期，以及第二次违反反兴奋剂规则的禁赛期，低于四年。”

By the time the article was published, the Swiss Federal Court had overturned theCAS decision due to the referee’s prejudice against the athletes from the People’s Republic of China and sent the case for a new trial. Despite this, we believe that the conclusions drawn in the article remain relevant.
文章发表时，瑞士联邦法院已经推翻了国际体育仲裁院的决定，原因是裁判员对中国人民共和国运动员的偏见，将案件发回重新审理。尽管如此，我们认为文章中得出的结论仍然相关。

24 CAS 2019/A/6148 World Anti- Doping Agency v. Sun Yang & Fédération International e de Natation. Para.208.
第 24 号 CAS 2019/A/6148 世界反兴奋剂机构诉孙杨及国际游泳联合会。第 208 段。

25 Ibid. Para.368.
25 同上，第 368 段。

142 Becmhuk ClI6TY.Праео.2021. T.12. Вып.1

References
参考文献

Anderson, Jack. 2020.“A detailed review of the CAS Panel’s decision in WADA v Sun Yang & FINA”.LawInSport.AccessedAugust13,2020.https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/item/a-detailed-review-of-the-cas-panel-s-decision-in-wada-v-sun-yang-fina.
安德森，杰克. 2020。“CAS 委员会在 WADA 对孙杨与 FINA 案的决定的详细审查”。体育法律. 2020 年 8 月 13 日. 访问链接：https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/item/a-detailed-review-of-the-cas-panel-s-decision-in-wada-v-sun-yang-fina.

Guo, Cai.2020.“WADA v. Sun Yang & FINA: Reflections of a Chinese lawyer & lessons for sports in China”.LawInSport. AccessedAugust13,2020. https://www.lawinsport.com/blogs/item/wada-v-sun-yang-fina-reflections-of-a-chinese-lawyer-lessons-for-sports-in-china?category id=139.
郭，彩.2020 年。“世界反兴奋剂机构与孙杨及国际泳联：一位中国律师的反思与对中国体育的教训”. 法律在体育. 2020 年 8 月 13 日访问. https://www.lawinsport.com/blogs/item/wada-v-sun-yang-fina-reflections-of-a-chinese-lawyer-lessons-for-sports-in-china?category id=139.

Pan, Dunmei, Binzi Zhao, Ilya A. Vasiljev. 2019.“ Problems of Criminalizing Actions in ChineseCriminalLaw”.RussianJournalofCriminology13(1):142–151. https://doi.org/10.17150/2500-4255.2019.13(1).142-151.(InRussian)
潘, Dunnmei, Binzi Zhao, Ilya A. Vasiljev. 2019. "中国刑法中犯罪化行为的问题". 俄罗斯犯罪学杂志 13(1):142–151. https://doi.org/10.17150/2500-4255.2019.13(1).142-151.(俄文)

Vasilyev, Ilya A., Nataly a N. Kisliakova, Sergey A. Yurlov. 2019.“ Issues of Using Evidence and the Process of Proof in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)”. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki 5:167-198.https://doi.org/10.17323/2072-8166.2019.5.167.198.(InRussian)
瓦西列夫，伊利亚·A.，娜塔莉娅·A.基斯利亚科娃，谢尔盖·A.尤罗夫。2019 年。“体育仲裁法庭（CAS）中证据使用问题与证明过程”。高等经济学院杂志，第 5 期：167-198 页。https://doi.org/10.17323/2072-8166.2019.5.167.198。（俄文）

Received: August 13,2020
收到日期：2020 年 8 月 13 日

Accepted: December 17,2020
接受日期：2020 年 12 月 17 日

Authors' information:
作者信息：

Evgenia G.Vetrova — Independent Researcher;ginavet@rambler.ru Raisa I.Khalatova— Independent Researcher;halri2halri@gmail.com Anastasia A.Kashaeva— Independent Researcher;n.kashaeva2012@mail.ru
叶甫捷尼亚·G·韦托娃 — 独立研究员；ginavet@rambler.ru 拉伊斯娅·I·哈拉托娃 — 独立研究员；halri2halri@gmail.com 安娜斯塔西娅·A·卡谢耶娃 — 独立研究员；n.kashaeva2012@mail.ru

Becmhuk ClI6ry. Право.2021. T. 12. B bin.1 143
贝克姆·克里 6. 权利.2021. 第 12 卷. 第 1143 页