首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
文章检索
  按 检索   检索词:      
出版年份:   被引次数:   他引次数: 提示:输入*表示无穷大
  收费全文   34篇
  免费   7篇
  国内免费   1篇
教育   1篇
体育   33篇
综合类   8篇
  2022年   3篇
  2021年   5篇
  2020年   1篇
  2019年   3篇
  2018年   7篇
  2017年   3篇
  2016年   1篇
  2015年   1篇
  2014年   1篇
  2013年   2篇
  2012年   4篇
  2011年   4篇
  2010年   1篇
  2008年   1篇
  2007年   3篇
  2006年   1篇
  2001年   1篇
排序方式: 共有42条查询结果,搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
临时停赛是反兴奋剂工作中较为常见的管理手段,依托反兴奋剂规则体系的建设,临时停赛规则整体上体现出了一致性和灵活性兼备的特点。但由于《世界反兴奋剂条例》临时停赛条款关键内容的缺失,以及各反兴奋剂组织的反兴奋剂规则补充规定的不完善,临时停赛规则的一致性和灵活性相结合的优势未能获得充分发挥,不利于运动员权利的保护,也影响了国际反兴奋剂工作公平协调地进行。完善临时停赛规则应当强调《世界反兴奋剂条例》与各体育组织、反兴奋剂机构的反兴奋剂规则之间的“分工”,并重点关注临时停赛的适用标准、停止条件、违规后果、时长标准和赔偿规则等问题。我国的临时停赛规则存在实践适用较少、认定标准简单的问题,应当借鉴国际经验进一步完善相关规定,助力我国反兴奋剂事业的发展。  相似文献   
2.
为打击兴奋剂滥用行为,维护体育赛事的公平竞争,各国政府与各体育组织共同建立了世界反兴奋剂体系,并形成了一系列兴奋剂检查规则。然而,目前的世界反兴奋剂体系存在严格运动员责任与淡化运动员权利的矛盾。尽管2021版《WADC条例》已体现出保护运动员权利的趋势,但仍存在缺陷。兴奋剂检查权力滥用可能会引致程序失范,最终导致运动员参赛权、形象权等正当权利遭到减损。因此,在实施严格的兴奋剂检查的同时,也需保障运动员的正当权利。  相似文献   
3.
摘要:尽管使用兴奋剂以获得比赛竞争优势的行为,属于诈骗行为的范畴,《世界反兴奋剂条例》却一直受到法学界的质疑,因为其对运动员的处罚主要表现为剥夺运动员一定期限的比赛资格,属于刑事处罚中职业禁止的范畴,但其适用的却是仲裁程序。所以,在当前法律框架下,如何在程序上保护运动员的权利,就成了一个不能回避的问题。从规范分析法和社会关系分析法的角度看,当前惩罚性的兴奋剂处罚对运动员存在着错误追究和不公正仲裁等程序风险,且缺乏相应的司法救济途径。为了解决这些问题,使兴奋剂处罚获得正当性,一则需要在相应的条文中增设运动员的权利,以制约反兴奋剂机构的权力;二则需要建立反兴奋剂基金,确保运动员能获得相应的法律服务;三则要建立运动员工会,以平衡运动员与反兴奋剂组织之间的关系;最后,将惩罚性的处罚与运动员的可责性联系在一起,使兴奋剂处罚迎合比例原则的要求。兴奋剂处罚只有获得正当性,其才能融入到当前的法律体系之中,进而才有可能充分调动社会各方面的力量,形成打击使用兴奋剂行为的合力。  相似文献   
4.
To inform anti-doping policy and practice, it is important to understand the complexities of doping. The purpose of this study was to collate and systematically examine the reasoned decisions published by UK Anti-Doping for doping sanctions in rugby union in the UK since the introduction of the 2009 World Anti-Doping Code. Case files were content analysed to extract demographic information and details relating to the anti-doping rule violation (ADRV), including individuals’ explanations for how/why the ADRV occurred. Between 2009 and 2015, 49 rugby union players and one coach from across the UK were sanctioned. Over 50% of the cases involved players under the age of 25, competing at sub-elite levels. Reasons in defence of the ADRV focused on functional use and lifestyle factors rather than performance enhancement. An a priori assessment of the “need”, “risk” and “consequence” of using a substance was not commonplace; further strengthening calls for increasing the reach of anti-doping education. The findings also deconstruct the view that “doped” athletes are the same. Consequently, deepening understanding of the social and cultural conditions that encourage doping remains a priority.  相似文献   
5.
摘要:以体育竞技中的使用兴奋剂行为的刑法规制为研究对象,主要通过文献资料法对域外尤其是德国对兴奋剂的规制演变进行分析,并结合我国的现状,提出具有针对性的对策。研究认为:1)随着兴奋剂使用的泛滥化,国际社会开始出现对体育竞技中使用兴奋剂的行为予以刑事处罚的倾向。2)各国的处罚模式主要有两种,即以欺诈罪来规制使用兴奋剂非法获得经济性利益的行为,以故意伤害罪来保护运动员的身体法益。然而这些传统的规制模式存在零散性、滞后性,且缺乏理论自洽性。3)2015年11月德国制定的《体育反兴奋剂使用法》明确了兴奋剂刑事规制所要保护的法益和目的,体系性地划定了需要刑罚化的兴奋剂使用行为。4)为促使我国未来兴奋剂刑事管控的规范化和体系化,应当明确刑事立法所保护的法益、反兴奋剂刑事立法的目标以及处罚的具体范围。  相似文献   
6.
兴奋剂是一个众人皆知的敏感话题。它所引发的思考或已经折射出的人文危机不仅反映出人们对奥林匹克运动历史的总结和反省,更应该激起人们对其现在和将来的思考和审视。历史的发展和社会的进步要求我们要与时俱进,运用新眼光看待旧问题能更加深入的了解和分析问题。兴奋剂使用的泛化和反兴奋剂工作的艰难进一步加深了兴奋剂问题的社会关注度。基于兴奋剂的更新加大了反兴奋剂的难度,而兴奋剂的过度使用扭曲了奥林匹克运动的价值,呼吁按照奥运会的运作模式组创一个免于兴奋剂检查的“反奥运会”,以此激起人们对奥林匹克运动发展的重新思考。  相似文献   
7.
2020年12月22日,瑞士联邦最高法院基于世界反兴奋剂机构(WADA)诉孙某&国际泳联(FINA)案CAS仲裁庭的一名仲裁员存在中立性问题,撤销了该国际体育仲裁院(CAS)仲裁庭就该案此前作出的裁决,使得该案再次引发了广泛关注。该案涉及到反兴奋剂中的样本采集程序、运动员权利保护、反兴奋剂纠纷解决等诸多方面。文章运用文献资料法、比较法和案例分析法等,首先对"WADA诉孙某&FINA案"的事实和各裁决机构的裁决结果进行了梳理;其次,从该案CAS仲裁庭的裁决思路、法律适用、遵循先例、对等原则、DCO公正性、制裁强度6个方面对该案进行了评析;最后,对"WADA诉孙某&FINA案"给中国体育法治建设带来的启示进行了分析。  相似文献   
8.
Abstract

On April 1, 2018, the new standards of compliance to the code of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) came into force. The new standards impact all sports. An important amendment has been made to an article of the existing code ‘Additional Roles and Responsibility of the Parties’. Now, all international federations and the unions in agreement with WADA are obliged to reject applications for holding all sporting events from countries that do not comply with the WADA code. By then, Russian elite sport remained in isolation because the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) had no license from WADA until a compromise agreement allowed Russia back into international sports in September 2018. The probability of obtaining permanent return to international sport was extremely low. In order to obtain the license, Russian sport authorities were asked to agree with the reports of Professor McLaren and to admit the existence of doping support in the country at the state level, which seemed improbable. In Russia, although the new standards of the World Anti-Doping Agency code have not caused special concerns it directly impact Russian elite sport. Unless certain conditions were met by 2019, there was a high probability that Russia would not be able to attend large international competitions in the near future, including the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. The situation dictates the choice of the new strategy of development for Russian sport and new model for the fight against doping, which can be not dependent on WADA. To date, there have been no real checks on WADA’s authority other than occasional decisions in the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Academics who are critical of WADA’s functions often find themselves marginalized when the purported global doping “crisis” should bring “all hands on deck” to provide a humanistic and scientific approach that is best for athletes past, present and future. The functions of WADA in investigating, charging and punishing athletes do not contribute to sustainable development of sport and the sports industry around the world, and create unipolar environment of influence on sports development. Therefore, in this article, we describe some alternative forms and new order of regulation of the anti-doping relations in sport.  相似文献   
9.
摘要:兴奋剂禁用清单中的兜底条款虽然能够弥补清单的漏洞,但因其具有模糊性,并要求运动员承担过度责任,法理上可能与“法无明文规定不为罚原则”以及“比例原则”相悖,然而药物创新和反兴奋剂规则的价值取向使得兜底条款又有其存在的必要性。因此,有必要解决国际体育仲裁院在兴奋剂案件中遇到的兜底条款的适用困难。采用规则分析方法与案例研究方法进行研究认为:应当以成文规则的形式规定兜底条款的适用条件,来增加该条款的强制性;应当鼓励反兴奋剂组织和制药公司的互动合作来扩大兜底条款的作用范围;应当在科学与法律层面加强对检测方法的有效性与合法性的把关。  相似文献   
10.
Without taking a position on the overall justification of anti-doping regulations, I analyse the possible justification of Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) from such rules. TUEs are a creative way to prevent the unfair exclusion of athletes with a chronic condition, and they have the potential to be the least bad option. But they cannot be competitively neutral. Their justification must rest, instead, on the relevance of intentions to permissibility. I illustrate this by means of a set of thought experiments in which only an athlete’s intentions vary. I argue that the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) sheds some light on TUEs and illustrate this by applying different readings of the DDE to the thought experiment. This underpins a justification of anti-doping exemptions very different from the approach adopted by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). I argue for three changes to bring TUEs in line with this understanding: rewriting of the regulations, transparency, and a greater role for athletes in determining what exemptions are allowed, and when.  相似文献   
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号