析論國際運動仲裁院與運動員自由權利限制之法律議題──由運動禁藥管制規範影響運動員參賽案例出發

A brief analysis of Court of Arbitration for Sport and Athletes’rights: By case of Claudia Pechstein

緒論：國際運動仲裁院 (CAS) 自1984 年開始運作後，已成為解決運動爭議之主要方式，如處理違反運動禁藥管制、參賽資格及裁判判決之項目。方法：本文先透過奧運、帕運規範與近期新聞，以及德國Claudia Pechstein 案件之研析，掌握該爭端解決機制之運作與其權源。另因於中華奧會或其他運動組織為民間團體，透過渠等規範與CAS 仲裁，如已限制或影響運動員參賽，其適法性為何？結果：經研析文獻與司法實務發現，透過奧林匹克憲章或IPC Handbook 適用CAS，並透過此一連結搭配運動仲裁規則，有利於解決運動爭議及保障權利。然在我國，無論是國民體育法或運動禁藥管制辦法，對於運動員自由權利之限制，特別是運動禁藥管制規範，與民間團體有無受託行使公權力，皆未明文。結論：本文建議主管機關對於運動員之自由權利，應更予重視。必要時，可透過修法或其他方式予以完備。

Introduction: Since 1984, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has been established to resolve international sports-related disputes. Sports-related disputes can be categorized as disputes relating to the execution of contracts, such as those related to sponsorships and the sale of television rights, or disputes submitted to the CAS, many of which are doping-related. All Olympic International Federations and many National Olympic Committees have recognized the jurisdiction of the CAS and have included arbitration clauses in their statutes that refer disputes to the CAS. Since the World Conference on Doping in Sport in March 2003, the Olympic Movement and numerous governments have promulgated the World Anti-Doping Code, Article 13 of which states that CAS is the appeals body for all international doping-related disputes. Methods: According to the decisions on doping related disputes made by the CAS, some of the involved athletes were suspended for few years, which would be deem as restrictions to the athletes’ rights and freedom. Also, all Olympic International Federations are NGOs, including the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee and the Chinese Taipei Anti-Doping Agency. From a legal perspective, the enforcement of anti-doping rules through CAS decision, such as the case of Claudia Pechstein, relies on a private relationship between the CAS and NGOs. Under Taiwan’s legislative framework, if athletes’ rights are being restricted by anti-doping rules, is it appropriate to rely on a private relationship to restrict their rights, or should relevant laws and regulations be established? Results: Anti-doping rules are critical in both domestic and international sports contests. To understand the current practices, the roles of the International Olympic Committee, International Paralympic Committee, World Anti-Doping Agency, Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee, and Chinese Taipei Anti-Doping Agency in the implementation of the anti-doping codes and practices warrant further discussion. Conclusion: This article presents relevant research and analysis of current discussions to provide recommendations to competent authorities.