英文摘要 |
The anti-doping control measures are closely related to privacy protection. In particular, the whereabouts rules published in World Anti-Doping Code, has been discussed with concerns about infringing the privacy of athletes in recent years. However, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in 2018 considered that the whereabouts rule is necessary to anti-doping and has no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This article takes this judgment as an example to see the balance between the whereabouts reporting system and the protection of privacy. Also, this article reviews doping control in Taiwan and finds that the legislation provides only vague rule that athletes shall comply with the doping control measures, but the measures are operated by a private entity Chinese Taipei Anti-Doping Agency (CTADA) with no solid legal basis. Therefore, the anti-doping is relying on a private relationship from legal perspective. Considering the whereabouts rules has a significant impact on the privacy of athletes, this article would like to introduce the international documents and the case of European Court of Human Rights to see how to balance anti-doping and privacy protection. Furthermore, under Taiwan's legislative framework, if there are important public interests hiding in the anti-doping and the whereabouts rules, is it still appropriate to rely on private relationship to present the public value? Or if it is necessary to complete relevant laws and regulations? This article would like to put forward research and analysis opinions, as well as the corresponding suggestions for the reference of competent authorities or practitioners in the sports industry. |