导语 / Introduction

2018年9月，IDTM三名工作人员对孙杨开展赛外反兴奋剂检查，因孙杨方质疑检测资质、拒绝配合并损毁采样容器，最终经国际体育仲裁院（CAS）重审，孙杨被禁赛4年3个月。抛开舆论情绪，核心问题是：孙杨团队是否有更优法律应对路径？“检测资质瑕疵”能否成为免责依据？本文基于CAS裁决逻辑与《世界反兴奋剂条例》（WADC）及相关国际标准，对此进行审查并提出合规指引。

In September 2018, three IDTM officials conducted an out-of-competition anti-doping test on Sun Yang. Due to Sun’s side questioning the testers’ qualifications, refusing to cooperate, and destroying sample containers, the case eventually went to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a retrial, resulting in a four-year and three-month suspension for Sun Yang. Setting aside public emotions, the core questions are: Could Sun Yang’s team have taken a better legal approach? Could “defects in testing qualifications” serve as a valid defense? This article examines these questions based on CAS adjudicative logic, the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), and relevant international standards, and provides compliance guidance.

（图源 / Source：ABC News）

一、CAS仲裁核心逻辑：规则优先，国内法需衔接国际规则 / I. Core CAS Logic: Rules Take Precedence, Domestic Law Must Align with International Rules

CAS仲裁遵循“体育自治”原则，以《世界反兴奋剂条例》《检测与调查国际标准》（ISTI）为核心依据。CAS仲裁实践表明：运动员对检测程序的异议，必须通过合规渠道（附条件接受、书面异议、事后申诉）表达。除非检测方存在根本性、恶意的程序欺诈（本案未被认定），否则运动员不得以程序瑕疵为由，自行采取损毁样本、阻挠检测等实质性对抗行为。

CAS arbitration follows the principle of “sporting autonomy,” with the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) and the International Standard for Testing and Investigations (ISTI) as its core legal bases. CAS practice shows that an athlete’s objections to testing procedures must be raised through compliant channels (conditional acceptance, written objections, post-test appeals). Unless the testing party is found to have committed fundamental and malicious procedural fraud (which was not established in this case), athletes cannot take substantive obstructive actions—such as destroying samples or preventing testing—on the grounds of alleged procedural defects.

孙杨团队以“采血护士跨省执业违法”抗辩，但CAS明确适用ISTI 5.3.3条及附件H（仅要求采血人员持有经国际认可的有效资质及IDTM书面授权），并指出：中国《护士条例》关于执业地点的限制，属国内行政管理规范，不直接构成对ISTI合规性的抗辩。这是国际体育仲裁中“体育法自治”原则的典型体现。

Sun Yang’s team argued that the blood collection nurse had illegally practiced across provinces. However, the CAS explicitly applied ISTI Article 5.3.3 and Annex H, which only require that the blood collection officer hold a valid, internationally recognized qualification and a written authorization from IDTM. The CAS noted that restrictions on practice locations under China’s Nurses Regulations are domestic administrative norms and do not directly constitute a defense against compliance with the ISTI. This is a typical manifestation of the principle of “autonomy of sports law” in international sports arbitration.

（国际体育仲裁法庭，资料图。图源：央视新闻 / Source:CCTV NEWS）

二、“护士资质瑕疵”：无行政认定，抗辩无支撑 / II. “Defects in Nurse’s Qualifications”: No Administrative Finding, No Evidentiary Support

孙杨团队将“采血护士跨省执业”视为核心抗辩点，但从法律层面看，其主张缺乏可被CAS受理的证据基础。一方面，孙杨方曾举报该护士，但属地卫健部门未出具任何认定该护士“违规跨省执业”的行政决定。在国际仲裁中，一方单纯援引外国国内法规范，却无法提供该国权威机关对该规范已被违反的生效认定，仲裁庭通常不予采纳。因此，该抗辩在CAS程序中自始缺乏可采纳的证据基础。

Sun Yang’s team treated the “cross-provincial practice by the blood collection nurse” as a core defense, but legally speaking, their argument lacked an admissible evidentiary foundation before the CAS. On the one hand, while Sun’s side reported the nurse to the local health authority, that authority never issued any administrative decision confirming that the nurse had “illegally practiced across provinces.” In international arbitration, if a party merely invokes a foreign domestic legal norm but fails to provide a binding finding by the competent authority of that country that the norm has been violated, the arbitral tribunal will generally not admit such evidence. Therefore, this defense lacked an admissible evidentiary foundation from the outset of the CAS proceedings.

另一方面，CAS重审庭进一步确认：ISTI对“尿检官”（Chaperone）未设专业资格要求，仅要求同性别、成年人且无利益冲突。孙杨方未能证明该建筑工人与孙杨存在实际敌意或利益关系，因此该身份不构成检测无效的理由。

On the other hand, the CAS Retrial Panel further confirmed that the ISTI imposes no professional qualification requirement on a “Chaperone”—it only requires that the chaperone be of the same gender, an adult, and free of conflicts of interest. Sun Yang’s side failed to prove that the construction worker had any actual hostility or conflict of interest with Sun Yang; therefore, the worker’s occupation did not invalidate the test.

（图源 / Source:LawInSport）

三、核心失误：从程序异议到实体违法的致命跳转，以及更优路径 / III. The Fatal Mistake: Jumping from Procedural Objection to Substantive Violation, and the Better Path

孙杨团队的致命错误，是将“程序瑕疵”升级为“实体违法”。具体而言：

其一，混淆法律边界，对检测有异议可当场取证、书面异议、事后申诉，而非损毁样本、阻挠检测；

其二，缺乏专业法律团队及赛时预案，上级指令“不能交样”是基于国内执法经验的直觉判断，而非国际体育仲裁规则；

其三，将情绪宣泄转化为对抗行为，丧失抗辩主动权。

Sun Yang’s team made a fatal mistake: they escalated a “procedural defect” into a “substantive violation.” Specifically:

First, they blurred legal boundaries—objections to testing should be raised through on-site evidence preservation, written objections, and post-test appeals, not by destroying samples or obstructing testing.

Second, they lacked a professional legal team and an in-competition protocol; the instruction “do not hand over the samples” from senior personnel was based on intuitive judgments derived from domestic law enforcement experience, not on international sports arbitration rules.

Third, they turned emotional frustration into confrontational action, losing the initiative in their defense.

（图源：中国新闻周刊 / Source:inewsweek.cn）

四、更优路径复盘 /  Ⅳ.Replay of the Better Path

1.附条件接受：孙杨可当场声明“我对本次检测人员的授权及资质持有异议，但为避免破坏样本，我将在抗议下配合采血，所有样本由我封存并拍照取证”。这是WADA手册推荐的合规操作，不会触发“拒绝或逃避样本采集”条款。

1.Conditional Acceptance: Sun Yang could have stated on the spot: “I object to the authorization and qualifications of the testing personnel, but to avoid damaging the samples, I will cooperate with blood collection under protest, and I will seal and photograph all samples myself.” This is a compliant practice recommended by the WADA Handbook and would not trigger the “Refusal or Failure to Submit to Sample Collection” provision.

2.保全证据：立即用手机拍摄主检官的IDTM授权信、护士执业证书、尿检官身份证，并录音询问：“请确认你们三人的独立授权文件”。（孙杨方当时未完成这一动作）

2.Evidence Preservation: Immediately use a mobile phone to photograph the DCO’s IDTM authorization letter, the nurse’s practice certificate, and the chaperone’s ID card, and make an audio recording of the question: “Please confirm your individual authorization documents.” (Sun Yang’s side failed to complete this step at the time.)

3.事后申诉：在1小时内联系中国反兴奋剂中心及律师，由后者在24小时内向IDTM及FINA提交书面异议。只要样本未被损毁，即使最终判定检测有效，也不会构成WADC第2.3条（逃避样本采集）或第2.5条（篡改兴奋剂控制环节）违规。

3.Post-Test Appeal: Contact the China Anti-Doping Agency (CHINADA) and lawyers within one hour, and have them submit a written objection to IDTM and FINA within 24 hours. As long as the samples are not destroyed, even if the test is ultimately deemed valid, it will not constitute a violation of WADC Article 2.3 (Evading Sample Collection) or Article 2.5 (Tampering with Doping Control).

4.关键禁忌：绝对禁止自行打开密封的样本瓶、禁止打碎血样容器、禁止抢夺已封装的样本。一旦损毁，即触发2.3条及2.5条，这两种违规的起罚点均为4年。

4.Critical Prohibitions: Absolutely do not open sealed sample bottles, break blood sample containers, or seize packed samples. Once samples are destroyed, Articles 2.3 and 2.5 are triggered, and the minimum sanction for both violations is four years of ineligibility.

（图源：财新 / Source：caixin）

五、重审减刑的关键启示 /  Ⅴ.Key Takeaways from the Reduced Sanction on Retrial

2021年重审庭之所以将禁赛从8年（初裁）减至4年3个月，是因为认定：孙杨在损毁样本时，非出于蓄意使用兴奋剂或长期躲避检查的计划，而系基于对检测人员授权的错误认知及即时恐慌。这减轻了“意图维度”的罪责。但重审庭同时重申：无论如何错误认知，损毁样本的行为本身仍构成2.3条及2.5条违规，因此维持了4年以上的起罚点。这进一步印证：只要不损毁样本，后续一切申诉都有回旋余地。

The reason why the 2021 CAS Retrial Panel reduced the suspension from eight years (initial award) to four years and three months was that it found that when Sun Yang destroyed the samples, he did not act pursuant to a plan to deliberately use doping or evade testing in the long term, but rather based on a mistaken understanding of the testers’ authorization and immediate panic. This mitigated his culpability in terms of “intent.” However, the Retrial Panel also reaffirmed that regardless of the mistaken belief, the act of destroying the samples itself still constituted violations of Articles 2.3 and 2.5, hence maintaining the minimum four-year sanction. This further confirms that as long as samples are not destroyed, there is room for maneuver in all subsequent appeals.

此外，该案暴露出孙杨团队缺乏赛时法律预案：其上级（队医、领队）依据国内执法经验（对“无证执法”的直觉抵触），做出了“扣押样本”的指令，但该指令与国际体育仲裁规则直接冲突。任何中国运动员的保障团队，均应接受“反兴奋剂检查应对流程”的模拟演练，而非临场基于常识判断。

Furthermore, the case revealed that Sun Yang’s team lacked an in-competition legal protocol: his senior personnel (team doctor, team leader), based on domestic law enforcement experience (an intuitive resistance to “unauthorized law enforcement”), issued the instruction to “detain the samples,” which directly conflicted with international sports arbitration rules. The support team of any Chinese athlete should undergo simulation drills on the “process for responding to anti-doping tests,” rather than making on-the-spot judgments based on common sense.

（图源：世界反兴奋剂机构 / Source：WADA）

六、合规指引与结语 / Ⅵ‌. Compliance Guidance and Conclusion

孙杨案为中国运动员提供了重要警示：

The Sun Yang case provides important lessons for Chinese athletes:

1.规则底线不可突破：严禁损毁样本、阻挠检测。

1.The bottom line of the rules must not be crossed: Destroying samples or obstructing testing is strictly prohibited.

2.合规抗辩流程：异议需保全证据、书面记录并事后申诉，绝不采取自行对抗行为。2.Compliant Defense Process: Objections must be raised by preserving evidence, making written records, and lodging post-test appeals—never through self-help confrontational actions.

3.专业法律团队：配备熟悉国际体育仲裁规则的律师，提前开展规则培训与模拟演练。

3.Professional Legal Team: Engage lawyers familiar with international sports arbitration rules, and conduct advance rule training and simulation drills.

（图源：世界反兴奋剂机构 / Source：WADA）

CAS的仲裁员构成、WADA规则的解释权结构确实存在对非西方运动员的系统性逆差（如对运动员“心理恐慌”作为减轻情节的认定标准极为严苛）。但即使在这种不利制度环境下，孙杨团队的应对仍出现了多个可避免的法律失误。承认外部偏见的存在，与审视自身策略的失误，二者并不矛盾。

It must be acknowledged that the composition of CAS arbitrators and the structure of interpretive authority over WADA rules do create a systematic disadvantage for non-Western athletes (for example, the standard for recognizing an athlete’s “psychological panic” as a mitigating circumstance is extremely stringent). Yet, even in such an unfavorable institutional environment, Sun Yang’s team made several avoidable legal mistakes. Acknowledging the existence of external bias is not inconsistent with examining the flaws in one’s own strategy.

这意味着，规则意识不是服从正义，而是流程正义——哪怕你认为规则对你个人是不公平的，也必须先遵守、后申诉。CAS裁决或有制度性局限，但无法掩盖孙杨团队的法律失误。孙杨的遗憾，应成为中国体育界提升合规意识的契机：唯有敬畏规则、遵循合法路径，才能避免因低级失误葬送职业生涯。

This means that rule consciousness is not about submitting to substantive justice, but about procedural justice—even if you believe a rule is unfair to you personally, you must first comply and then appeal. The CAS award may have institutional limitations, but it cannot obscure the legal mistakes of Sun Yang’s team. Sun Yang’s regret should serve as an opportunity for Chinese sports to enhance compliance awareness: only by respecting the rules and following lawful paths can athletes avoid ruining their careers due to elementary legal errors.