The Court of Arbitration for Sport is the most authority to hear doping cases, adhering to the idea of sports autonomy, it established the evidence examination and evaluation special rules of doping cases by relying on scientific evidence as the presumption basis and by means of the free proof methods. These rules make a leap in the legal reasoning, using circumstantial evidence as the basis of verdict, breaking through the limitation of admissibility of evidence and being reasonable in a certain period of time. This setting is conducive to cracking down on doping violations and improving the trial efficiency of doping case, however, with the development of science and technology, the science of doping detection becomes increasingly complicated, and the trust basis of scientific evidence is shaken, which exposes some problems such as the confusion between the admissibility and reliability of scientific evidence, and the anomie of doping inspection procedure. In view of this, the evidence examination and evaluation of doping case should expand the scope of examination of the arbitration tribunal, mandatory application of illegal evidence exclusion rules, the reliability of adverse analytical finding should be examined, and the normative role of corroboration evidence rule in non-analytical positive case should be taken seriously.

Hang Zhao. The Research of Evidence Examination and Evaluation Rules of Court of Arbitration for Sport in Doping Case. Frontiers in Sport Research (2023) Vol. 5, Issue 3: 19-28. https://doi.org/10.25236/FSR.2023.050304.

[1] Zhang Baosheng. Evidence Law. China University of Political Science and Law Press, 2018, p. 18-19.

[2] He Jiahong. On Basic Concepts of Evidence. Law Science Magazine. Vol. 28 (2007) No. 01, p. 28-33.

[3] He Jiahong. On the Theories of Examination, Admissibility and Evaluation of Evidence. The Jurist. Vol. 01 (2008) No. 03, p. 95-103.

[4] Bryan A. Gamer. Black’s Law Dictionary. Thomson West Publishing Co., 2004, p. 1684-1685.  

[5] Xiong Yingzhuo, Song Binling. From Trust to Suspicion: Review on Legal Control of Science by World Anti-doping System. Journal of Wuhan Institute of Physical Education. Vol. 50 (2016) No. 10, p.29-36.

[6] Information on:http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/2296. pdf#search= Adverse% 20Analytical%20 Finding

[7] Mike McConville. English Criminal Justice Process. Law Press China, 2003, p. 241-242.

[8] Song Binling. Circumstantial Evidence in Doping Case. Journal of Tianjin University of Sport. Vol. 26 (2011) No. 05, p. 379-383.

[9] Luo Xiaoshuang. The application and exception of the principle of free proof in CAS doping arbitrations. Evidence Science. Vol. 28 (2020) No. 02, p. 146-158.

[10] Information on: http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/2384,%202386.pdf# search=2010%2FA%2F2384

[11] Guo Shuli, Zhen Tanmei. Evidence Issues of Match-Fixing in CAS Case of Vanessa Vanakorn. Journal of Wuhan Institute of Physical Education. Vol. 50 (2016) No. 06, p. 36-42+64.

[12] Information on: http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/1396,%201402-IA.pdf# search=2007%2FA%2F1396

[13] Zhang Zhong, Shi Meishen. On the Weight of Scientific Evidence. Evidence Science. Vol. 20 (2012) No. 01, p. 13-20.

[14] Guo Shuli, Song Binling. On the Balance of expert Evidence power of both sides in doping Cases—From the perspective of expert evidence system of CAS. Law Review. Vol. 30 (2012) No. 01, p. 90-99.

[15] He Jiahong, Liu Xiaodan. On the Accepting and Adopting of Scientific Evidence. Chinese Journal of Forensic Sciences. Vol. 01 (2002) No. 01, p. 14-18.

[16] Information on: https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2021_wada_code.pdf

[17] Jiang Xi. Protection of Athletes' Rights in Anti-Doping:An Analysis of World Anti-Doping Agency v. Sun Yang & Fédération Internationale de Natation. Journal of Tianjin University of Sport. Vol. 36 (2021) No. 02, p. 210-218+234.

[18] Zhang Baosheng. Evidence Law. China University of Political Science and Law Press, 2018, p. 24-25.

[19] Information on: http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/645. pdf#search= CAS% 202004%2FO%2F645

[20] He Jiahong. Lie—detector Conclusion and Limited Adoption Principle of Evidences. China Legal Science. Vol. 01 (2002) No. 02, p. 140-151.