Freedom of keeping and evaluation of evidence by the jurisdictional bodies of Russian sports organizations

The subject. The All-Russian sports federations, professional leagues, and the Russian AntiDoping Agency (RUSADA) are legally endowed with the rights to create jurisdictional bodies for the mandatory pre-trial settlement of disputes in sports arising between subjects of professional sports and high-performance sports. The listed sports organizations independently develop and approve the procedural rules used in the procedures for the settlement of these disputes, including setting certain standards of proof. The latter can both be literally reflected in the provisions of the regulations of sports organizations without special detail, and expressed in norms that oblige the jurisdictional body to a certain analysis of evidence and justification based on such a decision.

The purpose of the study. To analyze the regulations of the all-Russian sports federations, professional leagues, and RUSADA, and highlight several key features of securing the freedom of collection and evaluation of evidence for jurisdictional bodies, both provided by the parties and received at the initiative of such bodies.

Methodology. The regulatory norms of the Russian Football Union were used as a representative legal experience, as methods of analysis and comparison are used.

The main results of research and the field of their application. Having analyzed the regulations of the all-Russian sports federations, professional leagues, and RUSADA, the authors identified many key features of securing the freedom of collection and evaluation of evidence for jurisdictional bodies, both provided by the parties and received at the initiative of such bodies.

Conclusions. The specifics of regulation by sports organizations and the freedom to collect and evaluate evidence by jurisdictional organizations allow us to see their rule-making approaches regarding the use of standards of proof.

1. Mezinov D.A. The standard “beyond reasonable doubt” as a criterion for achieving the purpose of criminal procedure proof. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Pravo = Tomsk State University Journal of Law, 2017, no. 23, pp. 40–47. DOI: 10.17223/22253513/23/5. (In Russ.).

2. Shchepel’kov V.F., Burlakov V.N., Stoyko N.G., Sidorova N.A. Standard evidence of alcohol intoxication in road traffic cases. Criminal law and criminal procedure value. Realities and perspectives. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Pravo = Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law, 2019, vol. 10, iss. 2, pp. 373–389. DOI: 10.21638/spbu14.2019.212. (In Russ.).

3. Burmagin S.V. Procedural Standards of Proof in Special Judicial and Criminal Proceedings. Pravovaya paradigma = Legal Concept, 2022, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 168–177. DOI: 10.15688/lc.jvolsu.2022.4.23. (In Russ.).

4. Biedermann A., Caruso D., Kotsoglou K.N. Decision Theory, Relative Plausibility and the Criminal Standard of Proof. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 2021, vol. 15, iss. 2, pp. 131–157. DOI: 10.1007/s11572-020-09527-8.

5. Smirnov A.V. Standards of proof: relationship with presumptions and burden of proof distribution. Ugolovnyi protsess = Criminal procedure, 2021, no. 12, pp. 86–94. DOI: 10.53114/20764413_2021_12_86. (In Russ.).

6. Muraviev M.V. On the revision of the legal standards of proof and evidence in criminal proceedings. Yuridicheskaya nauka i praktika: Vestnik Nizhegorodskoi akademii MVD Rossii = Legal science and practice: journal of Nizhny Novgorod academy of the Ministry of internal affairs of Russia, 2017, no. 2 (38), pp. 141–145. (In Russ.).

7. Karapetov A., Kosarev A. Standards of Proof: Analytical and Empirical Research, Supplement to Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiiskoi Federatsii, no. 5 (63) May 2019. Moscow, Zakon Publ., 2019. 96 p. (In Russ.).

8. Vasilyev I.A. Contaminated product and lifting a mandatory provisional suspension: is there a new standard of proof in case of the All-Russian Anti-Doping Rules?. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Pravo = Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law, 2022, vol. 13, iss. 3, pp. 804–809. DOI: 10.21638/spbu14.2022.314.

9. Vetrova E.G., Khalatova R.I., Kashaeva A.A. Exceptional circumstances beyond International Swimming Federation Doping Control Rules: The Sun Yang case of Court of Arbitration for Sport. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Pravo = Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law, 2021, vol. 12, iss. 1, pp. 131–143. DOI: 10.21638/spbu14.2021.109.

10. Exner J. Fixed sanction frameworks in the World Anti Doping Codes 2015 and 2021: Can hearing panels go below the limits in the pursuit of proportionate punishments?. The International Sports Law Journal, 2020, vol. 20, iss. 3–4, pp. 126–144. DOI: 10.1007/s40318-020-00173-9.

11. Smolnikov D.I. Myths about standards of proof. Zakon, 2015, no. 12, pp. 199–205. (In Russ.).

12. Vasilyev I.A., Pang Donmei, Sidorova N.A., Stoiko N.G., Cai Jun. Comfortable satisfaction" in resolution of disciplinary disputes on match-fixing of the results of sporting competitions. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Pravo = Tomsk State University Journal of Law, 2022, no. 45, pp. 20–37. DOI: 10.17223/22253513/45/2. (In Russ.).

13. Sidorova N., Platonova N., Vasilyev I. Standard of proof and Russian procedure law: unknown or well known?. Balkan Social Science Review, 2022, vol. 19, pp. 89–106. DOI: 10.46763/BSSR2219089s.

14. Budylin S.L. Inner conviction or balance of probabilities? Standards of evidence in Russia and abroad. Vestnik Vysshego arbitrazhnogo suda Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 2014, no. 3, pp. 25–57. (In Russ.).

15. Dorskaia A.A., Dorskii A.Yu. Co-regulation as a way to improve the effectiveness of legal regulation in sports. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Pravo = Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law, 2021, vol. 12, iss. 2, pp. 263–275. DOI: 10.21638/spbu14.2021.202.

16. Vasilyev I., Kisliakova N., Yurlov S.A. Issues of using evidence and the process of proof in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki = Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2019, no. 5, pp. 167–198. (In Russ.).

17. Jun C., Vasilyev I.A., Izmalkova M.P., Dongmei P., Khalatova R.I. Problems of proof in football clubs’ disciplinary liability for match-fixing: practice of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) (2009-2014). Zhurnal SFU. Gumanitarnye nauki = Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities and Social Sciences, 2019, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 343–362. DOI: 10.17516/1997-1370-0398.

18. Diaconu M., Kuwelkar S., Kuhn A. The Court of Arbitration for Sport jurisprudence on match-fixing: a legal update. The International Sports Law Journal, 2021, vol. 21, iss. 1–2, pp. 27–46. DOI: 10.1007/s40318-021-00181-3.

19. Van Kleef R. Reviewing Disciplinary Sanctions in Sports. Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, 2015, vol. 4, iss. 1, pp. 3–28. DOI: 10.7574/cjicl.04.01.3.

20. De Vlieger M.A. Racism in European football: going bananas? An analysis of how to establish racist behaviour by football supporters under the UEFA disciplinary regulations in light of the inflatable banana-case against Feyenoord. The International Sports Law Journal, 2016, vol. 15, iss. 3–4, pp. 226–232. DOI: 10.1007/s40318-015-0078-4.

21. Selina E.V. Discretion in evaluation of evidence (principle of objective truth) under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on presumption of innocence. Sovremennoe parvo, 2016, no. 1, pp. 109–112. (In Russ.).

22. Pobedkin A.V. Freedom of evaluating evidenceand the role of this principle in safeguarding legality in the course of pretrial criminal process. Trudy Akademii upravleniya MVD Rossii = Proceedings of the Management academy of the Ministry of interior of Russia, 2017, no. 1 (41), pp. 104–108. (In Russ.).

23. Argunov V.V. On cognition and proving in cases of non-contentious jurisdiction. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa = Herald of Civil Procedure, 2021, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 307–348. DOI: 10.24031/2226-0781-2021-11-5-307-348. (In Russ.).

24. Vas’kovskii E.V. Textbook of civil procedure. Мoscow, 1914. 372 p. (In Russ.).

25. Hessert B. The exchange of self incriminating information of athletes between sports organisations and law enforcement. The International Sports Law Journal, 2022, vol. 22, iss. 1, pp. 5–16. DOI: 10.1007/s40318-021-00194-y.