The exchange of self-incriminating information of athletes between sports organisations and law enforcement

Author:

Hessert BjörnORCID

Abstract

AbstractSports organisations generally have the burden of proving sports rule violations of sportspersons subject to their rules and regulations. Sports rule violations can generally be proven by any reliable means. A common approach taken by sports organisations in this respect is the implementation of so-called cooperation and reporting obligations embedded in their regulations. On this basis, athletes can be obliged to provide all kind of documentary evidence related or unrelated to the matter under investigation. This may cause problems to the privilege against self-incrimination of athletes. In addition, obtaining self-incriminating information in internal sports investigations carried out by private sports organisations can have legal and personal consequences that go well beyond the professional life of athletes. The integrity of sport has been characterised as a public interest due to the social impact of amateur and professional sports in most societies. As a consequence, negative sports-related conduct, such as doping or the manipulation of sports competitions, has been criminalised in various national laws to protect sporting values and preserve the role model function of athletes for young members of our society. This development has led to cooperation between sports organisations and law enforcement agencies, such as prosecutors and the police. Specifically, both collaborate in order to assist the other party’s investigations of sports rule violations and criminal offences, respectively. However, the exchange of intelligence between sports organisations and law enforcement may cause some legal tension. If the same misconduct of athletes leads to both internal sports investigations and criminal proceedings, athletes could be forced to provide self-incriminating information in internal sports organisations, which could then be subsequently transmitted to law enforcement. This system of intelligence gathering raises serious concerns regarding the procedural fairness thereof, keeping in mind the detrimental effects for sportspersons under investigations. A closer look is thus necessary to the legitimacy of the exchange of intelligence. Therefore, the aim of this article is to shed some light on this issue and clarify if and under what conditions internally obtained evidence can be passed on to law enforcement agencies.

Funder

Universität Zürich

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Law

Reference18 articles.

1. Beloff M, Netzle S, Haas U, Hessert B, Koller Trunz M (2021) The Court of Arbitration for Sport. In: Lewis A and Taylor J (eds) Sport: Law and Practice, 4th edn. Bloomsbury Professionals, New York, pp 1150–1228

2. Boss PV (2020) Duty to cooperate in disciplinary proceedings and its limitations deriving from standard rights in criminal proceedings—A review under Swiss law. CAS Bulletin 01:7–19

3. Diaconu M, Kuwelkar S, Kuhn A (2021) The court of arbitration for sport jurisprudence on match-fixing: a legal update. Int Sports Law J 21:27–46

4. Divitcos P (2020) Match-fixing in Sport: A Coordinated, Targeted and Comprehensive Network of Actors. ANZSLAJ 13(1):1–36

5. Geth C (2014) Selbstbelastungsfreiheit im Unternehmensstrafrecht – Konflikt zwischen Moderne und Tradition aus schweizer Perspektive. ZSTW 126(1):105–121

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3