SANCTIONS IN SPORT: INTERNATIONAL-LEGAL EXPERIENCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bringing to justice for violations in the field of sports is one of the most controversial issues in modern sports. This fact is connected, first of all, with the existence of the principle of sports autonomy. In particular, in the field of sports there is its own system of arbitration courts, which apply in their activities mainly quasi-legal acts issued by the governing sports bodies. In addition, the field of sports claims to be completely independent of the governing influence of government agencies on any relations in this field. Some researchers, however, believe that sport has de facto formed its own specific legal order. Accordingly, it is sometimes quite difficult to establish the boundaries of those relations that are subject to self-regulation and those that should be regulated by law. Issues of bringing to justice for sports offenses belong to this problem category. The authors of the article explored a particular aspect of legal liability in sports, namely - the problem of sanctions. At the same time, the foreign experience of applying sanctions for violations in the field of sports was carefully analyzed, as the domestic practice of applying sanctions for offenses in sports has not yet been fully formed. Moreover, the domestic Supreme Court takes the position that all disputes in the field of sports should be considered by the governing sports bodies. At the same time, in foreign countries, general courts often accept similar cases. Thus, a careful analysis of the jurisprudence of Canada and the Czech Republic led to the conclusion that even despite the risky nature of sports in itself, there are mechanisms to bring violators to justice, in particular - in terms of compensation. At the same time, the subjective side of the offense in the field of sports is subject to legal analysis in a slightly different way than in all other cases. In particular, a person will be found guilty of committing an offense only if there is intent to violate the rules of sport and commit an offense.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".