前天介绍了孙杨一案专家组裁决意见和CAS仲裁案裁决的具体事实和程序简介，昨天介绍了孙杨一案WADA是否逾期提交上诉状（可受理性问题），今天介绍该仲裁案件的实体问题双方的争议焦点和仲裁庭的说理部分以及裁决结果。
一、主要问题
WADA的主要意见是，孙杨违反了《国际泳联反兴奋剂规则》第2.5条（干涉或企图干涉兴奋剂检测的任何部分）；次要意见是孙杨违反了《国际泳联反兴奋剂规则》第2.3条（规避，拒绝或未能服从取样手续）。二者区分在于，第2.5条以及第2.3条中所规定的拒绝取样的违规行为导致禁赛4年，不得减少；而违反第2.3条的其他的未能服从取样的情况若证明不是故意的，则禁赛2年，但若是故意的，则禁赛4年。因此，违反第2.5条比违反第2.3条的处罚更为严厉。仲裁庭需要首先确定孙杨是否违反2.5条，若否的情况下才考虑是否违反了第2.3条。
在举证责任和证明标准上，根据《国际泳联反兴奋剂规则》第3.1条规定，国际泳联需证明发生了违反反兴奋剂规则的情况，证明标准为审理案件的仲裁庭在考虑其指控的严重性程度下而认为满足的标准（to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made）。本证明标准的要求大于民事诉讼证明的高度盖然性标准（balance of probability），但小于刑事诉讼证明的排除合理的怀疑（proof beyond a reasonable doubt）。之后，反兴奋剂规则将举证责任倒置在违规者身上，由其来反驳根据本案事实所证明的情形或推定，其证明标准是高度盖然性标准（balance of probability）。
因此，WADA必须确定孙杨违反了第2.5条，使仲裁庭认定条件满足，而对此不适用严格责任原则。仲裁庭要解决的主要问题如下：1、孙杨是否有违反反兴奋剂规则的情形？2、若是，则什么样的处罚是适当的？
1.孙杨是否有违反反兴奋剂规则的情形？
第2.5条规定如下：“颠覆兴奋剂检测过程，但并非列为“禁止方法”定义的行为。干涉包括但不限于故意干扰或企图干扰兴奋剂检测官员、向反兴奋剂组织提供虚假信息、或恐吓或企图恐吓潜在的证人。”
“Tampering or Attempted Tampering with any part of Doping Control Conduct which subverts the Doping Control process but which would not otherwise be included in the definition of Prohibited Methods. Tampering shall include, without limitation, intentionally interfering or attempting to interfere with a Doping Control official, providing fraudulent information to an Anti-Doping Organisation, or intimidating or attempting to intimidate a potential witness.”
（1）仲裁庭对孙杨主张的总结
孙杨指示保安毁坏装有血样的玻璃容器、撕毁其在取样手续一开始就签署的《兴奋剂检测表》是无争议事实。孙杨及其团队的行为阻止主检测官带走他的血样去实验室化验，且未能尿样取样的行为也都是无争议事实。孙杨在动议中提出其行为是正当的，这点从巴震医生当时起草的当晚的说明中可以看出，而这点以前没提出过，是新提出的。然而，尿检助理对孙杨拍照，以及围绕毁坏血样容器的确切情况这些东西并未记载在巴震医生当时起草的当晚的说明中。因此仲裁庭认定巴震的说明不完全，需要参考该说和和当时在场人士事后的说法。
孙杨主张其并无故意或欺诈性的干涉取样的行为（no intent or fraudulent conduct to tamper），而他坚持认为他主要依赖于其团队告诉他主检测官缺乏授权所以无法进行检测的建议。仲裁庭认为，主检测官实际上因此中止了兴奋剂检测手续，所以当血样从容器中去除后该兴奋剂检测程序就已经结束了。
孙杨还援引CAS 2013/A/3279（Troicki案）主张主检测官违反其警告义务，没有告知孙杨潜在的不遵守取样手续的后果。孙杨主张主检测官让孙杨从玻璃容器中取出血样，这样她才能将该容器带走，而她未能将此类行为的违反第2.5条的法律后果告知孙杨。孙杨认为他强力理由（compelling reasons）以放弃检测（the DCO did not comply with her duties in informing the Athlete of the possible consequences of a failure to comply with the sample collection process. More specifically, the Athlete argues that the DCO invited the Athlete to retrieve the blood from the containers so that she could take the containers with her, and that she failed to inform the Athlete of the legal consequences of such actions in case they were characterised as tampering under Article 2.5 FINA DC. The Athlete concludes that he had compelling reasons to forego the test.）此外，基于上述原因以及WADA的隐私保护和个人信息保护方面的制度，孙杨坚持该血样是医疗废物，不属于第2.5条和第2.3条规定的“样本”。
（2）仲裁庭认定
仲裁庭认定，毫无疑问，孙杨的行为原则上明显阻碍取样手续——他阻止依照常规程序的主检测官会带走她的血样然后送到实验室进行化验的这一流程。因此，原则上孙杨颠覆了兴奋剂检测程序，从而违反了2.5条。 “原则上”这点很重要，因为若孙杨证明存在第2.3条的不进行检测的强力理由（compelling justification）则其行为可能获得正当性而不被认为是违规。
在这方面仲裁庭援引Azevedo案和其他判例，说明CAS的一贯判例是“反兴奋剂测试和兴奋剂检测规则的逻辑要求并期望，无论在身体上、卫生上还是道德上，只要存在可能，即使运动员有异议也必须提供取样。否则，运动员将可以系统性地以任何理由拒绝提供取样，使检测丧失可能。”（the logic of anti-doping tests and of the DC Rules demands and expects that, whenever physically, hygienically and morally possible, the sample be provided despite objections by the athlete. If that does not occur, athletes would systematically refuse to provide samples for whatever reasons, leaving no opportunity for testing.）
仲裁庭特别指出，WADA主张的无论IDTM取样人员是否已获得适当的授权和认证以及适当亮明身份，则不论如何，只要运动员拒绝允许主检测官带走取样血样送到实验室化验，即构成违反第2.5条，这点是错误的。仲裁庭认定，若通知中或在兴奋剂检测程序的任何部分中存在严重缺陷程序，则可能导致要求运动员接受或继续取样手续成为不适当的，而且这种要求甚至可能导致整个取样手续无效。仲裁庭认定，这只能是在最特殊的情况下才成立。
另一方面，仲裁庭认定，一般而言，孙杨不应自行处理该问题，而这么做会导致其将承担严重后果的风险。孙杨的正确做法是在反对的情况下进行兴奋剂检测，并立即为此反对提供完整依据（On the other hand, the Panel isconscious that as a general matter, athletes should not take matters into theirown hands, and if they do they will bear the risk of serious consequences. Theproper path for an Athlete is to proceed with a Doping Control under objection,and making available immediately the complete grounds for such objection.）。
仲裁庭强调，任何运动员即便质疑通知要求的有效性，也被强烈建议不要拒绝或中止取样手续，而是在抗议下完成样取样手续，并尽可能早和全面地记录其异议的明细（In the view of the Panel, itmust be emphasised that any athlete who questions whether notificationrequirements have been properly complied with would be well-advised not torefuse or abort the sample collection process, but rather to complete thesample collection process under protest and document the reasons of suchobjection in as much detail, and as early, as possible.）。在这方面，仲裁庭完全同意一审裁决中对孙杨的训诫（The Athlete’s entire athleticcareer hung in the balance – on what amounted to, essentially, a gamble thatthe Athlete’s assessment of the complex situation would prevail. That strikesthe Doping Panel as foolish in the extreme. As many CAS awards have stated, itis far more prudent to comply with the directions of a DCO and provide a samplein every case, even if provided “under protest”.）。
因此，尽管孙杨本应谨慎行事，在抗议下完成样取样手续本，这是孙杨没有做的，而是选择采取行动干预以使兴奋剂检测过早结束。因此，仲裁庭认定这些事实满足了控方的证明责任，而孙杨需要证明其采取的行为具强力理由（compelling justification）。
i）IDTM取样人员是否对孙杨完成了ISTI项下的通知义务？
孙杨主张，只有在WADA证明IDTM取样人员完全严格履行了ISTI项下的通知要求的情况下，才能对其认定第2.5条或第2.3条的违反。孙杨主张通知义务未履行完毕，理由有三：IDTM取样人员并没有都向孙杨出示特别授权书；该特别授权书必须载有主检测官、血检助理和尿检助理的姓名；主检测官、血检助理和尿检助理各自都无法向孙杨亮明身份。WADA则坚持认为，IDMT的取样人员适当通知了孙杨。
ISTI第5.4.1条规定，进行初步接触时，取样机构、主检测官或监守人（本案中为尿检助理）应确保孙杨和/或第三方（按第5.3.8条的要求）告知其进行取样的权限； ISTI第5.4.2条规定,进行接触后主检测官/监守人应使用第5.3.3条规定的文件向运动员表明自己的身份。第5.3.3条规定，取样人员应具有取样机构出示官方文件，例如检测机构的授权书，以证明其有权从运动员那里取样。主检测官还应携带载有其姓名和照片以及该身份证明的有效期的补充身份证明（例如，来自取样机构的身份证明、驾驶执照、健康卡、护照或类似的有效身份证明）。
本案中，国际泳联是检测机构，IDTM是取样机构。孙杨主张，对于一般的和特别的授权书必须做出区分。一般授权书为检测机构（本案为国际泳联）发给取样机构（本案为IDTM）的授权取样机构代表检测机构取样的信函，而特别授权书是检测机构发给某个有特定的取样人员的授权书，以证明主检测官、血检助理和尿检助理每人各自有权在特定期限内执行任务从运动员处取样。
本案中主检测官向孙杨出示了一份由国际泳联向IDTM发出的一般授权书，指出“在国际泳联赛外突击检测项目的一部分的兴奋剂检测框架中，IDTM被国际泳联任命并授权进行各运动员的血样和尿样取样工作”（[IDTM] is appointed and authorized by [FINA] to collect urine and blood samples from athletes in the frame of the doping controls organized as part of the FINA Unannounced out-of-Competition Testing Programme），这点无争议。
争议点是，ISTI的有关规定是否还要求IDTM的每个取样人员都向孙杨出示特别授权书，以适当完成对孙杨的ISTI项下的通知义务。
仲裁庭认定ISTI的文字的涵义是IDTM取样人员仅向孙杨提交由国际泳联向IDTM发出的一般授权书,加上主检测官的身份证明即完成对孙杨的ISTI项下的通知义务。该条中特别提及检测机构的授权书属于官方文件(Indeed, presenting this document is specifically referred to in Article 5.3.3 ISTI (“[…] official documentation, […] such as an authorisation letter from the Testing Authority”))。因此，该条并无强制性的通知要求，以要求取样人员向孙杨出示特别授权书。
这种解释也符合实践。孙杨也未举证证明他以前接受兴奋剂检测中每个取样人员都总是或者经常向他出示特别授权书。此外，孙杨以前曾受过主检测官的兴奋剂检测，他未举证证明在主检测官对他进行的之前的检测中，她给他出示了这种特别授权书。
目前世界上存在有大量的取样机构，IDTM只是其中之一。根据WADA传唤的专家证人——WADA标准和协调处副主任Stuart Kemp 先生的说法，2012至2019年间，孙杨有被11个不同的取样机构进行过180个取样，而每个取样机构在通知上的操作都不同。依照《WADA尿样取样指南和血样取样指南》（WADA’s Urine Sample Collection Guidelines and Blood Sample Collection Guidelines）最佳做法可能是在证件中要载有个人信息，但在ISTI项下，主检测官向孙杨出示一般授权书就足以符合对孙杨取样的通知标准。
对此，仲裁庭表示无异议，并援引WADA指南的引言对此的描述，以及《国际反兴奋剂规则》的有关部分，采纳Kemp的意见——该指南无拘束力、而只是为了促进最佳实践而作，而有拘束力的是ISTI。
仲裁庭还指出，《取样人员的招聘、培训、认证和重新认证指南》明确规定，“在缺乏取样机构签发的带照身份证的情况下，主检测官可使用政府签发的带照身份证，并附带取样机构出具的授权书”（ “[i]n the absence of a Sample Collection Authority-issued photo ID, the DCO may use a government-issued photo ID accompanied by an authorization letter from the Sample Collection Authority”）。这是该指南中唯一提及存在“取样机构（即IDTM）的特别授权书。仲裁庭认为，在ISTI中规定的通知程序中没有提到特别授权书，因此即使直接适用以上指南也不要求IDTM检测人员每人向孙杨出示特别授权书。
此外，CHINADA这类的取样机构即便依照《国际反兴奋剂规则》让其人员向孙杨提供特别授权书这一点，也并不意味着别的取样机构依照ISTI必须提供该等特别授权书。（Further, the mere fact that a Sample Collection Authority such as CHINADA may, on occasion or even often, provide a (specific and individual) Authorisation Letter to athletes in accordance with WADA’s Guidelines, does not mean that Sample Collection Authorities are required to do so under the ISTI.）
浙江反兴奋剂中心副主任韩照歧医生和中国国家游泳队副领队陈浩表明CHINADA关于兴奋剂检测要求IDTM取样人员需要特别授权书以证明其与IDTM的关系、以及其与IDTM的雇佣关系。然而，这种内容并不同于ISTI规定的强制性要求，ISTI的要求只是最低要求。韩照歧先生的主张与ISTI无关。国际泳联举证证明了其已指示IDTM在2018年3月29日至9月30日期间在中国对孙杨进赛外检测，其中提及有涉案主检测官牵头。因此，主检测官有适当授权，没有必要向孙杨出示特别授权书。
此外，IDTM客户关系与业务发展部经理Neal Soderstrom先生证明，在过去的6年中，IDTM公司一直使用与本案中使用的相同的通知程序，特别授权书一直都不是程序的一部分。Soderstrom和IDTM检测协调员TudorPopa先生（案发当晚主取样官与IDTM总部联系的人）也作证说国际泳联知道IDTM的操作，并且国际泳联从来没有对此有反对。
另一位IDTM主检测官，Simoes 先生上交的一份《书面陈述》中提到他于2017年10月28日在对孙杨取样时候向他出示过《个人授权书》（Individual authorization），而对此Soderstrom先生认为这的确有可能的，但是IDTM的操作并没有要求这样做。对此，仲裁庭认定IDTM 主检测官有时出示的文件可能比ISTI所要求的更多，但这本身并不违背IDTM的操作，ISTI不要求出示这种文件。
孙杨作证时候的证言中对于IDTM自2012年以来对他的其他59个赛外检测取样手续的回答中并未称他曾在被取样的任何时候被出示过特别授权书。
因此，仲裁庭认为IDTM仅是以一般授权书而对孙杨履行通知义务，而非如孙杨所主张的那样需要特别授权书才可以。此外，巴震医生在作证时闪烁其词，其证词不能印证孙杨关于IDTM取样人员在当天出示的文件与此前IDTM反兴奋剂检测期间出示的材料有实质性差异的主张。此外，仲裁庭认定，Popa先生和Soderstrom先生的证词让孙杨记忆混淆，他可能混淆了IDTM出示的文件和CHINADA等其他取样机构出示的文件，而二者之间可能有不同。Kemp先生也反驳孙杨主张的需要特别授权书的说法，检验机构（即国际泳联）在没有委托取样机构的情况下会对IDTM出具一般授权书。
此外，现有证据表明，目前IDTM取样人员在无特别授权书的情况下做了数万份（或更多）样品的取样手续。若孙杨主张正确的，则这些样本至少有可能由于其在取样时只具备一般授权书而无特别授权书而可能无效，而孙杨的律师并未给出应如何应对和避免这样的后果的解释（The evidence before the Panel indicates that tens of thousands (or more) samples have been collected by IDTM’s Sample Collection Personnel without a (specific and individual) Authorisation Letter. If the Athlete is correct, then it would appear that such samples are, potentially at least, at risk of being invalidated, on the basis that a (generic) Letter of Authority is somehow insufficient. The Athlete’s counsel offered no helpful response as to how to avoid such a consequence.）。
因此，仲裁庭不认同孙杨的IDTM检测人员必须携带并向其出示特别授权书的主张。在没有证据表明各取样机构在这方面的有持续性的惯常操作的情况下，IDTM这样的大型取样机构不太可能一直不遵守ISTI中规定的通知要求（The Panel considers it unlikely that a large Sample Collection Authority such as IDTM would consistently have been non-compliant with the notification requirements set out in the ISTI in circumstances in which there is no evidence before the Panel of a consistent practice among Sample Collection Authorities in this regard.）。仲裁庭认定，当晚IDTM向孙杨出示的文件合规，且也符合其以前一直向孙杨出示文件的操作。IDTM对ISTI中规定的文件的合规要求按照通常的方式理解。
因此，仲裁庭认定，主检测官在向孙杨出示一般授权书即合规。
ii）主检测官、尿检助理和血检助理是否各自都需要针对孙杨的取样任务取得特别授权书
孙杨主张，每一名IDTM样品取样人员有义务持有特别授权书以获得其对孙杨取样的权限，其依据是ISTI第5.3.3条中“他们的”（their）一词。从WADA管理数据库的证据表明，2018年3月29日至9月30日期间，国际泳联委托IDTM对孙杨在中国开展兴奋剂检测（主检测官为首席），但并未提及尿检助理和血检助理。而孙杨认为要对尿检助理和血检助理有授权才行，否则他们违规取样（The Panel notes that the evidence taken from ADAMS proving that FINA had instructed IDTM to conduct an OOC doping control on the Athlete in China between 29 March and 30 September 2018 (with the DCO as Lead Doping Control Officer), does not refer specifically to the DCA and the BCA. The Athlete submits that it should have done so, and that accordingly the DCA and BCA were not authorised to take part in the mission.）。
仲裁庭认为孙杨这种要求没有依据。主检测官已签署过《保密声明》（Statement of Confidentiality）证实其亲自训练过尿检助理和血检助理，而他们也承认接受过主检测官的训练。该等《保密声明》使用了IDTM的抬头，并保存于IDTM的记录中。而仲裁庭认定，IDTM为主检测官授权，授权其指派尿检助理和血检助理，而只要二助理签署《保密声明》表明他们符合ISTI的要求即可。（As set out below, the DCO had trained the DCA and BCA herself, and this was formalised by means of signing a “Statement of Confidentiality”, whereby the DCO acknowledged to have trained the DCA and BCA, and whereby the DCA and BCA acknowledged having been trained by the DCO. These “Statements of Confidentiality” were on IDTM’s letterhead and were stored in IDTM’s records. By signing such document, the DCO also acknowledged that “it is my responsibility to ensure that each person I engage in a Sample Collection Session has signed and has a valid Statement of Confidentiality on file”. The Panel finds that IDTM acted properly in delegating the selection of a DCA and BCA to the DCO, as long as they signed a “Statement of Confidentiality which showed they complied with ISTI requirements.）
WADA的指南里面的确指出检测机构最好能载明哪一个尿检助理和血检助理有权从运动员身上取样，但ISTI的起草者之一的Kemp 先生指出这并非ISTI的正式要求。这种任务通常是委派出去的，因为几乎不可能事先知道检测人员的组成和被取样的运动员的姓名。仲裁庭理解，鉴于世界范围内每天都有进行大量测试，这是合理的。（This notwithstanding, it may be best practice for a Testing Authority to specifically indicate which BCA and DCA are authorised to collect a sample from the Athlete, as provided for in WADA’s Guidelines. However, as acknowledged by Mr Kemp, who has served as a member of the ISTI drafting team since 2009, this is not an ISTI formal requirement. He stated that this task is typically delegated because it is almost impossible to know in advance of whom the team would be comprised, or to name the athlete that is to be tested. Given the large number of tests conducted worldwide, on a daily basis, the Panel understands the logic of this approach.）
Kemp先生表示，由于尿检助理和血检助理在取样手续中的作用非常有限，他们只需要一份一般授权书即可证明其与IDTM的联系。在本案中WADA数据库中的任务令中有显示主检测官的姓名，但许多这这类信件都不显示那些任务的主检测官的姓名。ISTI要求显示取样机构的名称，而非进行取样的个人的姓名，所以异议是针对取样机构提出的，而非检测官个人。（When asked by counsel for WADA whether the BCA and DCA required any documentation to link them back to IDTM, Mr Kemp indicated that they only needed a (generic) Letter of Authority. Such document would apply to all Sample Collection Personnel because the role of the DCA and BCA in the sample collection process is very limited. Mr Kemp stated that the mission order extracted from ADAMS in this case refers to the name of the DCO, but that many of such letters do not. The ISTI requires that the name of the Sample Collection Authority be mentioned -not the names of individuals performing the test - so that complaints are directed to the Sample Collection Authority.）
关于孙杨主张的“他们的”一词，仲裁庭采纳Kemp先生的做法，即这是指所有参与的取样人员作为一个整体，而非团队的每个成员个体。这种解释的理由是，若起草人的意图是每个成员个体都需要这样，则如其指南所述，起草人可用明确的语言要求每个取样人员针对某具体的任务都要获得授权（The Athlete’s argument with respect to individual authorisation being required for each member of the Sample Collection Personnel is entirely premised on the use of the word “their” in Article 5.3.3 ISTI. The Panel accepts Mr Kemp’s approach which concludes that this merely refers to all Sample Collection Personnel involved and not to each member of the team individually. This interpretation is credible, because, had the intention of the drafter been as the Athlete argues, it would have been easy to use clear language requiring each individual member to be authorised for a specific testing mission, as is done in WADA’s Guidelines.）。
iii）主检测官、尿检助理和血检助理是否都需要出示载有自己姓名的特别授权书，他们是否受过规则要求的训练?
孙杨认为在涉案通知过程中，IDTM取样人员均未遵守表明其身份的要求，WADA则认为他们满足要求。
a. 主检测官
ISTI第5.3.3条要求主检测官“还应携带载有其姓名和照片以及该身份证明的有效期的补充身份证明（例如，来自取样机构的身份证明、驾驶执照、健康卡、护照或类似的有效身份证明）”。
孙杨认为主检测官当晚向他出示的IDTM签发的身份证无法证明与本次任务之间的关系，无法证明主检测官的权限。仲裁庭认为，规定的主检测官的身份要求是必须载有主检测官的姓名和照片，而IDTM签发的身份证符合要求，且向孙杨出示了，而且不需要其他身份证明。
孙杨还主张，主检测官不满足ISTI的公正性要求，因为孙杨先前曾就2017年10月28日的取样手续对主检测官作过投诉。而ISTI第H.4.2条规定取样机构应当保证与取样结果有利害关系的取样人员不参与取样手续，情形包括取样人员参与实施检测项目的体育管理工作，以及可能在取样手续上与该运动员的的个人事务有关联或者牵涉。”（“The Sample Collection Authority shall ensure that Sample Collection Personnel that have an interest in the outcome of a Sample Collection Session are not appointed to that Sample Collection Session. Sample Collection Personnel are deemed to have such an interest if they are: a)Involved in the administration of the sport for which Testing is being conducted; or b) Related to, or involved in the personal affairs of, any Athlete who might provide a Sample at that session.”）
仲裁庭认定，孙杨以前曾对她提出过投诉这一事实本身并不意味着该主检测官有利益冲突所以不应再对孙杨取样。需要证实存在导致该主检测官不宜向孙杨取样的具体情况才能证明存在利益冲突，进而导致主检测官回避，否则运动员都可以主张某个检测官过于严格或者节操太高而申请其回避（The Panel finds that the mere fact that an athlete has previously complained about a specific DCO cannot as such mean that such DCO should no longer collect samples from this athlete. In order for a conflict of interest (or even a reasonable basis) to exist,specific circumstances need to be established that would render it inappropriate for such DCO to collect samples from this athlete. Otherwise, an athlete could seek to disqualify a DCO simply by raising a complaint against an officer otherwise known to be scrupulous or rigorous. ）。所以仲裁庭认定孙杨未能证明存在具体的利益冲突的情况，孙杨并未对主检测官的介入表示不满，孙杨也没当场把这些内容记载在巴震医生起草的《兴奋剂检测表》上，而对主检测官的公正性的质疑是后来才提出来的，孙杨此时已经在寻找各种理由来为自己正当化了（The Panel finds that the Athlete has failed to identify such circumstances. Indeed, the record before the Panel does not indicate the Athlete was uncomfortable with the involvement of the DCO on 4 September 2018. The Athlete did not mention this issue in the comments to the Doping Control Form drafted by Dr Ba Zhen. Rather, the alleged impartiality of the DCO appears to be an argument made retroactively, as the Athlete sought reasons to justify his actions.）。
仲裁庭认定，主检测官符合ISTI的出示身份的要求，且有适当的认证和授权。
b. 尿检助理/监守人
孙杨认为，虽然根据WADA的指南，监守人（Chaperones）无需提供载有姓名或照片的身份证明，但他们须出示测试机构或取样机构签发的正式授权文件。
仲裁庭认为，在当日的取样手续中，尿检助理的作用仅仅是亲眼监督孙杨排尿，而ISTI第5.4.1条规定，在进行初步接触时，取样机构、主检测官或监守人（如适用）应确保孙杨和/或第三方被告知取样所依据的权限（When initial contact is made, the Sample Collection Authority, DCO or Chaperone, as applicable, shall ensure that the Athleteand/or a third party (if required in accordance with Article 5.3.8) is informed: b) Of the authority under which the Sample collection is to be conducted）。ISTI第5.4.2条规定，在接触时，主检测官/监守人应使用第5.3.3条规定的文件向孙杨表明自己的身份（When contact is made, the DCO/Chaperone shall: b) Identify themselves to the Athlete using the documentation referred to in Article 5.3.3）。ISTI第H.5.4条规定，只有获得取样机构认证的取样人员才有权获得取样机构的授权，得代表取样机构进行取样活动（Only Sample Collection Personnel who have an accreditation recognised by the Sample Collection Authority shall be authorised by the Sample Collection Authority to conduct Sample collection activities on behalf of the Sample Collection Authority.）。
仲裁庭认为，根据这些规定，孙杨应由主检测官或尿检助理/监守人进行通知。在本案中，通知是由主检测官作出的，这是因为尿检助理的作用仅限于见证尿液取样，而非通知孙杨，由此限制了尿检助理必须向孙杨提供文件的范围（It follows from these provisions that an athlete is to be notified either by the DCO or by the DCA/Chaperone. In this case, the DCO notified because the DCA’s role was limited to witnessing the passing of urine, not notification of the Athlete. This limited the documentation the DCA had to present to the Athlete.）。因此尿检助理并不需要提供任何特别载明其姓名的授权委托书，ISTI也没有要求尿检助理向孙杨出示IDTM签发的身份证。
Kemp先生在作证时指出，WADA的指南中要求监守人必须持有IDTM签发的身份证或其姓名载明在特别授权书中，但ISTI并无此要求。而仲裁庭采纳该解释，理由是ISTI是上位标准，指南没有强制力。尿检助理向孙杨出示了政府颁发的身份证，这符合ISTI的身份证明要求。
孙杨还主张，尿检助理缺乏ISTI规定的必要的培训和IDTM的授权。而在本案中尿检助理是否经过IDTM的“培训和授权”这点上，本案证据存在矛盾（As to whether the DCA had been “trained and authorized” by IDTM, the evidence conflicts.）。
有一份主检测官于2018年1月26日签署《保密声明》，抬头为IDTM的抬头，孙杨和国际泳联对此真实性无异议。尿检助理（监守人）声明其已接受主检测官的培训，并被要求在2018年期间在主检测官的职责范围内担任其取样手续的助理。而主检测官确认已培训并授权该人担任其2018年度的取样手续的取样人员之一。然而，在事件发生后很久，主检测官于2019年10月21日提供另一份《书面陈述》。尿检助理写道，他只负责按要求临时驾车接送主检测官。“我不是任何形式的兴奋剂检测官。[…] 主检测官是我的中学同学。[…]我想澄清一件事。1/.我不是任何一家公司派来进行检测的兴奋剂检测官。我只是个建筑工人。那天晚上，我只是一个接送主检测官的司机，开车送她到某个地方. 2/.从来没人训练过我做兴奋剂测试，我也没有必要接受任何训练，因为我只是一个建筑工人。[…]”（ “just the one who was requested to temporarily drove [sic] [the DCO] from where she came and to where she went. I was not any kind of Doping Control Officer. […] The DCO was my middle school classmate. […] There are something [sic] I want to make clear. 1/. I was not the Doping Control Assistant sent by any company to conduct a test. I was just a builder. At that night I was only the driver who picked up [the DCO] and drove her to some place. 2/. No one had ever trained me regarding doping test ,and it was not necessary for me to accept any training as I was only a builder.[…]”）。
仲裁庭认为这两种说法之间明显存在冲突，但认定事发之前7个月写的的《保密声明》更为可靠，并确认监守人接受了主检测官的适当培训，而监守人平时可能是一名建筑工人，只是兼职担任监守人的事实与此无关。
Popa先生作证说该监守人曾在2018年1月和2018年2月参与过取样手续。主检测官在其宣誓证明时证实，她曾于案发前与监守人共做过约10-20个取样任务，并亲自训练监守人履行其职务。她还表示已填写了IDTM表格以证明其已培训了监守人，他了解自己的职责。该表格保存在IDTM的记录中。
综上所述，仲裁庭认定监守人符合ISTI中规定的通知要求并已经受过IDTM的适当“培训和授权”，有完整的认证和授权，可以参与孙杨的取样工作。遗憾的是，监守人在听证会前夕突然不愿作证，使得当事各方和律师在过去几个月中为确保他出庭的努力白费了。仲裁庭对此不作任何推论，而是依据他签署的声明，该声明确认他的IDTM认证是根据ISTI第H.5.4条作出的。由于该规定并不要求向孙杨出示此类文件，因此在IDTM的记录中可获取此类文件即可。（In the light of the above, the Panel is satisfied that the DCA complied with the notification requirements set out in the ISTI and was properly “trained and authorized” by IDTM. The Panel regrets the DCA’s sudden unwillingness to testify on the eve of the hearing, having avoided efforts by the Parties and Counsel to secure his participation over the preceding months. The Panel draws no inferences, and relies on the statement he signed, which confirms an accreditation recognised by IDTM in accordance with Article H.5.4 ISTI. Since this provision does not require such documentation to be presented to an Athlete, it was sufficient that such document was available in IDTM’s records.）
c. 血检助理
孙杨认为血检助理应当携带IDTM签发的身份证或特别授权书作为其授权凭证，且应携带证明她有血样取样资质的证据。因此，她向孙杨出示的《护士初级专业技术资格证》并非充足的资格证照，她应出示的是《护士执业证》。
出于与以上监守人方面相同的原因，仲裁庭不采纳孙杨关于血检助理需要携带IDTM签发的身份证或特别授权书的主张。对此，孙杨在很大程度上依赖于WADA的指南，而如前所述，指南并不具有强制力。虽然指南指出血检助理需要有IDTM签发的身份证但她没有，但ISTI并不要求血检助理持有IDTM签发的身份证，这是对主检测官的要求。
在血检助理的资质方面，IDTM抬头的《保密声明》里面有记载到，本案的血检助理声明她已接受主检测官的培训，并被要求在2018年期间在主检测官的职责范围内担任其取样手续的血检助理。而主检测官确认已培训并授权该人担任其2018年度的取样手续的取样人员之一。
仲裁庭认定，本《保密声明》是根据ISTI第H.5.4条规定的认证的确认。由于该规定并不要求向孙杨出示此类文件，因此在IDTM的记录中可获取此类文件即可（The Panel considers that this “Statement of Confidentiality” amounts to a confirmation of accreditation recognised by IDTM, in accordance with Article H.5.4 ISTI. This provision does not require such documentation to be presented to an Athlete. It was sufficient that the document existed and was available in IDTM’s records.）。
关于血检助理从孙杨身上血样取样的资格和授权，仲裁庭认为，ISTI要求血检助理具备进行静脉采血所需的充分资格和实操技能，且不得是未成年人或者与取样手续的结果有利害关系。由于血检助理不是未成年人也并未受到利益冲突方面的异议，仲裁庭主要审理其血样取样的资格和授权。
仲裁庭认定，血检助理同时拥有《护士初级专业技术资格证》和《护士执业证》，而当晚只向孙杨出示了《护士初级专业技术资格证》。而前证是后证的先决条件。
ISTI要求血检助理具有“适当资格”，但并不要求血检助理在血样取样时证明其具有这样的资格。因此，仲裁庭的结论是，IDTM那边有血检助理的“足够资格”的证据就可以了（The ISTI requires the BCA to have “adequate qualifications”, but does not require the BCA to demonstrate, at the time a blood sample is taken, that she had such qualifications. On the basis of the plain language of the ISTI, the Panel concludes that it was sufficient that evidence of the BCA “adequate qualifications” was held by IDTM.）。
孙杨在听证会上主张血检助理的《护士执业证》只在上海有效，而在杭州无效，而该案发生在杭州。仲裁庭认定这并无充分的证据佐证。无论如何，本案卷宗中没有证据表明该程序瑕疵曾在当晚被提出或指明，或当时被认为是孙杨停止取样手续的原因之一。相反，仲裁庭认定这是孙杨事后才提出来的形式上的论点，但在当时或其后都不影响到抽血的事实（Insofar as the Athlete argued during the hearing that the BCA’s PNC was only valid in Shanghai, China, but not in Hangzhou, China (where the events of 4 September 2018 took place), the Panel finds that this was not sufficiently corroborated by material evidence. In any event, there is no evidence on file suggesting that such alleged procedural flaw was ever raised or addressed on the night of 4-5 September 2018, or that this was, at the time, considered to be a reason for the Athlete to stop the sample collection session. Rather, the Panel considers this to be an ex post facto argument that has a formal quality, but which cannot be said at the time, or subsequently, to impact the drawing of blood.）。
综上所述，仲裁庭认定血检助理符合ISTI中规定的通知要求并已经受过IDTM的适当“培训和授权”，有完整的认证和授权，可以参与孙杨的取样工作。在当时或后来，都没有关于她的抽血行为能力不足方面的问题（There was no question at the time or subsequently that she did so inadequately.）。
iv）结论
此外，仲裁庭认为，在最开始的通知之后，也就是尿检助理拍照行为发生之前，孙杨签署了《兴奋剂检测表》。依照ISTI第5.4.3条的规定，孙杨在《兴奋剂检测表》上签字即表示承认并接受对他的适当通知已生效，而直到后来他才重新取回他一开始签署的文件并将其撕毁。仲裁庭认定这确认他们的看法，即在通知程序和向孙杨出示文件这方面，都被视为正确无误（By signing the Doping Control Form the Athlete in effect acknowledged and accepted that he had been duly and properly notified. It was only later that he revisited his initial acceptance and tore up the signed Doping Control Form. The Panel concludes that this confirms its view that up to that point the notification process, and the documentation shown to the Athlete, was treated as correct.）。
仲裁庭认定，IDTM取样人员符合ISTI的通知要求。
二、孙杨的其他理由
1、尿检助理对孙杨拍照
孙杨主张尿检助理和IDTM取样人员的司机都是来看他的追星族，尿检助理在未经许可的情况下就用手机对他拍照。当他发现这一点时，就请尿检助理离开并从手机上删除他的所有视频和照片。因此，他对所有IDTM取样人员丧失信心，然后要求严查他们的证件但他们未能提供必要的证件和授权文件，才导致了本案时间以及主检测官放弃检测。
仲裁庭认定，除非有强力理由（如采样证据或保存记录），否则监守人/尿检助理在取样手续中对孙杨拍照或录像是完全不适当和不专业的。本案中尿检助理没有亲自出庭作证，也没有受到盘问。仲裁庭从其《书面陈述》的自认和其他证人的确认中认定得尿检助理在取样手续中至少拍摄了孙杨的三张照片。
因此，争议点是发生此类事件后，孙杨是否仍有义务提供尿样，或监守人/尿检助理不适当的行为是否构成中止兴奋剂检测的“强力理由”（compelling justification）？
如上所述，CAS的判例法表明，反兴奋剂测试和兴奋剂检测规则的逻辑要求并期望，无论在身体上、卫生上还是道德上，只要存在可能，即使运动员有异议也必须提供取样。因此，仲裁庭认定，这不构成“强迫性理由”。无论是在主检测官的倡议下，还是在她的同意下，尿检助理都被排除在尿样取样程序之外。此外，仲裁庭根据现有证据认定不能确定主检测官有警告过孙杨他在该等情形下不提供尿样可能会导致被认为是违规。显然，主检测官理解孙杨对尿检助理行为的反对，并认为将他排除在检测任务之外是合适的。在这种情况下，仲裁庭认定，主检测官的行为是合理的（The Panel considers that the evidence before it does not allow it to reach a conclusion on this point. Whether it was on the initiative of the DCO, or with her consent, the evidence establishes that the DCA was excluded from the urine sample collection process. Further, the Panel does not consider it to be established, on the basis of the evidence before it, that the DCO warned the Athlete that his failure to provide a urine sample, in the circumstances that pertained, could result in a potential failure to comply. It rather appears that the DCO understood the Athlete’s objection to the acts of the DCA, and considered it appropriate to exclude him from the testing mission. In the circumstances, the Panel considers that the DCO acted reasonably.）。因为尿检助理是当晚IDTM取样人员中唯一的男性，所以没有其他人可以监守孙杨排尿。此外，证据表明孙杨建议可等待另一名尿检助理的到来以提供尿样。因此，仲裁庭不能认定孙杨未能提供尿样。
然而，这后面的问题是，尿检助理与血样取样无关，过早结束尿样取样手续是否会对血样取样手续产生任何影响。在本案中孙杨先提供血样，然后才涉及尿样取样的问题。
仲裁庭认为尿检助理的行为是孙杨重新审查主检测官、血检助理和尿检助理出示文件的理由。然而，如前所述，IDTM取样人员出示的文件符合ISTI的要求。而这不能成为孙杨未能继续进行血样取样程序的“强力理由”（compelling justification）。此外，这也不构成孙杨决定由保安毁坏装有血瓶的容器、撕毁《兴奋剂检测表》、及阻止主检测官带走血样的强力理由。
因此，仲裁庭认定，尿检助理的不当行为并不构成孙杨中止整个血样和尿样取样任务的理由，也不构成其采取上述其他措施的正当理由。仲裁庭认定，正确的做法应该是孙杨在当时（或若有必要，在之后）记录下他对整个程序的异议，并允许主检测官携带血样离开。
2、主检测官未完全履行警告义务
仲裁庭认为，主检测官在取样手续中须告知孙杨他自己的权利和义务，特别是告知孙杨如果不遵从要求的潜在后果。
仲裁庭援引CAS的Troicki案，指出IDTM培训材料建议主检测官应“始终确保不存在误解”，并应让运动员了解遵守相关程序的重要性而鼓励其进行兴奋剂检测。虽然IDTM培训材料不是强制性规则很重要。仲裁庭认为需要客观地认定运动员未能提供血样是否有强力理由；问题不在于运动员的行为是否诚信，而在于客观上，他是否有强力理由放弃测试（the Panel finds that whether the Athlete had a compelling justification for failing to provide a blood sample needs to be determined objectively. The question is not whether the Athlete was acting in good faith, but, whether objectively, he was justified by compelling reasons to forego the test.）。如前所述，仲裁庭认定，Gorodilova医生告知运动员如果他不参加检测，他可能会面临制裁。她告诉他，如果他不提供血样是否会产生严重后果不是由主检测官决定的。因此，客观上，在这种情况下，运动员没有强力理由放弃检测，他对导致误解的事件的主观解释也不能构成强力理由（the Panel has found that the Athlete was informed by Dr Gorodilova that he could face sanctions if he did not take the test and was told by her that it was not the DCO’s decision as to whether there would be consequences if he failed to provide a blood sample. Objectively therefore, in the circumstances, the Athlete did not have a compelling justification to forego the test and his subjective interpretation of the events which led to the misunderstanding cannot amount to a compelling justification.）。
依照该判例，仲裁庭认为孙杨主张主检测官没有警告孙杨可能产生的法律后果。然而，根据现有证据，仲裁庭认定主检测官反复警告过，或至少试图警告孙杨不遵守血样采样程序的后果（However, on the basis of the evidence before it the Panel concludes that the DCO repeatedly warned, or at least attempted to warn, the Athlete about the consequences of a failure to comply with the blood sample collection process.）。这也由一审裁决佐证（“It is abundantly clear that the DCO tried constantly to explain why the complaints and deficiencies raised by the Athlete were not valid, in her view.”）。
仲裁庭同意一审意见指出的这种警告很可能因为当场的喧嚣而消失，但仲裁庭的结论是，若是这样则也是由于孙杨的行为所致，是他的责任，本结论与一审结论相反（The Panel agrees with the FINA Doping Panel that such warning may well have been lost in the noise of the events. However, and contrary to the conclusions of the FINA Doping Panel, the Panel concludes that if this happened it was due to the actions of the Athlete, and was his responsibility.）。孙杨应尊重主检测官的权威，然而有充分的证据表明他并没有。仲裁庭认为证据更倾向于支持主检测官发出了警告，而孙杨当时没有注意这些警告。根据证据，仲裁庭不能认定主检测官应在一定程度上对孙杨未听从警告负责，或者即便事态发展可能导致违规但他和他团队以及母亲（似乎对她儿子帮了大倒忙）仍有权无视主检测官的意见（The Athlete was required to respect the authority of the DCO, who was experienced and known to the Athlete, and it is abundantly clear on the basis of the evidence that he failed to do so. The Panel is satisfied that the evidence tends to support the conclusion that the DCO gave warnings, and the Athlete then failed to heed those warnings. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel cannot conclude that the DCO is responsible in some way for the Athlete’s failure to listen to such warnings as were given, or that he and his support staff, as well as his mother, who seems to have played a most unhelpful role to her son, were entitled to disregard the DCO’s observation that the situation unfolding was a potential failure to comply.）。
仲裁庭认为主检测官确实多次警告孙杨，依据是经过验证的主检测官和血检助理的证词、陈浩先生的《书面陈述》，确认他“明确向[主检测官]表示不应使用拒检一词，因为同年早些时候，一名CHINADA主检测官询问一名运动员“你的意思是你拒检吗”，然后这名主检测官因该诱导性发问被CHINADA解雇”。尽管陈浩先生在证词中否认这是针对主检测官的警告，但仲裁庭认定，正如陈浩先生在《书面陈述》中提到的那样，这种交谈只有在主检测官提到可能不遵守的后果之后才可能展开（The Panel is satisfied that the DCO did repeatedly warn the Athlete. This is based on the testimony of the DCO and the BCA, which the Panel finds credible, and also on the written statement of Mr Cheng Hao, who confirmed that he “specifically indicated to [the DCO] that the word refusal should not be used, because earlier that year, one CHINADA DCO asked one athlete “do you mean you are refusing the test” and then this DCO was fired by CHINADA because of this leading and inducing question”. Although Mr ChengHao denied during his testimony that he made this statement in response to a warning of the DCO, the Panel finds that the exchanges he described are likely to have unfolded only after the DCO had referred to the consequences of a potential failure to comply, as mentioned in Mr Cheng Hao’s written statement.）。
主检测官和血检助理的证词还得到了Popa先生的证词的进一步证实。当天他一直与主检测官通电话，而在他与主检测官通电话时，他确实听到了主检测官警告孙杨后果。
一审裁决认为，主检测官必须以运动员能理解的语言告诉该运动员潜在的无法遵守规定的后果。解释某些行为可能导致违规的风险还不够，主检测官必须以运动员能理解的语言告知其不遵守的后果，主检测官必须更进一步且清楚表明其正在将运动员的行为视为不遵守行为，并且必将产生什么后果（Explaining the risks that certain conduct might lead to a violation is not sufficient. The DCO must go further and clearly articulate that she is treating theAthlete’s conduct as a Failure to Comply and that the following consequences will apply.）。主检测官多次试图向孙杨传达有关其行为后果的重要信息，但始终没有成功。因此不存在某个瞬间使得孙杨明确知道他的行为在当时正在被主检测官当作“未能遵守”来进行处理，而且会导致严重后果。
本案CAS仲裁庭对此表示反对，并认定这是一个法律问题，不应由主检测官来决定是否存在不遵守的情况，而根据ISTI有关规定，她的职责是（i）告知孙杨出现不遵守规定的可能后果，（ii）将事实以详细报告的形式记录，（iii）向IDTM报告有关情况。根据ISTI有关规定，最终应由检测机构（即国际泳联）确定是否存在不遵守行为（The Panel concludes, as a matter of law, that it was not for the DCO to decide whether or not there was a failure to comply. Rather, her duty was, pursuant to Article 5.4.3 ISTI and Article A.3.2.a of Annex A to the ISTI, (i) to inform the Athlete of the consequences of a possible failure to comply, (ii) to document the facts in a detailed report, and (iii) to report the circumstances to IDTM. Pursuant to Article A.4.2 of Annex 1 to the ISTI, it was ultimately for the Testing Authority (i.e. FINA) to determine whether or not there was a failure to comply.）。
因此，仲裁庭认定主检测官适当地履行了警告义务。
3、所谓的主检测官决定终止取样任务，和其取回和销毁血样的建议
孙杨主张，主检测官最终决定终止取样任务，她让孙杨从容器中取回血样，所以不存在他不配合取样手续的情形，或可以说他有强力理由不配合取样手续。
关于所谓的主检测官决定终止取样任务，仲裁庭认可尿检助理回避之后，尿样取样手续即由主检测官终止或经主检测官同意而终止。然而，这不会对血样取样产生影响（urine sample collection processwas terminated by or with the consent of the DCO once the DCA had been excluded from the testing mission. This, however, can have no impact on the blood sample collection process）。
首先，仲裁庭认定，主检测官、血检助理和尿检助理在巴震医生起草的《兴奋剂检测表》上签名并不意味着他们必然同意其中内容，他们只是作为见证人在文件上签字，这是他们根据ISTI第4.4.6条承担的义务（the Panel finds that the signatures affixed to such document by the DCO, BCA and DCA do not mean that they necessarily agreed with the comments set out therein.They merely signed the document as witnesses, which was their duty under Article 4.4.6 ISTI）。
ISTI第4.4.6条规定，在取样手续结束时，运动员和主检测官应签署适当的文件以表明他们满意认为该文件准确地反映了包括运动员所表达的任何关切在内的运动员取样手续的细节……在运动员取样手续期间具有正式角色的其他人员可以作为手续过程的见证人在文件上签字。”（At the conclusion of the Sample Collection Session the Athlete and DCO shall sign appropriate documentation to indicate their satisfaction that the documentation accurately reflects the details of the Athlete’s Sample Collection Session, including any concerns expressed by the Athlete… Other persons present who had a formal role during the Athlete’s Sample Collection Session may sign the documentation as a witness of the proceedings.）
此外，仲裁庭不相信孙杨主张的主检测官主动建议他带走并毁坏含储有他血样的容器。韩照歧医生在《书面陈述》中说他曾告诉主检测官和巴震医生血样不能带走化验，而巴震医生证实了这一点，并说他本人也曾告知主检测官血样不能带走。根据这些说法，仲裁庭认定阻止血样采样过程完成的倡议不是由主检测官作出的，而是由孙杨作出的，或在其团队的积极附和下作出的（Based on these statements, the Panel finds that the initiative to prevent the blood sample collection process from being completed was not taken by the DCO, but by the Athlete, either on the initiative, or with the active concurrence, of his support staff.）。
韩照歧医生说，主检测官随后强调兴奋剂检测设备应该被带走，而这一点被主检测官和巴震医生的所证实。即使孙杨和孙母的回忆完全正确（仲裁庭认为这远未得到证实），主检测官告诉孙杨“如果你能够拿走血液样本那请便。”当他问她如何从容器中拿出血样时，她告诉他“你自己办”，这也不足以证明是主检测官建议孙杨销毁血样的，或者是主检测官主动结束了血样取样任务。这恰恰表明，在长期激烈讨论和多次试图警告孙杨可能产生的后果未果后，主检测官认为她别无选择，只能遵从孙杨的要求，将他给出的血样交还给他。在这方面，仲裁庭认为，孙杨的个性似乎是咄咄逼人的，且似乎以为他的观点应占上风，而这一点在听证会上显而易见（Even if the recollection of the Athlete and his mother is entirely correct – which is far from established, in the view of the Panel - and the DCO told the Athlete “if you are able to take the blood sample, go ahead” and “you find your way”, this would not be sufficient to establish that it was the DCO who suggested the Athlete should destroy the blood samples, or that the blood sample collection session was ended on the DCO’s initiative. It rather indicates that, following long and intense discussions and after having repeatedly tried to warn the Athlete about potential consequences, the DCO felt she had no option but to comply with the Athlete’s demand to be given back the blood samples he had provided. In this regard, the Panel notes that the Athlete appears to have a forceful personality, and seems to have an expectation that his views should be allowed to prevail. This was apparent during the hearing.）。
仲裁庭认为，在孙杨不配合的情况下，主检测官试图说服孙杨继续进行取样手续中的期望是有限的。证据证实了孙杨依照巴震医生依照韩照歧医生的建议，而决定收回血样，不让其血样离开他家。仲裁庭认定，在这种情况下，主检测官在孙杨家中且当着他的保安和团队的面，可能认为她别无选择而只能接受孙杨的强势。她的行为并无不合理之处。在这种情况下，主检测官的职责是警告孙杨他的行为可能的后果，而她履行了这一职责（The Panel considers that there are limits as to what can be expected from a DCO in trying to persuade an athlete to continue with a sample collection process when the athlete no longer wishes to cooperate. The evidence establishes that the Athlete, based on advice given by Dr Ba Zhen, who in turn relied on the advice of Dr Han Zhaoqi, was determined to recover the blood samples he had given and ensure that they should not leave his home. In such circumstances, the Panel does not find it unreasonable that the DCO, being in the athlete’s house, in the presence of his body guards and collaborators, may have felt that she had no option but to accept the Athlete’s impositions. In such circumstances, the duty of the DCO was to warn the Athlete about the possible consequences of his actions. As setout above, she complied with that duty.）。
孙杨坚持认为主检测官告诉他她必须带走取样材料，这促使他作出毁坏血液容器的行为。然而，Popa先生证明这是冲突升级之后，此时孙杨和他的团队决心取回血样这一点已经很明显了。而Popa先生自己指示主检测官告诉孙杨说她不能留下任何东西，以作为带走血样的最后一次尝试。
主检测官指出她通知孙杨说不能留下任何材料，而当孙杨及其团队建议打开容器并取回血样以便她取走容器和血瓶时，她认为一旦容器被固定就不能打开了，孙杨不被允许保存血样，否则这可被视为违反反兴奋剂规则。
仲裁庭根据证据认定，最有可能的情况是，孙杨及其团队将容器打碎以取回血瓶保管，然后让主检测官带走破碎的容器离开。仲裁庭很难理解为什么必须把破损的容器归还给主检测官，但不必归还血瓶；而更有逻辑的做法是将血液从血瓶中取出并将所有损坏的设备交还给主检测官（The Panel finds it difficult to understand why the broken container would have to be given back to the DCO, but not the blood vessel. It would have been more logical if the blood would have been taken from the blood vessel and that all broken equipment would be handed back to the DCO.）。
尽管如此，仲裁庭认定，孙杨通过毁坏容器来阻止主检测官带走血样，而打碎密封玻璃容器破坏了血样的置信度。该血样虽然仍由巴震医生保管，但其监管链已经断裂，不再能进行有效化验。
因此，仲裁庭的结论认为孙杨未能证实主检测官自行终止了取样任务，或是主检测官建议取回并销毁血样。
三、结论
因此，仲裁庭的结论认为，孙杨未能证明他放弃了兴奋剂检测的行为具有有强力理由，构成干涉兴奋剂检测行为，剩下的问题是孙杨的行为是否是“故意”的。
第2.5条规定如下：“颠覆兴奋剂检测过程，但并非列为“禁止方法”定义的行为。干涉包括但不限于故意干扰或企图干扰兴奋剂检测官员、向反兴奋剂组织提供虚假信息、或恐吓或企图恐吓潜在的证人。”
“Tampering or Attempted Tampering with any part of Doping Control Conduct which subverts the Doping Control process but which would not otherwise be included in the definition of Prohibited Methods. Tampering shall include, without limitation, intentionally interfering or attempting to interfere with a Doping Control official, providing fraudulent information to an Anti-Doping Organisation, or intimidating or attempting to intimidate a potential witness.”
孙杨对“颠覆”一词的定义是“暗中毁损体制权威”（ “to undermine authority (of an established institution)”）。仲裁庭认为CAS2013/A/3341号案中涉及两个尿样采样容器被损坏的情况，但该案仲裁员认为根据该案的事实并不存在故意所以不存在“干涉”。本案的事实与该案不同，仲裁庭认为孙杨满足“故意干预”兴奋剂检测程序。主检测官一再警告但是孙杨还是坚持要将密封血样返还给他，以阻止她将血样带走，而方式包括毁坏容器及撕毁《兴奋剂检测表》。仲裁庭认定，这类行动必然包含故意（The facts of the present case are distinguishable, so that the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete did “intentionally interfere” with the Doping Control process. Despite the DCO’s repeated warnings, the Athlete persisted in demanding that the sealed blood samples be returned to him, so as to allow him to prevent her from leaving with them. The evidence before the Panel clearly establishes that he intentionally sought to interfere with the process by (i) destroying an external container and (ii) tearing up the Doping Control Form, with the intention to prevent the DCO from leaving the premises with the blood samples that had already been collected. The Panel finds that such actions necessarily comprise intent.）。
孙杨主张其对血样取样合法性有合理的怀疑，理由是尿检助理对他拍照的不当行为；但仲裁庭认为这不可信、也不能成立。在主检测官倡议或同意下尿检助理进行回避，但他在血样采样过程中不起任何作用。孙杨对尿检助理的关切因此已解决，尿检助理的不当行为对已经完成的血样取样手续或样本的置信度无任何影响。尿检助理的行为不能证明孙杨随后的行为的正当性（The claim by the Athlete that he had legitimate doubts about the validity of the test, in relation to the collection of his blood samples, because the DCA who was present to assist in the taking of the urine sample, inappropriately took photographs of him, is, on the facts before the Panel, not plausible or established. The DCA was excluded from the urine sample collection process, upon the initiative or with the consent of the DCO, and had no role in the blood sample collection process. The Athlete’s concerns about the DCA were addressed by the DCO, and it cannot reasonably be concluded that the DCA’s inappropriate behaviour had any impact on the blood sample collection process that had already been completed or the integrity of the sample. The Panel finds without hesitation that the DCA’s behaviour could not justify the subsequent actions of the Athlete.）。
仲裁庭还认为孙杨在听证会上试图将责任推卸给他的团队的做法是不合理的。孙杨很可能在检测人员的资质和授权方面诚信地依赖于其团队的建议，但是孙杨本身在这些问题上经验丰富，而在面对主检测官一再努力要带走血样这点上，证据清楚表明是他自己最终决定提前结束血样采样手续的（Equally implausible is the effort by the Athlete to seek to shift blame to his support staff, he having suggested in the course of his testimony during the hearing that he was advised to act as he did by his support staff. It may well be the case that the Athlete relied in good faith on advice of his support staff, as noted above, particularly in relation to the accreditation and authorisation of the personnel who attended the Doping Control. That said, the Athlete was highly experienced in these matters, and in the face of repeated efforts by the DCO to take the completed blood samples with her, the evidence before the Panel makes clear that it was ultimately his decision to prematurely end the blood sample collection session.）。
孙杨应对自己的行为负责，而不能将责任转移给其团队，这一原则在CAS的判例（CAS2012/A/2791）中早已确立，这甚至适用于团队威胁运动员的情形（The principle that an athlete is responsible for his or her own actions, and cannot deflect responsibility to his support staff, is well-established in CAS jurisprudence. It pertains even in situations where the support staff threatens an athlete with consequences in case of disobedience with the wishes of support staff, a situation which is not the case in the matter at hand.），这原则上不能被视为强力理由，因为运动员有责任将这种威胁向国家和/或国际层级的上级机关举报（cannot, in principle, be deemed a compelling justification, since an athlete will normally be able to and should take the responsibility of denouncing such threats to a superior authority at national and/or international level）。《世界反兴奋剂规则》的制度以运动员的个人责任为基础，其中包括运动员理解反兴奋剂规则并抵制任何不当压力的责任。若运动员个人责任无系统和严格的执行，会给其团队和/或不诚实的官员以对运动员施加不当压力的机会，最终损害运动员权益并侵犯他们的自由，还存在煽动不道德运动员利用其团队或其他人来做替罪羊的风险（The anti-doping system codified by the World Anti-Doping Code is predicated on the personal responsibility of individual athletes, which encompasses the responsibility of understanding anti-doping rules and resisting any undue pressures to violate them in any manner. If this personal responsibility of athletes were not systematically and strictly enforced, it would leave room for persons in their entourage and/or dishonest officials to attempt exercising undue pressures which ultimately would harm the athletes and encroach upon their freedom, and would also risk inciting unscrupulous athletes to attempt using members of their entourage or other persons as scapegoat for under actions of their own.）。
英国反兴奋剂仲裁庭的SR/NADP/782/2017 Rugby Football Union v. McIntosh案中，一名运动员以其退出比赛为由撤回其对已经取样完成的尿样取样的同意，而最终被认定为非法干涉。本案仲裁庭认为该案与本案没有根本不同。本案中，孙杨提供了血样，但他基于仲裁庭认定为不构成强力理由的理由撤回了他已经给出的同意，且更进一步摧毁了血样外的容器，撕毁了《兴奋剂检测表》（The Panel finds further comfort in its conclusions on the consequences of the facts established in this case in the decision rendered by the British Anti-Doping Panel in the case SR/NADP/782/2017 Rugby Football Union v. McIntosh. Here, an athlete was convicted for a tampering violation because he withdrew his consent to the processing of a urine sample that he had already provided on the ground that he was retired. Contrary to the view of the Athlete in relation to that decision, the Panel does not consider that the present case is fundamentally different. Here, the Athlete had provided a blood sample and only then withdrew a consent he had already given, for reasons that the Panel has concluded are not compelling. In this case Athlete went even further, by destroying the container with the blood vessel and tearing up the Doping Control Form.）。
孙杨和他的团队已经或者本应意识到，若血样取样手续未完成即结束且缺乏强力理由会导致严重的后果。尽管如此，他和他们仍然坚持要取得对血样以便销毁。专家组指出，进行血样取样后对血检助理的资质提出质疑，而同时将完整的血检样品保留在手中是一件事；在针对后果进行长时间的交流和警告之后，采取另一种方式行事而导致其保安毁坏样品容器，从而消除了以后再化验样品的任何机会，则是另一回事。孙杨的行为完全不适当，且对此不存在理由（强力理由或非强力理由）来让他作出这种行为（The Athlete and his support staff were – or should have been - mindful that serious consequences could follow in case the blood sample collection process was prematurely ended without compelling justification. Nonetheless, he and they persisted in obtaining control of the blood samples with a view to destroying them. It is one thing, having provided a blood sample, to question the accreditation of the testing personnel while keeping intact the samples in the hands of the testing authorities while awaiting the next procedural step(s); it is quite another thing, after lengthy exchanges and warnings as to the consequences, to act in such a way that results in one of your bodyguards destroying the sample containers, with the consequence that the possibility of proceeding to test the sample is eliminated. The actions of the Athlete were wholly inappropriate. There was no justification, whether compelling or otherwise, for him to act as he did.）
因此，仲裁庭毫不犹豫地认定孙杨违反了第2.5条。
四、适当的处罚
根据《国际泳联反兴奋剂条例》的有关规定，第2.5条以及第2.3条中所规定的拒绝取样的违规行为导致禁赛4年，不得减少；而违反第2.3条的其他的未能服从取样的情况若证明不是故意的，则禁赛2年，但若是故意的，则禁赛4年。因此，违反第2.5条比违反第2.3条的处罚更为严厉。仲裁庭需要首先确定孙杨是否违反2.5条，若否的情况下才考虑是否违反了第2.3条。
根据第10.3.1条，仲裁庭认定孙杨违反了第2.5条，对其处罚没有裁量权，即禁赛4年。
孙杨援引第10.5.2条，指出其没有重大过错或过失，处罚应当减轻。但本案仲裁庭已经认定其故意，因此强制适用4年禁赛处罚，孙杨就实体问题提出的异议，以及依照比例原则禁赛期应当缩短这些主张都没有得到支持。
仲裁庭认为鉴于孙杨犯下严重违规行为的恶劣行为，4年的禁赛期并不过分。事实上，即使无主检测官的警告，孙杨作为一个多次（数百次）经历过反兴奋剂检测的人，他也一定已经意识到他撤回血样取样手续中进行合作的同意是在冒巨大的风险。在拒绝完成取样手续后，他亲自毁坏血液容器，撕毁《兴奋剂检测表》，并拒绝让主检测官将血样从他家带走（In the circumstances, the Panel concludes that a four-year period of ineligibility is not disproportionate in the light of the egregious actions of the Athlete, who has committed a serious offence. Indeed, even absent a warning from the DCO (which, however, is not the case since proper warnings were given) the Athlete, being a person experienced with anti-doping controls as he has participated in literally hundreds of them, must have realised that he was taking a huge risk by withdrawing a consent he had already given to cooperate in the blood sample collection session. Having refused to allow the sample collection process to be completed, he decided to take matters into his own hands by destroying a blood container, tearing up the Doping Control Form and refusing to let the DCO leave his house with the blood samples.）。
然而，孙杨在作证的过程中并未对他的行为表示任何悔恨，也没有表明从事后看来他本该采取不同的做法。相反，随着程序推进，他死不悔改，最终试图将本案显然的失败归咎于他人（It was striking that, in the course of his testimony, at no point did the Athlete express any regret as to his actions, or indicate that, with the benefit of hindsight, it might have been preferable for him to have acted differently. Rather, as the proceedings unfolded, he dug his heels in and, eventually, sought to blame others for the manifest failings that occurred.）。
仲裁庭注意到，在听证会期间，特别是在听证会结束时的结案陈词中，孙杨仍继续依赖与IDTM取样人员的适当认证和授权相关的法律形式主义的主张，认为这是主检测官、血检助理和尿检助理的错，依照仲裁庭的观点，他从没怀疑过自己可能反应过度（The Panel notes that during the hearing, and in particular during his final words at the end of the hearing, the Player continued to rely on formalistic legal arguments related to the proper accreditation and authorisation of IDTM’s Sample Collection Personnel. He sought to shift the blame to the DCO, the BCA and the DCA, and at no point, in the appreciation of the Panel, did he confront the possibility that he might have overreacted in his actions.）。
仲裁庭还注意到，正如案发情况那样，在听证会期间孙杨试图自己解决问题：出乎意料的是，在仲裁庭请他发表结案陈词的过程中，他请公众旁听席上一名未表明身份的人担任临时口译与他坐在一起。他似乎认为没有必要征得仲裁庭的许可，或以表明他尊重他人权威或既定程序权威的其他方式行事。孙杨是世界级运动员，有优越的运动成就，但他并不凌驾于法律或法律程序之上。规则适用于孙杨，就如适用于所有运动员一样，而他必须遵守这些规则（The Panel further noted that, in the course of the hearing, as occurred during the sample collection process on 4 September 2018, the Athlete sought to take matters into his own hands: unexpectedly, in the course of the closing statement he was invited to give by the Panel, he invited an unknown and unannounced person from the public gallery to join him at his table and act as an impromptu interpreter. He did not seem to deem it necessary to seek the permission of the Panel, or to otherwise act in a manner which suggested that he respected the authority of others, or of established procedures. The Athlete is a world-class athlete, with an impressive list of sporting achievements; he is not, however, above the law or legal process. The rules apply to him as they do to all athletes, and he is required to comply with them.）。
因此，仲裁庭认定，适用4年禁赛期。
1、二次违规
仲裁庭认为， 2014年6月，孙杨因为兴奋剂违规被处以为期3个月的禁赛期，所以本次违规构成第二次违规。《国际泳联反兴奋剂规则》第10.7.1条规定，第二次违规视同第一次违规所适用的禁赛期乘以2，且不考虑第10.6条项下的任何减免。
由于若将其视为初次违规处理，则如上节所述适用4年禁赛期，而由于第10.7.1条不允许有任何灵活性或例外，因此结果是8年禁赛期，自本仲裁裁决作出之日起计算。
仲裁庭认为，虽然8年禁赛期看起来很苛刻，但孙杨的累犯违规行为更加严重，他本应更加谨慎以避免再次违规。仲裁庭受规则原文的拘束。这些似乎是为在维护竞争者之间的公平竞争环境中产生一种凌驾性的公众利益。体育运动似乎注定了必须严格对待运动员的反兴奋剂规则违规行为，特别是那些故意违规或屡教不改的运动员。令人遗憾的是，孙杨的同时属于这两种情况。仲裁庭认定8年禁赛期对于孙杨个人权利的侵犯，对于本案的事由而言是合理的（The Panel is bound to apply the rules as they have been written. These appear to be intended to give rise to an overriding public interest in maintaining a level playing field among competitors. The sports movement appears to have decided that it must be strict with athletes in respect of anti-doping rule violations, in particular with those who intentionally commit anti-doping rule violations or are repeat offenders. Regrettably, the Athlete falls into both categories. The Panel finds that the infringement of the Athlete’s personality rights, in particular the imposition of an eight-year period of ineligibility, is justified in the matterat hand.）。
因此，仲裁庭认为，它在这一问题上没有裁量权，因此将对孙杨实行8年禁赛期。
新的《国际反兴奋剂规则》（2021版）有例外条款可使本案情况的禁赛期缩到4年以下，且适用于二次违规。但其尚未生效，因此不适用于本案。但是孙杨可依照该新版规则第27.3条，在该规则生效后可向国际泳联申请缩短其禁赛期。
2、除禁赛期之外的后果
WADA主张，孙杨自案发之日起至禁赛期起算日之内取得的所有比赛成绩均应被取消，且没收其奖牌、积分和奖品。而孙杨则主张不应对他实施任何制裁，理由是他没有违规，且即便他被认定违规，这类处罚都是不成比例的。
仲裁庭认定，8年的禁赛期虽然合理但也严厉。仲裁庭需要适用公平原则来决定是否允许取消成绩，而若公平另有要求，仲裁庭有裁量权不允许取消结果资格。
首先，根据CAS 2016/A/4481，取消成绩在某些方面可等同于禁赛期，因此，这一年半的取消成绩期间加上8年的禁赛期可能导致实施不成比例的处罚。其次，仲裁庭认为，在案发当晚不久以前和以后孙杨的兴奋剂检测结果都为阴性，没有任何证据表明孙杨可能案发之日至本仲裁裁决之日期间使用了兴奋剂。再次，国际泳联在一审时没有对孙杨依照《国际泳联反兴奋剂规则》第7.9.2条实施临时禁赛，因此，孙杨可合理推定其可以继续参加比赛并保持获得的成绩，特别是他在一审胜诉之后。
仲裁庭认为考虑规则之后正确结论仍不完全清楚，但考虑到8年禁赛期的严重性，仲裁庭认为不应取消制案发之日至裁生效之日期间的孙杨比赛结果。
五、最终结论
仲裁庭注意到本案程序中有极大的公共利益，这无疑反映了孙杨在其领域中的声誉和成功。仲裁庭以事实为依据，以法律为准绳。法治现在在体育领域具有特别重要的意义，不论运动员的背景、地位、名望或成功与否，适用于所有运动员。在体育领域适用法治要求所有人受到平等对待（The Panel has noted the considerable public interest in these proceedings, a reflection no doubt of the Athlete’s reputation and success in his chosen sport. The Panel has proceeded on the basis that its role is to establish the facts, on the basis of the record before it, and to interpret and apply the applicable rules to those facts. This is the rule of law, now of singular importance in the field of sport, and applicable to all athletes, irrespective of their background or status, their standing or success. The application of the rule of law in the domain of sport requires all to be treated equally.）。
以事实为依据，以法律为准绳，仲裁庭认定WADA胜诉，孙杨违反《国际泳联反兴奋剂规则》第2.5条，处以8年禁赛期，期限自本仲裁裁决之日起计算。撤销一审裁决。WADA的法律费用和其他费用由孙杨和国际泳联承担，孙杨和国际泳联自行承担其法律费用和其他费用。本案仲裁裁决无费用，有由WADA支付的1000瑞士法郎的办公费用。驳回孙杨的其他请求减少处罚的请求。