Spor Uyuşmazlıklarında Alternatif Uyuşmazlık Çözüm Yolu: Türkiye Atletizm, Basketbol ve Voleybol Federasyonu Kararlarının İncelenmesi

Öz

Spor disiplin yargılaması, spor disiplin kurallarının ihlal edilmesi neticesinde yetkili disiplin kurulları tarafından verilen kararlarla gündeme gelen yargılama sürecidir. Her spor dalına ilişkin kuralların farklı olması nedeniyle disiplin ihlalini oluşturan eylemler ve bunlara ilişkin disiplin cezaları değişiklik gösterebilmektedir. Bu araştırmada, nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden olan doküman analizi yöntemi kullanılarak Türkiye Atletizm, Basketbol ve Voleybol Federasyonu Disiplin Kurullarının 1 Ocak 2014 ve 1 Ocak 2019 tarihleri arasında vermiş olduğu kararlar incelenmiştir. İncelenen kararlar taraf, disiplin ihlali ve disiplin cezası türleri ile Tahkim Kurulu’na itiraz edilen kararlar yönünden kategorize edilerek sonuçları itibarıyla sınıflandırılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda atlezimde en çok dopingle mücadele kural ihlalleri, baksetbolda talimatlara aykırı hareket, voleybolda ise kaba, müstehzî, küçük düşürücü hareket ve hakaret ihlallerine ilişkin disiplin yargılaması gerçekleştirildiği görülmüştür. Taraf yönünden atletizmde en çok sporcular ve antrenörler, basketbol ve voleybolda ise sporcular ve spor kulüpleri hakkında karar verilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Spor Hukuku,
• Ulusal Spor Federasyonları,
• Spor Disiplin Yargılaması,
• Tahkim Kurulu,
• Disiplin İhlali.

Alternative Dispute Resolution in Sports Disputes: A Review of Turkish Athletics, Basketball and Volleyball Federation Decisions

Öz

Sports disciplinary proceeding is the judgment process brought to the agenda with the decisions taken by the authorized disciplinary committees as a result of the violation of sports discipline rules. Since the rules of each sport are different, the actions that constitute disciplinary violations and the disciplinary penalties related to them may vary. In this research, using the document analysis method of qualitative research methods, Turkish Athletics, Basketball and Volleyball Federation decisions that the Disciplinary Committees rendered between January 1, 2014 and January 1, 2019 were examined. The decisions examined were categorized in terms of parties, types of disciplinary violations and disciplinary penalties, and decisions objected to the Arbitration Committee, and classified in terms of their results. As a result of the research, it was observed that disciplinary proceedings were carried mostly regarding anti-doping rule violations in athletics, acting against the directives in basketball, rude, obscene, humiliating behaviour and insult violations in volleyball. In terms of sides, decisions rendered mostly on athletes and coaches in athletics, and on athletes and sports clubs in basketball and volleyball.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sports law
• National Sports Federations
• Sports Disciplinary Proceeding

Kaynakça

1. Akil, Cenk (2013) “Türkiye Futbol Federasyonu Tahkim Kurulu’nun Yapısı ve Kararlarının Hukuki Niteliği”, Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, Vol.19, N.3, p.379-403.
2. Allen, Justine/Taylor, John/Dımeo, Paul/Dıxon, Sarah/Robınson, Leigh (2015) “Predicting Elite Scottish Athletes’ Attitudes Towards Doping: Examining the Contribution of Achievement Goals and Motivational Climate”, Journal of Sports Sciences, Vol.33, N.9, p.899-906.
3. Amsterdam, Jan Van/Opperhuizen, Antoon/Hartgens, Fred, (2010) “Adverse Health Effects of Anabolic-Androgenic Steroids”, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Vol.57, N.1, p.117–123.
4. Atienza-Macias, Elena (2018) “Public Health Law Perspectives: Nutritional Supplements and Doping in Sports”, International Journal of Law and Public Administration, Vol.1, N.1, p.1-7.
5. Ayanoğlu, Taner (2008) “Türkiye Futbol Federasyonu Tahkim Kurulu’nun İşlevi ve Kararlarının Niteliği”, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, Vol.74, p.43-76.
6. Blackshaw, Ian (2009) “Settling Sports Disputes by Adr: Some Major Sports Dispute Resolution Bodies Modelled on the Court of Arbitration for Sport”, Dispute Resolution International, Vol.3, N.2, p.169-184.
7. Blackshaw, Ian (2013) “Adr and Sport: Settling Disputes Through the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, and the WIPO Arbitration & Meditation Center”, Marquette Sports Law Review, Vol.24, N.1, p.1-58.
8. Carter, Paddy (2020) “New Zealand Sport's Year of Reckoning: Should Mediation be Used More in Sport-Related Disputes?”, Victoria University of Wellington Legal Research Paper, p.1-39.

9. Cassell, Catherine/Symon, Gillian, (2004) Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, l.a.d. 12.02.2021.
10. Cem, Çağrı (2012) Profesyonel Futbolcu Transfer Sözleşmesi, İstanbul, On İki Levha.
11. Donellan, Laura (2009) “Dispute Resolution in Irish Sport: The Courts as Reluctant Interlopers”, Entertainment and Sports Law Journal, Vol.14, N.1, p.1-15.
12. Dietz, Pavel/Ulrich, Rolf/Dalaker, Robert/Striegel, Heiko/Franke, Andreas G./Lieb, Klaus/Simon, Perikles (2013) “Associations Between Physical and Cognitive Doping– A Cross-Sectional Study in 2.997 Triathletes”, PLoS One, Vol.8, N.11, e78702.
13. Ekşi, Nuray (2015) Spor Tahkim Hukuku, 1. Edition, İstanbul, Beta.
14. Foster, Ken (2012) “Is There a Global Sports Law?” In: Lex Sportiva: What is Sports Law?, TMC Asser Press, p.1-18.
15. Gemalmaz, H. Burak (2019) “Applicability of Human Rights Standards in Turkish Football Arbitration: The Contribution of the European Court of Human Rights”, The International Sports Law Journal, Vol.9, N.1, p.38-58.
16. Godin, Paul Denis (2017) “Sport Mediation: Mediating High- Performance Sports Disputes”, Negotiation Journal, Vol.33, N.1, p.25-51.
17. Gündoğdu, Fatih (2019) “Türkiye Futbol Federasyonu Tahkim Kurulu Yargılamasının Adil Yargılanma Hakkı Bakımından Değerlendirilmesi”, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, Vol.140, p.141-170.
18. Hoff, David (2015) “The Significance of Social Learning Processes for Doping Use in the Elite Sport Environment: an Interview Study of AAS-Using Athletes, In Malmö, Sweden: Research Seminar Series in Sport Sciences, Malmö University, retrieved from http://idrottsforum.org/wpcoNyent/uploads/2015/02/David-Hoff_doping.pdf.
19. Koçak, Talat Emre (2007) Türkiye Futbol Federasyonu Tahkim Kurulu, Ankara, Seçkin.
20. Kushida, Yoka (2015) “How a Dispute Body Can Contribute to the Enhancement of Sport”, International Sports Law Review Pandektis, Vol.11, N.1-2, p.93-97.
21. Küçükgüngör, Erkan (2001) “Türkiye Futbol Federasyonu Tahkim Kurulu'nun Yapısı ve Tahkim Kurulu Kararlarının Niteliği”, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol.50, N.2, p.137-146.
22. Lenard, Michael (2009) “The Future of Sports Dispute Resolution”, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, Vol.10, N.1, p.173-182.
23. Lenskyj, Helen (2018) “Sport Exceptionalism and the Court of Arbitration for Sport”, Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, Vol.4, N.1, p. 5-17.
24. Lentillon-Kaestner, Vanessa/Hagger, Martin S./Hardcastle, Sarah (2012) “Health and Doping in Elite-Level Cycling”, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, Vol.22, N.5, p.596-606.
25. Li, Zhi/Qiao, Yijuan (2015) “A Study on the Application of General Principles of Law in Court of Arbitration for Sport”, International Sports Law Review Pandektis, Vol.11, N.1-2, p.229-241.
26. Mironi, Mordehai (2017) “The Promise of Mediation in Sport-Related Disputes”, The International Sports Law Journal, Vol.16, N.3-4, p.131-154.
27. Mitten, Matthew J./Opie, Hayden (2010) ““Sports Law”: İmplications for the Development of International, Comparative, and National Law and Global Dispute Resolution”, Tulane Law Review, Vol.85, N.2, p.269-322.
28. Ntoumanis, Nikos/Ng, Johan Y. Y./Barkoukis, Vasilis/Backhouse, Susan (2014) “Personal and Psychosocial Predictors of Doping Use in Physical Activity Settings: a Meta- Analysis”, Sports Medicine, Vol.44, N.11, p.1603-1624.
29. Özbek, Oğuz/Doğaner, Seçkin (2019) “Doping in Sports: Athletes’ and Coaches’ Views. International Journal of Sports, Exercise & Training Sciences, Vol.5, N.4, p.163-174.
30. Özelçi, Aytaç (2010) Türkiye Futbol Federasyonu’nun Türk Hukukundaki Yeri, Ankara, Seçkin.
31. Özen, Mustafa (2016) Futbol Disiplin Hukuku, Ankara, Adalet.
32. Pachanda, Vikrant (2012) “The Importance of Arbitration Sports the Court of Arbitration for Sport," the Emerging 'Lex Sportiva'" the Indian Perspective”, International Sports Law Review Pandektis, Vol.9 N.3-4, p. 259-267.
33. Petróczi, Andrea/Aidman, Eugene (2008) “Psychological Drivers in Doping: the Life-Cycle Model of Performance Enhancement”, Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, Vol.3, N.1., p.1-12.
34. Pitsch, Werner/Emrich, Eike (2012) “The Frequency of Doping in Elite Sport: Results of a Replication Study”, International Review for the Sociology Sport, Vol.47, N.5, p.559–580.
35. Pitsch, Werner/Emrich, Eike/Klein, Markus (2016) “Doping in Elite Sports in Germany: Results of a www Survey”, European Journal for Sport and Society, Vol.4, N.2, p.89– 102.
36. Reilly, Loise (2013) “Introduction to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) & the role of National Courts in International Sports Disputes, and Symposium”, Journal of Dispute Resolution, N.1-5, p.63-81.
37. Rigozzi, Antonio/Besson, Sébastien/Mcauliffe, William (2016) “International Sports Arbitration”, European, Middle Eastern and African Arbitration Review, p.1-7.
38. Sandu, Ciprian (2015) “ADR in Sport Disputes: Should Mediation be Used over Arbitration?”, Conflict Studies Quarterly, Vol.11, p.57-68.
39. Schroter, Hannes/Studzınski, Beatrix/Dietz, Pavel/Ulrich, Rolf/Striegel, Heiko/Simon,f
40. Striegel, Heiko/Simon, Perikles/Frisch, Steffan (2006) “Anabolic Ergogenic Substance Users in Fitness-Sports: a Distinct Group Supported by the Health Care System”, Drug and Alcohol Dependence, Vol.81, N.1, p.11-19.
41. Striegel, Heiko/Ulrich, Rolf/Simon, Perikles (2010) “Randomized Response Estimates for Doping and Illicit Drug Use in Elite Athletes”, Drug and Alcohol Dependence, Vol.106, N.2-3, p.230–232.
42. Tayade, M. C./Latri, R. G. (2017) “Doping in Sports: Physiology Review”, Medworld –Asia International Publishers, Vol.2, N.3, p.5-10.
43. Topuz, Gökçen (2017) “Thoughts on the Jurisdiction of the Turkish Football Federation Dispute Resolution Board”, Dokuz Eylul Universitesi Hukuk Fakultesi Dergisi, Vol.19, p.1901-1926.
44. Ulrich, Rolf/Pope, Harrison, G./Cleret, Lea/Petroczi, Andrea/Nepusz, Tamas/Schaffer, Jay/KanayaMa, Gen/Comstock, R. Dawn/Simon, Perikles (2018) “Doping in Two Elite Athletics Competitions Assessed by Randomized-Response Surveys”, Sports Medicine, Vol.48, N.1, p.211-219.
45. Van Kleef, Rosmarijn, (2014) “The Legal Status of Disciplinary Regulations in Sport”, The International Sports Law Journal, Vol.14, N.1, p.24-45.
46. Wagner, Ulrik (2011) “Towards the Construction of the World Anti-Doping Agency: Analyzing the Approaches of FIFA and the IAAF to Doping in Sport”, European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol.11, N.5, p.445-470.
47. Yıldırım, Ali/Şimşek, Hasan (2008) Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri, 6. Edition, Ankara, Seçkin.