人気ブログランキング | 話題のタグを見る
誤訳? 裁定書原文
Jが裁定文誤訳?我那覇問題まだゴタゴタ | エキサイトニュース
Jリーグの公式HPにもPDFファイルがあるが、関係する46ー48項のみ掲載。
打ち込みながらざっと眺めた印象では、Jリーグは「誤訳」はしていないのではないか。
問題の47項は、「この事件の具体的な細かい状況を鑑みれば我那覇の受けた行為が、2007年のWADAのコードに照らして『正当な医療行為であったことを認容することについては、そういう意向になることもあるかもしれないところ』だが、当時Jリーグは処分に関連したこのコードを採用していなかったことを指摘する。」といっている。「仮に正統でなかったとしても、コードを採用していなかったのだから罰することは出来ない」というなら論理的にはすっきりするが、今ひとつ分かりにくい文章ではある。
「(我那覇が受けた点滴が)正当な医療行為かどうか明らかにならなかった」という説明もその通りで、この記事の「確かに47項だけを見ても、前後の文章や結論部分となる48項からも、CASは正当な医療行為でドーピングではないと断じており、Jリーグ側の解釈は苦しいと言わざるを得ない。」という記述の方が明らかに誤訳である。
しかし、この裁定書では、ビタミン剤の点滴という行為が正当な医療行為か否かを決定するのに充分なアクションをとってこなかった(The J League had not taken adequate action to specify the detailed conditions, both substantial and procedural, to determine what is legitimate medical treatment. )と指摘しており、正当な医療行為とは断定されなかったから制裁金を返却しないというのは不当だと思われる。

追記)
公式HPの参考訳を見たが、Jリーグの翻訳に特に問題はないように思われる。弁護団がどの箇所を誤訳と言っているのか分からないし、話は正統な医療行為かドーピング違反かというような単純な話ではなくいろいろこみいっているのだが、大筋でJリーグの解釈は間違っていない。
CASが問題の静脈注射が正当な医療行為だったか否かを断定しなかったというのは下の一文を見ても明らかだ。
there was and still is, on the evidence divided medical views on the necessity for an intravenous infusion in the circumstances of this case.
本件事情の下において静脈内注入の必要性についての相異なった医学的見解が証拠上存在していたのであり、且つ、今でも存在している。
逆にそれが「正統な医療行為であった」という文言は原文のどこにもない。
我那覇選手になんの落ち度も無かったという点についてはJリーグ側も認めているし議論の余地は無い。それについてJリーグが謝罪するのは当然だと思うし、一方で川崎Fへの制裁金を返還しないという行動には疑問を持つ。しかし、CASの裁定書の解釈に関するかぎりJリーグは正しいと思う。



Was this an intravenous infusion which was not legitimate medical treatment?

46. As mentioned above, whilst the opinion of the treating doctor carries much weight it is not conclusive of this issue. Nor is it conclusive to say that that opinion has the support of another medical expert such as Dr.Onishi. We note that contrary opinions have been expressed by Dr. Aoki and Dr. Lefor. Had the alleged offence occurred in 2008 Dr.Goto and Mr. Ganaha would be required to seek a retroactive approval of a therapeutic use exemption from a body of independent medical experts who would conduct a medical re-assessment of the treatment.

47. Whilst the Panel might be minded to accept that in all the particular circumstances of this case, the intravenous infusion was legitimate medical treatment for Mr. Ganaha within the meaning of the 2007 WADA Code the Panel notes that at the time the J League had not adopted those provisions of the WADA Code which related to sanctions.

48. The Anti-Doping Regulations of the J League which were in force at the time of the infusion and which were reproduced as Exhibit 2.2 in the proceedings, provide that the Anti-Doping Special Committee under Article 5.1,"shall be entitled ... to impose sanctions upon players ..."(underlining added by the Panel). Article 5.2 then gives examples of the types of sanctions which are referred to. The Panel has considered the proper construction of this regulation and notes that under the wording of the clause, the Committee is "entitled" to impose a sanction. There is no obligation or requirement to impose a penalty. there is an entitlement to impose a penalty but there is no mandatory obligation that a penalty be imposed for every infraction. In the present case after a careful evaluation of the evidence and the competing submissions of the parties and hearing the witnesses, the Panel has reached the conclusion that there is no need to decide if there has been a violation because the panel is satisfied that it is not a case where any sanction should be imposed on Mr. Ganaha. His conduct is not deserving of any sanction. The phrase used in the applicable section of the WADA Code was unclear and the provision has since been revised. The explanation given by Dr. Aoki at the meeting in January 2007 was not sufficiently clear. The J League had not taken adequate action to specify the detailed conditions, both substantial and procedural, to determine what is legitimate medical treatment. there was and still is, on the evidence divided medical views on the necessity for an intravenous infusion in the circumstances of this case. Mr. Ganaha had no capacity to evaluate the professional judgment of the treating medical practitioner. Mr. Ganaha had no ability to check the medical recording and reporting by the treating medical practitioner. If the medical recording and reporting had been more complete and not deficient in the respects asserted by Dr. Aoki, Mr. Ganaha may not have been charged with an infraction of the J League Anti-Doping regulations. The Panel is of the view that Mr. Ganaha's conduct is not deserving of any sanction and the panel does not need to reach a conclusion on whether Mr. Ganaha committed an anti-doping violation by using or applying a prohibited method or not. Even if the Panel were to reach a conclusion that Mr. Ganaha had committed an anti-doping violation by using a prohibited method he should not be sanctioned as he bears no fault. After considering the unique facts and circumstances of this case, the Panel has reached the conclusion that Mr. Ganaha acted totally without fault. The Appeal is upheld and the decision with respect to Mr. Ganaha is set aside and the relief requested by the Appellant is hereby granted.
by tyogonou | 2008-05-29 12:54 | スポーツ
<< 食べ残しはお持ち帰りで <クラスター爆弾>全面禁止案に... >>