■

　翻訳する時間がないので、下の記事で言及されている原文を引用する。アンダーラインは原文のまま。太字は藤吉による。もとの全文は裁定を下した機関のサイトのこちらのページからダウンロードできる。

47. Whilst the Panel might be minded to accept that in all the particular circumstances of this case, theintravenous infusion was a legitimate medical treatment for Mr. Ganaha within the meaning of the 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 he time of the infusion and which were reproduced as Exhibit 2.2 in the proceedings, provide that the Anti-Doping Special Committee uner 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 J League had not taken adequate action to specify the detailed conditions, both substantial and procedural, to determine waht 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.