語言學習不僅僅是語言本身的事，不僅僅是語言形式，還涉及到語言學習的環境和社會，內容包羅萬象，因為語言學習的形式和內容是密切相關的。作為外語的英語學習不僅如此，而且由於其非母語特性，英語學習涉及的形式和內容就更加廣泛和複雜。法律英語就是這種英語學習的廣泛和複雜的形式和內容之一。法律英語除了其內容具有很強的專業性和學術性之外，其語言形式一般說來也與普通英語有很大的不同，這一點主要體現在詞彙和術語以及句式句型方面。對於英語學習者和愛好者來說，法律英語是必不可少的也是非常重要的學習內容。因此，熟悉乃至熟練法律英語對於英語語言學習和應用，英語知識和法律知識的瞭解和理解都具有非常重要的意義。學中用，用中學，學用結合是英語學習的有效方法。閱讀真實語料是必不可少的學習和應用活動。關於法律方面的英語新聞稿、文章和裁決和判決書等都是可以選取的真實語料，對於大幅提高英語水平和能力有極大的促進作用。下面選取體育仲裁法院（the Court of Arbitration for Sport -- CAS）最新發布的關於中國游泳運動員孫楊興奮劑違規上訴案裁決新聞稿作為法律英語學習的樣本，為興趣的英語學習者和愛好者提供法律英語詞彙和術語釋義、難句解析和漢語譯文及簡要說明等方面的參考。為便於讀者進行整體閱讀和理解，首先安排原文和譯文，然後順序安排術語釋義、難句解析和翻譯說明。
一、原文與譯文
SUN YANG IS FOUND GUILTY OF A DOPING OFFENSE AND SANCTIONED WITH AN 8-YEAR PERIOD OF INELIGIBILITY
孫楊被判定興奮劑違規並被處以取消資格8年處罰
Lausanne, 28 February 2020 -The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has upheld the appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against the Chinese swimmer Sun Yang and the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA). As a consequence, Sun Yang (the Athlete) is sanctioned with an eight-year period of ineligibility, starting on the date of the CAS award.
洛桑，2020年2月28日 — 體育仲裁法院（CAS）支持世界反興奮劑機構（WADA）對中國游泳運動員孫楊和國際游泳聯合會（FINA）提起的上訴。因此，孫楊（運動員）被裁定取消資格8年，自CAS裁決之日起實行。
Following a conflictual anti-doping test at the residence of Sun Yang in September 2018 which resulted in the testing not being completed, the matter was initially referred to the FINA Doping Panel (FINA DP) which found that the International Standard for Testing and Investigations (ISTI), the protocol adopted by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) for the conduct of doping controls, had not been properly followed. Therefore, the FINA DP invalidated the sample collection. As a consequence, the FINA DP determined that the athlete had not committed an anti-doping rule violation.
繼2018年9月於孫楊住處進行的導致檢測未能完成的衝突性反興奮劑檢測之後，該事件最初提交給國際泳聯興奮劑仲裁組（FINA DP），該仲裁組認定《國際檢測和調查標準》（ISTI），即世界反興奮劑機構（WADA）正式通過的實施興奮劑控制的協議，沒有得到正確遵守。所以，FINA DP宣佈樣本採集無效。因此，FINA DP確定該運動員沒有觸犯反興奮劑規則。
WADA filed an appeal at CAS against that decision, asserting that Sun Yang had voluntarily refused to submit to sample collection and requesting that a period of ineligibility between a minimum 2 years and maximum 8 years be imposed on him.
WADA向CAS提出上訴反對該決定，主張孫楊系主動拒絕配合樣品採集，並要求對他處以取消資格最少2年至最高8年處罰。
The arbitration on appeal was referred to a panel of CAS arbitrators, composed of Judge Franco Frattini (Italy), President, Mr Romano F. Subiotto QC (Belgium/UK) and Prof. Philippe Sands QC (UK), which held a hearing on 15 November 2019. Further to the parties’ request, the hearing was conducted in public.
該上訴仲裁提交給了CAS仲裁組，仲裁組由佛朗哥·弗拉蒂尼法官（意大利），庭長、羅曼諾·蘇比奧托先生（比利時/英國）和菲利普·桑德斯教授，王室法律顧問（英國）組成，於2019年11月15日舉行了聽證會。鑑於各方要求，聽證會公開進行。
The CAS Panel unanimously determined, to its comfortable satisfaction, that the Athlete violated Article 2.5 FINA DC (Tampering with any part of Doping Control). In particular, the Panel found that the personnel in charge of the doping control complied with all applicable requirements as set out in the ISTI. More specifically, the Athlete failed to establish that he had a compelling justification to destroy his sample collection containers and forego the doping control when, in his opinion, the collection protocol was not in compliance with the ISTI. As the Panel noted, it is one thing, having provided a blood sample, to question the accreditation of the testing personnel while keeping the intact samples in the possession of the testing authorities; it is quite another thing, after lengthy exchanges and warnings as to the consequences, to act in such a way that results in destroying the sample containers, thereby eliminating any chance of testing the sample at a later stage.
CAS仲裁組依據足夠充分原則，一致決定，該運動員違反了FINA DC第2.5條（篡改興奮劑控制的任何部分）。特別是，仲裁組認定，負責興奮劑控制的人員遵守了《國際檢測和調查標準》規定的所有適用要求。更為具體的是，該運動員在其認為採集協議不符合ISTI時未能證明其有令人信服的理由去破壞樣品採集容器，並放棄興奮劑控制。正如仲裁組指出，提供血液樣本之後再將完好的樣品交給檢測機構持有並同時對檢測人員的資格認證提出質疑是一回事；經過長時間的交流和後果警告之後以導致破壞樣品容器這樣一種方式採取行動，從而消除其後階段檢測樣品的任何機會完全是另一回事。
Considering that, in June 2014, the Athlete was found guilty of a first anti-doping rule violation (ADRV), the Panel concluded that, in accordance with Article 10.7.1 FINA DC, an eight-year period of ineligibility, starting on the date of the CAS award, has to be imposed on the Athlete for this second ADRV.
鑑於該運動員2014年6月被裁定第一次觸犯反興奮劑規則（ADRV），仲裁組最終裁定，根據第FINA DC第10.7.1條，從CAS裁決之日起，對該運動員因該第二次觸犯ADRV（反興奮劑規則）實施為期8年的取消資格處罰。
Considering 1) that FINA refrained from seeking the imposition of a provisional suspension on the Athlete when charging him with an anti-doping rule violation, 2) that doping tests performed on the Athlete shortly before and after the aborted doping control in September 2018 were negative, and 3) that in the absence of any evidence that the Athlete may have engaged in doping activity since 4 September 2018, including on the occasion of the FINA World Championships in Gwangju, South Korea in July 2019, the results achieved by the Athlete in the period prior to the CAS award being issued should not be disqualified.
鑑於1）FINA在指控該運動員觸犯反興奮劑規則時避免尋求對其實行臨時停賽，2）2018年9月興奮劑檢查中止前後對該運動員進行的興奮劑檢測呈陰性，3）沒有任何證據表明該運動員自2018年9月4日以來可能從事過興奮劑活動，包括2019年7月韓國光州FINA世界錦標賽期間，該運動員在CAS裁決發佈之前的時期內取得的成績不應予以取消。
The Arbitral Award will be published on the CAS website in a few days, unless the parties agree that it should remain confidential.
本仲裁裁決將於幾天後在CAS網站上發佈，除非各方同意本裁決應予保密。
二、術語釋義：
guilty：犯罪的，違規的，過失的
dope：服用興奮劑
arbitration：仲裁，裁決
offense：違法行為，犯罪
uphold：支持，維持
file：提起（訴訟）
fédération：（法語）聯合會，協會
internationale：（法語）國際
consequence：結果，後果
as a consequence：因此
athlete：運動員
sanction：制裁，懲罰，處罰
ineligibility：無資格，不合格
award：裁決，判決
conflictual：衝突（性）的
residence：住所，住處
complete：完成
initially：最初，起初
refer to：提交給
panel：組，（專門）小組
protocol：協議
conduct：實施，執行
properly：正確地
invalidate：使…無效/作廢
commit：觸犯，犯錯，犯罪
violation：違反，違規，違法
appeal：上訴
assert：主張，聲稱，斷定
voluntarily：主動地，自願地
submit：服從，順從
minimum：最低，最少
maximum：最高，最大
impose：處以，判處
arbitrator：仲裁員
compose：組成，構成
QC：王室法律顧問（Queen’s Counsel）
hearing：聽證會
further to：考慮到，鑑於
unanimously：一致
comfortable：足夠的
satisfaction：充分，滿足
violate：違反，違規，違法
article：條款
tamper：篡改，干擾
personnel：人員
comply：遵守，服從，順從，符合
applicable：適用的
set out：制定，安排
specifically：特別地，具體地
establish：證明
compelling：令人信服的，強有力的
justification：理由
destroy：破壞，銷燬
sample：樣本
collection：採集
container：容器
forego：放棄
compliance：遵守，服從，順從，符合
note：指出
accreditation：認可。認證
intact：完整的，完好的
possession：擁有，佔有
thereby：從而，由此
eliminate：消除
considering：鑑於，考慮到
conclude：做/得出結論
accordance：根據，依據，符合，
refrain：避免
imposition：處罰，
provisional：臨時的
suspension：暫停，中止
charge：指控
perform：進行，執行
abort：中止
negative：陰性的
absence：缺失
evidence：證據
engage：從事
occasion：場景，場合
prior：之前
issue：發佈，發表
disqualify：取消資格
confidential：保密的
三、難句解析：
1. Following a conflictual anti-doping test at the residence of Sun Yang in September 2018 which resulted in the testing not being completed, the matter was initially referred to the FINA Doping Panel (FINA DP) which found that the International Standard for Testing and Investigations (ISTI), the protocol adopted by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) for the conduct of doping controls, had not been properly followed.
—— 句子結構簡化如下：
Following … which resulted …, the matter was … referred … which found that the International Standard for Testing and Investigations (ISTI), the protocol …, had not been properly followed.
—— Following a conflictual anti-doping test at the residence of Sun Yang in September 2018 —— 介詞短語作狀語，表示時間順序。
—— which resulted in the testing not being completed —— 定語從句修飾test，其中not being completed是否定被動態形式的賓語補足語。
—— the matter was initially referred to the FINA Doping Panel (FINA DP) —— 主句主謂語。
—— which found —— 定語從句，修飾the FINA Doping Panel (FINA DP)。
—— that the International Standard for Testing and Investigations (ISTI), the protocol adopted by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) for the conduct of doping controls, had not been properly followed —— 賓語從句，主謂語由同位語分隔， the protocol…是同位語修飾從句主語，adopted by…是過去分詞定語作定語修飾protocol。
2. WADA filed an appeal at CAS against that decision, asserting that Sun Yang had voluntarily refused to submit to sample collection and requesting that a period of ineligibility between a minimum 2 years and maximum 8 years be imposed on him.
—— 本段為一句話段落，句子結構簡化如下：
WADA filed…, asserting that Sun Yang had voluntarily refused… and requesting that a period… be imposed….
—— WADA filed an appeal at CAS against that decision —— 主句，其中WADA filed an appeal是主謂賓語，at CAS against that decision 是兩個介詞短語作狀語。
—— asserting that Sun Yang had … refused … and requesting that a period … be imposed on him —— 兩個並列現在分詞作狀語，同時各自含有一個賓語從句，第二個現在分詞requesting所接賓語從句需要採用虛擬語氣形式，既助動詞為原型be。
3. The arbitration on appeal was referred to a panel of CAS arbitrators, composed of Judge Franco Frattini (Italy), President, Mr Romano F. Subiotto QC (Belgium/UK) and Prof. Philippe Sands QC (UK), which held a hearing on 15 November 2019.
—— 句子結構簡化如下：
The arbitration … was referred to a panel of CAS arbitrators, composed …, which held a hearing …。
—— 本句中，panel含有三個疊加後置修飾成分，分別是介詞短語of CAS arbitrators，過去分詞短語composed…和which held a hearing…。
4. As the Panel noted, it is one thing, having provided a blood sample, to question the accreditation of the testing personnel while keeping the intact samples in the possession of the testing authorities; it is quite another thing, after lengthy exchanges and warnings as to the consequences, to act in such a way that results in destroying the sample containers, thereby eliminating any chance of testing the sample at a later stage.
—— 句子結構計劃如下：
As the Panel noted, it is one thing, …, to question …; it is quite another thing, …, to act in such a way that results …, thereby eliminating ….
—— As the Panel noted —— 狀語從句，as既作連接詞又表示正如/正像的意義。
—— it is one thing, …, to question…; it is quite another thing, to act… —— 利用非語言手段標點符號形成並列主句，兩個並列句子都是形式主語結構，邏輯主語分別是兩個動詞不定式。
—— having provided a blood sample —— 完成時態現在分詞作獨立成分，根據上下文其邏輯主語應該理解為the Athlete。
—— while keeping the intact samples in the possession of the testing authorities —— 連接詞接現在分詞作邏輯主語的狀語，可看作是while引導的狀語從句的簡化形式。
—— that results in destroying the sample containers —— such… that 句式作形式主語的狀語。
—— thereby eliminating any chance of testing the sample at a later stage —— 現在分詞短語作狀語，與賓語從句的主語構成邏輯主謂關係。
5. Considering that, in June 2014, the Athlete was found guilty of a first anti-doping rule violation (ADRV), the Panel concluded that, in accordance with Article 10.7.1 FINA DC, an eight-year period of ineligibility, starting on the date of the CAS award, has to be imposed on the Athlete for this second ADRV.
—— 本句為一句話段落，句子結構簡化如下：
Considering that, …, the Athlete was found …, the Panel concluded that, …, an eight-year period of ineligibility, …, has to be imposed ….
—— Considering that, in June 2014, the Athlete was found guilty of a first anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) —— 介詞接賓語從句，其中the Athlete was found guilty是從句主謂語，of a first anti-doping rule violation (ADRV)是介詞短語狀語表示原因。
—— the Panel concluded that … —— 主句主謂賓語，賓語是從句。
—— in accordance with Article 10.7.1 FINA DC和 starting on the date of the CAS award都是 狀語，前後分置，有助於形成句子平衡。
—— an eight-year period of ineligibility, …, has to be imposed on the Athlete for this second ADRV —— 賓語從句，其中an eight-year period是主語，has to be imposed是謂語，動詞不定式採用被動態形式。
6. Considering 1) that FINA refrained from seeking the imposition of a provisional suspension on the Athlete when charging him with an anti-doping rule violation, 2) that doping tests performed on the Athlete shortly before and after the aborted doping control in September 2018 were negative, and 3) that in the absence of any evidence that the Athlete may have engaged in doping activity since 4 September 2018, including on the occasion of the FINA World Championships in Gwangju, South Korea in July 2019, the results achieved by the Athlete in the period prior to the CAS award being issued should not be disqualified.
—— 本句為一句話段落，句子結構簡化如下：
Considering 1) that FINA refrained…, 2) that doping tests … were negative, and 3) that …, …, the results … should not be disqualified.
—— 介詞引導三個數字表示的並列賓語，1) that FINA refrained…, 2) that doping tests … were negative, and 3) that …，充當狀語。
—— 1) that FINA refrained from seeking the imposition of a provisional suspension on the Athlete when charging him with an anti-doping rule violation —— 介詞considering的第一個賓語，that引導賓語從句，其中FINA是主語，refrained是謂語，from … 是介詞短狀語，seeking … 動名詞作介詞from的賓語，後接賓語the imposition of a provisional suspension on the Athlete，when charging him with an anti-doping rule violation是連接詞引導現在分詞短語作狀語，與FINA構成邏輯主謂結構，可看作是when FINA charged … 的簡化形式。
—— 2) that doping tests performed on the Athlete shortly before and after the aborted doping control in September 2018 were negative —— 介詞considering的第二個賓語，that引導賓語從句，其中doping tests是動名詞短語作主語，performed on the Athlete shortly before and after the aborted doping control in September 2018 是過去分詞短語作定語修飾tests，並將主謂語分隔，were negative是系表結構謂語。
—— 3) that in the absence of any evidence that the Athlete may have engaged in doping activity since 4 September 2018, including on the occasion of the FINA World Championships in Gwangju, South Korea in July 2019 —— 介詞considering的第三個賓語，按照並列結構的一般規則，三個賓語的結構應該是一致的，但在作為第三個並列的賓語中並沒有出現與前兩個賓語同樣的結構，即賓語從句，因為此處作為賓語從句的主謂語是缺失的，因此應該是語法錯誤，分析如下：that作為連接詞應該引導賓語從句，但其後的成分沒有出現主語和謂語，in the absence of any evidence是介詞短語，應該作狀語，that the Athlete may have engaged in doping activity since 4 September 2018, including on the occasion of the FINA World Championships in Gwangju, South Korea in July 2019是同位語從句修飾evidence，其中the Athlete是主語，may have engaged是情態助動詞接完成時態表示虛擬語氣，in doping activity since 4 September 2018是介詞短語作狀語修飾同位語的謂語，including on the occasion of the FINA World Championships in Gwangju, South Korea in July 2019是介詞短語作狀語。
—— the results achieved by the Athlete in the period prior to the CAS award being issued should not be disqualified —— 主句，the results是主語，achieved by the Athlete in the period prior to the CAS award being issued是過去分詞短語作定語修飾results，其中prior to是形容詞介詞結構，the CAS award是介詞to的賓語，being issued是被動語態現在分詞作賓語補足語，should not be disqualified是主句謂語。
四、翻譯說明：
1. offense譯為違規，如果譯為犯罪可能涉及刑事處罰，可能使漢語表述不夠準確。
2. ineligibility譯為取消資格，該詞原意為無資格或不合格，指廣泛意義上的資格缺失，網絡上譯為禁賽過於直接或狹窄，不甚符合原意。
3. the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)譯為體育仲裁法院，網絡通譯為國際體育仲裁法庭不夠準確，原因有二，一是其英文名稱沒有如international等表示國際的詞彙，二是法庭相比而言屬於法院的子屬機構。
4. uphold譯為支持，因為國際游泳聯合會興奮劑仲裁組關於孫楊案的裁決是世界反興奮劑機構敗訴，此次為上訴勝訴。
5. panel譯為組，其本意為承擔特別或專門任務的數量偏少的組成人員，譯為委員會或庭不盡符合原意和實際，譯為小組或組比較適合原意和漢語表達習慣。
6. following譯為繼…之後。
7. commit譯為觸犯符合原文意義，也比較符合漢語表達習慣，如果譯成違反反興奮劑規則似乎顯得有些拗口。
8. the Athlete譯為該運動員，此處定冠詞所指明確，athlete首字母應該大寫，漢語如此翻譯既明確表示所指而且正式。
9. submit譯為配合，如果使用服從或順從則不盡符合漢語的語境。
10. impose譯為處以…處罰，比較符合漢語的法律術語表達方式。
11. to its comfortable satisfaction譯為依據足夠充分原則，to表示依據或根據的意思，its係指代panel，comfortable表示足夠的意思，satisfaction表示滿足或充分的意思，如此翻譯與原文對比增加了名詞“原則”，這樣既可以最大程度保持原文意義又比較符合漢語的法律術語表述方式。comfortable satisfaction是法律英語術語表示既達到刑法意義上的排除一切合理懷疑，又做到蓋然性權衡，即證據達到足夠充分的程度既可以予以採信。
12. considering應該看作是介詞，譯為鑑於，如果看作是現在分詞則因邏輯主謂關係難以明確而不能確定其邏輯主語。
13. found guilty譯為被裁定觸犯，因為本案為仲裁性質，而非刑事判決。
14. when charging … 譯文狀語位置提前符合漢語表達習慣。
15. performed on the Athlete … 原文被動態譯為主動態符合漢語表達習慣。
16. in the absence of any evidence原文是狀語，但由於缺失主謂語，譯成否定形式的漢語主謂語結構可以比較準確完整表達原意。
閱讀更多 老韓說英語 的文章
