????很多人撰文指出蘭斯?阿姆斯特朗損失的未來潛在收入，可是，很少有文章談到他喪失過去所獲收入的可能性——這些收入是他運(yùn)動(dòng)生涯的顛峰時(shí)期掙得的，據(jù)指控，當(dāng)時(shí)他已經(jīng)使用了興奮劑。顯然，體育合同中追回條款極為罕見?！敦?cái)富》雜志（Fortune）就這一話題采訪了三家“超級(jí)”體育經(jīng)紀(jì)機(jī)構(gòu)——由于話題敏感，他們不愿披露身份。采訪發(fā)現(xiàn)，三家經(jīng)紀(jì)機(jī)構(gòu)都表示，從來沒有聽說過追回條款這回事，也從來沒有有人問起這個(gè)話題，任何營銷或運(yùn)動(dòng)員合同中也從來沒有包含過這種條款。有一位經(jīng)紀(jì)人甚至表示，如果有營銷機(jī)構(gòu)希望加入此種條款，那他會(huì)“拉起客戶，揚(yáng)長而去”。

????不過，體育合同中確實(shí)包含道德條款，試圖在合同有效期間約束運(yùn)動(dòng)員的行為。根據(jù)該條款，如果某個(gè)運(yùn)動(dòng)員做出了某種出格行為，運(yùn)動(dòng)隊(duì)或營銷機(jī)構(gòu)有權(quán)撕毀合同，但并未明文規(guī)定，在合同已經(jīng)執(zhí)行完畢且相關(guān)款項(xiàng)已經(jīng)付清的情況下還能追回錢財(cái)。阿姆斯特朗之事將成為很好的“判例式案件”。2004年，阿姆斯特朗第六次贏得環(huán)法冠軍，但當(dāng)時(shí)他已經(jīng)遭遇使用興奮劑的指控，保險(xiǎn)公司SCA Promotions因此尋求暫且不向其支付500萬美元的獎(jiǎng)金。阿姆斯特朗向法院起訴該公司并勝訴。可是，如今美國反興奮劑機(jī)構(gòu)褫奪了阿姆斯特朗的頭銜，SCA卷土重來，尋求推翻2004年的判決，追回這500萬美元。

????如果SCA能夠成功追回這筆錢，其他潛在興奮劑使用者或許會(huì)警醒，不再認(rèn)為靠舞弊贏得勝利是個(gè)好主意。但從長期來看，SCA的勝利無法改變?nèi)魏问虑?，除非它促使?fàn)I銷人員和運(yùn)動(dòng)隊(duì)團(tuán)結(jié)起來，要求追回條款成為體育明星們未來一切合同中的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)條款。除非這種情況發(fā)生，使用興奮劑被抓的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)永遠(yuǎn)也抵不上運(yùn)動(dòng)員可以靠興奮劑獲得的利益，對(duì)那些職業(yè)生涯已近尾聲的運(yùn)動(dòng)員來說尤其如此。追回條款對(duì)遏制華爾街人士過于熱衷高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)操作的行為模式有沒有影響？有什么影響？現(xiàn)在回答這個(gè)問題還為時(shí)過早。不過，如果這一措施成功，那贊助企業(yè)和運(yùn)動(dòng)隊(duì)也可以借鑒，以此抑制體育界濫用興奮劑或以其他形式的舞弊現(xiàn)象。

????譯者：小宇

????Much has been written about Lance Armstrong's loss of future earnings, but not much has been said about the potential loss of his past earnings -- those that he made while he was at his prime and allegedly doped up. Apparently, clawback provisions in sport contracts are extremely rare. Three "super" sports agency interviewed by Fortune on this topic, who wished not to be identified given the sensitive nature of this topic, say that they have never heard of a clawback provision ever being asked for or given in any kind of marketing or player contract. One of the agents went so far to say that if a marketer asked for such a provision, he would, "take his client and walk out of the room."

????But sports contracts do have moral clauses which attempt to keep athletes in line while under contract. This gives the sports team or marketer the right to break a contract if an athlete acts up in some way, but most do not explicitly say they can take money back after the contract is up and paid. Armstrong will be a good test case here. In 2004, SCA Promotions sought to withhold paying a $5 million bonus to the cyclist after winning his sixth Tour following allegations of doping. Armstrong took SCA to court and won. But now that the US Anti-Doping Agency has stripped Armstrong of his titles, SCA is back and is looking to overturn the 2004 ruling and clawback that $5 million.

????If SCA is successful in clawing back its cash, it could possibly deter other would-be dopers from thinking about cheating their way to glory. But an SCA win won't change anything in the long run unless it causes marketers and sports teams to come together and require that clawback provisions be standard in all future contracts with sports stars. Until that happens, the risk of getting caught doping won't out way the gains for an athlete, especially one near the end of his or her career. It is too early to know what if any impact that clawbacks have had on curbing risk taking on Wall Street, but if it proves successful, then companies and sport teams could help curb substance abuse and cheating by following its lead.