In late December, former professional bicyclist Lance Armstrong and United States Postal Service bicycling team owner Tailwind Sports filed individual motions to stay arbitral proceedings in a case brought by Dallas-based sports insurer SCA Promotions over bonuses paid to Armstrong following several of his Tour de France wins. The company initially sought to avoid making the payments amid numerous doping allegations made by Armstrong’s former teammates. During the proceedings, Armstrong reportedly testified that he won each of the races “fair and square.” In 2006, SCA paid Armstrong $12 million following two years of litigation and arbitration before a three-member panel.
Later, Armstrong admitted to using performance enhancing drugs while competing. In 2012, he was officially stripped of his seven Tour de France wins and banned from professional bicycling for the remainder of his lifetime. In response, SCA filed a lawsuit in Dallas County to recoup the settlement funds paid to the former cyclist. In October, two of the three arbitrators voted to reopen the 2006 case. Only the arbitrator appointed by Armstrong voted against reviewing the $12 million award. Both a jointly appointed neutral and an SCA appointed arbitrator stated the parties’ 2006 settlement was “the private equivalent of temporary ‘cease-fire.’”
What do you think? Should the arbitration panel reopen the 2006 settlement agreement?