DALLAS (CN) - Lance Armstrong asked a Texas state judge to toss a lawsuit from a Dallas insurer that demands $12 million in bonuses Armstrong got for winning Tours de France.
SCA Promotions sued Armstrong, his agent Bill Stapleton and his management company Tailwind Sports in Dallas County Court in February.
Armstrong and Tailwind had sued SCA in 2004 after it refused to pay a $5 million bonus for winning the Tour in 2003 because of doping suspicions.
Armstrong took SCA to arbitration in 2005 and they settled in 2006, with Armstrong paid an arbitration award.
SCA demanded the money back after the Union Cycliste International stripped Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles and banned him from the sport for life.
The UCI acted after the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency released a "reasoned decision" in 2012, accusing Armstrong of running the most sophisticated doping program in sports history.
Armstrong admitted he used illegal drugs in a January interview with Oprah Winfrey this year: contradicting denials he made under oath during depositions for his lawsuit against SCA.
"By now, everyone knows that Lance Armstrong perpetuated what may well be the most outrageous, cold-hearted and elaborate lie in the history of sports," SCA said in its February complaint this year. "While he lied to everyone, Lance Armstrong lied to SCA in shocking fashion: while testifying under oath in a legal proceeding."
Armstrong et al. filed an answer to the new lawsuit on Friday. They claim SCA's claims are barred because it made a voluntary payment under the settlement agreement. They also say the claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
In an accompanying motion to dismiss, Armstrong claims SCA has not pleaded a cause of action that would allow the arbitration award or settlement agreement to be vacated "as procured by fraud."
"SCA is barred by the settlement agreement from challenging, appealing, or attempting to set aside the award," the motion states. "Thus, SCA's causes of action seeking to do so are all barred as a matter of law. Further, even if SCA were not barred by the settlement agreement, an arbitration award has the same effect as a final judgment from a court of last resort. Grounds for judicial review are 'extraordinarily narrow.'"
Armstrong claims that under Texas common law, an arbitration award is final unless it can be shown that the arbitrator was guilty of fraud, misconduct or a gross mistake that would imply bad faith or failure to exercise good judgment.
"SCA alleges no such conduct by the arbitrators in this case," the motion states.
The defendants also disagree with SCA's request for Armstrong to be held in contempt and sanctioned for giving false testimony during depositions.
"Again, SCA fails to mention that it voluntarily settled the matter expressly acknowledging that it was in no way relying on anything Armstrong ever testified about or said," the motion states. "Not surprisingly, SCA asks for sanctions in an amount equal to the prize money SCA paid out in the arbitration, plus the attorney fees SCA expended in the arbitration."