A Texas judge has rejected Lance Armstrong’s request to stop an arbitration panel from reviewing $12 million in bonuses the cyclist was paid before admitting he used performance-enhancing drugs.
Judge Tonya Parker declined to stop the panel from considering whether Dallas-based SCA Promotions should be repaid the bonuses it awarded Armstrong for three of his seven Tour de France victories.
Jeff Tillotson, an attorney for SCA Promotions, said the panel will meet March 17 to discuss his request that Armstrong forfeit prize money from those races and penalize him for committing perjury.
SCA Promotions filed one of several lawsuits against Armstrong after he admitted to doping. He has been stripped of all seven victories and received a lifetime ban from the sport.
SCA and Armstrong reached a 2006 settlement in arbitration after allegations surfaced that Armstrong was using banned drugs to win races. Armstrong vehemently denied the allegations during arbitration, as he did for more than a decade.
After Armstrong acknowledged last year that he had been lying, SCA went to court and then back to the original three-member panel. The panel voted 2-1 in October to review the case.
SCA’s lawsuit quotes Armstrong’s repeated denials in sworn testimony. Tillotson argued last week that Armstrong “lied at every step of the way,” making it necessary for the panel to review the settlement.
Armstrong’s attorneys argued before Parker last week that the panel no longer had authority to review the settlement once it was signed – even if SCA could demonstrate that Armstrong lied under oath.
Armstrong’s longtime attorney, Tim Herman, declined comment.
Associated Press writer Jim Vertuno in Austin, Texas, contributed to this report.
- SCA Promotions, Armstrong Back in Court over Insured Bonuses
- Dallas-Based Prize Insurer Sues Lance Armstrong for $12M
- Lance Armstrong Settles $3M Insurance Lawsuit
- Lance Armstrong Seeks Dismissal of False Claims Lawsuit
- Judge Orders Armstrong to Answer Doping Questions in Insurer Case
- Armstrong Loses Key Ruling in Bonus Money Fight with Insurer