Lance Armstrong didn't need to dope

Lance Armstrong Didn’t Need The Dope, Says Doctor

Disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong didn’t even need to dope, according to the athlete’s also-disgraced former doctor Michele Ferrari.

Armstrong said during last week’s interview with Oprah Winfrey that winning seven Tour de France titles would have been impossible without doping, but the athlete’s former doctor disagrees, reports Fox Sports. The Italian doctor countered this assumption on his website Thursday, writing, ”I think Lance is wrong,” and arguing that Armstrong was talented enough to succeed without illegal performance enhancing drugs.

Describing the effects of testosterone, EPO and blood transfusions, Ferrari says that Armstrong would have only had a “placebo effect” if he had taken the amounts described by his former teammates. He adds ”Armstrong would have achieved the same level of performance without resorting to doping, also thanks to his talent which was far superior to the rivals of his era.”

Ferrari has also been banned for life from the sport.

If you thought losing his titles amounted to rock bottom for Lance Armstrong, you’d be wrong. The LA Times reports that Armstrong is still experiencing some of the worst fallout from the doping scandal following his interview with Oprah Winfrey last week.

Currently, Armstrong’s memoir, It’s Not About The Bike, is the subject of a class-action lawsuit filed in California on behalf of unhappy readers. The tome, published in 2000, is accused of “fraud and false advertising.” The suit says: “‘Throughout the book, Defendant Armstrong repeatedly denies that he ever used banned substances before or during his professional cycling career.”

What do you think? Could Lance Armstrong still have won his seven Tour titles without resorting to dope?