Quote:
Originally Posted by raysachs
Agreed. There's no way to create a perfectly level playing field. But I think that approach would have the dual appeal of being basically easy and fair to test for, SHOULD avoid the problem of riders overriding it and dying in their sleep, and it would just make the whole thing more of a race and less of a constant cops and robbers thing. It would be a known standard with a pretty reasonable rationale, and should be easy to enforce. How "Mr. 60%", Bjarne Riis, managed to survive long enough to win the '96 Tour and go on to a pretty decent career as a Director Sportif (head coach) is kind of miraculous.
There are no perfect options, but I personally think this one might be the least bad...
-Ray
|
The 50% rule is where they started but it went out in 2008 with the advent of the blood passport, which allows much closer tracking of blood values, and allows for some wiggle in terms of what constitutes a violation, it's not a hard 50% anymore. I would say it's had the same effect of limiting crazy Riis-style doping, protecting the riders, and allowing them to detect blood doping in some cases.
It's not perfect, it's beatable, but it's better than it has been. Problem appears to be that of course riders have moved on to new techniques.
06-19-2020, 10:54 AM
