You are reading a single comment by @Jimmy_Fingers and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
F1 is not a good example to use, it's become a joke. And the Geneva Convention might ban weapons, but people out there are still going to use them, like poison gas for example.
Jimmy_Fingers-
FI may be a joke, but it's actually a very good example of a sport where what's permitted and what isn't can have a massive effect either way.
I don't get your point about people still using poison gas. My point was that you don't permit the use of weapons on the basis of how advanced they are. That there are some nasty people out there indiscriminately using some pretty savage weaponry is neither here nor there.
The_Kindness_of_Trees
Did you guys actually read the article? Quintana said:
"They take away a lot of spectacle and make you race more cautiously," Quintana said. "I'd be the first in line to say they should be banned."
He doesn't say that they don't offer an advantage, or that he doesn't need a power meter, or that he feels that strongly about it. He simply observes that bike racing might be more of a spectacle if they were banned.
In any case, it's wrong to say that you can, "either adopt a Luddite approach and try to block or stall technological advances, or embrace them." Instead, you can take each technological advance at its own merit and then take a view. For example, Formula 1 is forever tinkering with what's allowed and what isn't; the Geneva Convention prohibits the use of certain weapons that they have adjudged to be especially cruel, regardless of how 'advanced' they might be.