This would just mean the teams with the biggest budgets win. Doping is expensive. Not to mention, every person responds differently to doping protocols. What

This would just mean the teams with the biggest budgets win. Doping is expensive. Not to mention, every person responds differently to doping protocols. What if you're a C rider who becomes an A+ rider when doped? And you race against a B+ rider who becomes an A minus rider when doped. Still not an even playing field. This is effectively what lance did. He had record levels of hematocrit naturally, and an extremely high vo2. It meant he had a magnified sensitivity to doping protocols that the other riders didn't. So his doping advantage actually increased his relative abilities even -higher- than his also-doped competitors. Not to mention kids coming into the sport. Would be a massive mountain to climb to go from a prodigy 16 year old against doped pros.