Not sure I get Dan's point. "The whole qualification system should be rethought for the 1800 athletes that make it to Kona so they don't have to do 2 ironman's in a year"?

Where is the science that says doing to a year is harmful?

And if the you had to qualify at a 70.3, wouldn't those same 1800 athletes put in just as much training, maybe even at higher intensities?

Good article to stir up some debate, but a bit of smoke and mirrors I think...