dogmile wrote:
No, I just think your definition of a level playing field is strange.
Imagine first place paid a course marshal to help him cut the course the shortest and look the other way. It is still a level playing field for you because others could do the same.
Then imaging first place arranges for a rival to get food poisoning. Still a level playing field because others could do the same.
I can see the confusion, as I'm pretty sure you are the only one using this definition of level playing field.
First, I'm talking about the level playing field among the dopers/cheaters. So in your situations, I would have a hard time paying attention to someone who protested the race results based on paying off an official, when the person protesting had also knowingly cut the course.
A level playing field in my mind, probably better referred to as equal opportunity, means that there is no advantage conferred to anyone based on their individual traits. "
Equal opportunity is a stipulation that all people should be treated similarly, unhampered by artificial barriers or prejudices or preferences".
The challenge I see in this discussion of a level playing field, is the number of irrelevant topics that are included. Money is not relevant here. Everyone had access to the same pots of money, the fact that some gained more benefit from that money isn't relevant. The fact that some are better able to attract that money and work those relationships isn't relevant. The fact that some respond better to doping is 100% irrelevant to the discussion. Based on the above definition, the only area that I'd soften my view would be the UCI treatment of Armstrong and the possible motives behind that. I don't think it is a simple discussion, since it depends on how and why that protection started. To me, it would be significantly different if Armstrong put everything in motion and pulled the UCI onto his side vs the UCI seeing the expansion of the USA market as a huge plus and Armstrong as the person to bring in the market. Was Armstrong more willing to take risks with doping because he had protection? Or, was he naturally a risk taker and would've pushed the limits regardless of the protection? He started doping very early in his career and seemed more willing than others to increase his doping program. I'd suspct that it was a bit of both, his willingness to push the boundaries and his willingness to bring the UCI on board for protection.