[shasarak]

That is, indeed, a potentially useful analogy, particularly when you think about why it is that they introduced rules against drug-taking in sport in the first place. Contrary to popular belief, it had nothing whatever to do with ensuring a "level playing field". What it was actually intended to do was to protect athletes; and not to protect the ones who didn't take drugs, but to protect the ones who did.

The problem is that drugs like this (anabolic steroids, for example) have some really nasty side-effects. If drug-taking were widespread then a new competitor would find himself faced with a horrible choice: take drugs that are guaranteed to have a massive, toxic, damaging effect on his body, or choose not to take them and thus guarantee that he won't be truly competitive with those athletes who do. The solution to this was to introduce new rules saying that certain substances - the harmful ones - could not legally be used. This was intended to reduce the pressure on athletes to take them, and thus aoid forcing athletes to damage themselves in the attempt to stay competitive.

That was a probably the correct decision at the time; but the reason why it was correct was purely because the drugs were damaging to the people who took them. If the drugs had been entirely harmless to the people taking them then they wouldn't have been banned. (And last time I checked, 'botting does not cause gynecomastia).

Unfortunately, the perception has shifted from then to where we are now, which is a feeling among people in general that athletes taking performance-enhancing substances is somehow "unfair". This, frankly, is a stupid perception. It's not stupid to suggest that it's unfair if one athlete has access to drugs that another athlete doesn't, but it is stupid to single out drugs as the only area in which this principle applies. If one athlete has access to altitude training while another doesn't, that is just as unfair. If one athlete has access to a professional coach and another doesn't, that is just as unfair. If one athlete gets better nutritional advice than another, that is just as unfair. But no one would seriously consider banning athletes from having access to altitiude training, professional coaches or nutritionists.

So it isn't actually about making things "fair"; and the whole thing is rife with idiotic, ill-thought-out, double standards.

A sensible approach to doping, in my view, is the one adopted by professional body-builders. There, you have two separate categories in a competition: one for those who choose to take steroids, and one for those who choose not to. Every body-builder has a free choice in the matter. No one is forced to take steroids, or denied access to them, so it's a "level playing field" and no one perceives taking steroids as "cheating" so long as you're up-front about taking them. And those who choose not to take steroids have the sense not to get worked up about those who do, or campaign vigorously for the taking of steroids to be banned: they recognise that it's an equally valid choice, just not the one that happens to satisfy them.

I think there may be some useful lessons, there.