In reply to steveej:
> A pure test of human performance would mean everyone eating the same food
Dubious. (Would you have different classes for veggies and non-veggies?)
> and everyone racing the same bikes.
Not a completely daft idea. Don't they do something like this in the equestrian section of the modern pentathlon: you ride the horse you're given?
> But its not purely about human performance. its about everything else that goes into it. The 'Team contribution'.
Similar to quite a few other sports eg most obviously motor racing. Nowt wrong with that so long as it's recognised that it is a valid part of the competition.
> Armstrong was a doper like all of his competitors- There is nothing wrong with that.
Apart from it being against the rules?
> He was prepared to do whatever it takes to succeed!
That's a mind-bogglingly stupid assertion. All sports have rules to govern the limits of "whatever it takes". Those rules include things like limits on what you can do to the bike (minimum weights and so forth)
and what the athletes can do to themselves.
Without regulations in a competitive endeavour you don't have a sport, just a fight. If you just want to make sure that you get across the line before everyone else by whatever means possible, why not just push everyone else off the road? But don't be surprised if they try to do the same to you. If you just want to get round France as quickly as possible on a bike, fit an engine to the thing and have done with it. Ah, but those things against the rules. You might "succeed" but you wouldn't win the competition, because you'd be disqualified.
> Much like climbing, taking diamox, oxygen fixed lines, porters, uplift, guidebooks, weather forcasts.
There are no rules in in that kind of climbing, only ethics - no-one climbs real routes to win prizes. In competitive climbing, guess what: there are rules, and you have to compete within them in order to win.