Lance doping confession - I want an apology from him!

rick_chasey

It's not a level playing field in the sense that your receptiveness to doping becomes a key "natural talent".

So take two riders of identical performance only rider A has a natural heamacratic of 48 and B of 42.

So with the 50 heamacratic limit rider B will be able to elevate his blood levels, and therefore performance, substantially more than rider A.

rolf_f

meanredspider wrote:

I do think that this whole saga is laced with a huge amount of hypocrisy and envy.

If I'm honest, I'll admit I'd be more sympathetic to Armstrong if he wasn't such a nasty, horrible, vindictive person. Ultimately, I'll forgive the nice guy a lot but never the scumbag. I wish I could be more even minded over it but I can't. He's a sh1t and he's in the sh1t - where he deserves to be. I suspect this is as much or maybe more of the background than hypocrisy and envy (though they are much a part of it too).

meanredspider

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not a level playing field in the sense that your receptiveness to doping becomes a key "natural talent".

So take two riders of identical performance only rider A has a natural heamacratic of 48 and B of 42.

So with the 50 heamacratic level rider B will be able to elevate his blood levels, and therefore performance, substantially more than rider A.

Accepted - but it "just" evens out one of the natural advantages that rider A had. I ride with a guy whose Hct is naturally >50. He also weighs 30kg less than me. He destroys me up hills through these natural advantages. I could lose all the weight in the world but I'm never going to match his Hct level. Is that a level playing field? I suppose I could go and live in Tibet somewhere and my Hct might improve over time. It's where you draw the line in sport. Are contact lenses ok in shooting? Or, if you're short-sighted, is that tough luck? After all, the guy with 20:20 vision has a natural advantage that you've artificially taken away. What about people that can't get on with contact lenses? Specs aren't as good. Then there's laser surgery. It's a pretty grey area once you cross a line. These guys "all" cheated so it must have conferred some advantage to them else they wouldn't have taken the risk. Once you've crossed that line, for me, you've given up your right to argue that it isn't a level playing field: live by the sword....

meanredspider

Rolf F wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I do think that this whole saga is laced with a huge amount of hypocrisy and envy.

If I'm honest, I'll admit I'd be more sympathetic to Armstrong if he wasn't such a nasty, horrible, vindictive person. Ultimately, I'll forgive the nice guy a lot but never the scumbag. I wish I could be more even minded over it but I can't. He's a sh1t and he's in the sh1t - where he deserves to be. I suspect this is as much or maybe more of the background than hypocrisy and envy (though they are much a part of it too).

If you start to condemn sports stars on their personalities, you probably aren't going to be left with a very long list Take, for example, the sport I'm more familiar with and consider possibly two of the greatest racing drivers ever to have lived: Michael Schumacher and Ayrton Senna - both with "flawed" personalities in their own ways. It's almost part of what you need to become that successful.

supersonic

If you start to condemn sports stars on their personalities, you probably aren't going to be left with a very long list Take, for example, the sport I'm more familiar with and consider possibly two of the greatest racing drivers ever to have lived: Michael Schumacher and Ayrton Senna - both with "flawed" personalities in their own ways. It's almost part of what you need to become that successful.

I suppose it is where you draw the line. I used to hate Schumacher, and certain other sports stars due to their attitudes, but eventually realised that they were utterly hell bent on winning and had more respect for them as sports people. Schumacher cheated when he drove into Hill, but I think that was more of a heated moment than a long calculated tactic. And he is a nice guy.

Armstrong however strikes me as a bully who threatened people to get his own way. I think this is a little different.

rolf_f

supersonic wrote:

If you start to condemn sports stars on their personalities, you probably aren't going to be left with a very long list Take, for example, the sport I'm more familiar with and consider possibly two of the greatest racing drivers ever to have lived: Michael Schumacher and Ayrton Senna - both with "flawed" personalities in their own ways. It's almost part of what you need to become that successful.

I suppose it is where you draw the line. I used to hate Schumacher, and certain other sports stars due to their attitudes, but eventually realised that they were utterly hell bent on winning and had more respect for them as sports people. Schumacher cheated when he drove into Hill, but I think that was more of a heated moment than a long calculated tactic. And he is a nice guy.

Armstrong however strikes me as a bully who threatened people to get his own way. I think this is a little different.

Exactly this. There are probably a lot of successful sportspeople who I personally might not get on well with because their likely narrow focus and drive - but those are traits I respect even so and it needen't mean they aren't nice folk. Armstrong appears to have been pretty horrible right from the beginning - it isn't necessary.

meanredspider

supersonic wrote:

I suppose it is where you draw the line. I used to hate Schumacher, and certain other sports stars due to their attitudes, but eventually realised that they were utterly hell bent on winning and had more respect for them as sports people. Schumacher cheated when he drove into Hill, but I think that was more of a heated moment than a long calculated tactic. And he is a nice guy.

Armstrong however strikes me as a bully who threatened people to get his own way. I think this is a little different.

Again, I think it's a pretty grey area. Even on camera, ex-drivers only begrudgingly respect Schumacher still today. There is ALWAYS stories of drivers "bullying" their teams to give them better treatment. Or bully other drivers on and off the track (nobody took a risk with Senna - and these guys were literally risking their lives - that's pretty extreme bullying). The stakes are incredibly high and the rewards are massive. Ask Mark Webber if he gets treated fairly. Armstrong is possibly/probably extreme but I'd imagine his formative years were pretty tough. My point is that he's just on a spectrum when it comes to professional sports stars.

rolf_f

meanredspider wrote:

Armstrong is possibly/probably extreme but I'd imagine his formative years were pretty tough.

Certainly doesn't come across like that in the Wilcockson book. True, there were issues with various father figures (who he seems to mostly dump and ignore for some perceived slight) but he grew up in a nice area with people who cared enough to give him bicycles (eg, BMXs, Campagnolo equiped racers), where he could play in the school football team, swim and race cross country and enjoy a formal school prom. If that's a tough formative life then I could have done with it!

I suspect his upbringing sounds tough because he turned against virtually everyone who cared for him - Lance probably thinks the world was always out to get him and his success was single handedly achieved only by Mr Lance Armstrong himself despite everyone else......

tailwindhome

meanredspider wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not a level playing field in the sense that your receptiveness to doping becomes a key "natural talent".

So take two riders of identical performance only rider A has a natural heamacratic of 48 and B of 42.

So with the 50 heamacratic level rider B will be able to elevate his blood levels, and therefore performance, substantially more than rider A.

Accepted - but it "just" evens out one of the natural advantages that rider A had. I ride with a guy whose Hct is naturally >50. He also weighs 30kg less than me. He destroys me up hills through these natural advantages. I could lose all the weight in the world but I'm never going to match his Hct level. Is that a level playing field? ..

YES. YES. YES.

In fact it's the very definition of a level playing field.

His natural genetic gifts + his hard work > Your natural gifts + your hard work

You adding EPO to your side of the equation is cheating NOT leveling the playing field.



These arguments detract from the real crux of the matter. Not everyone cheated. Some chose to ride clean and either simply couldn't keep up or left the sport (Bassons/Obree and other we'll never know)

meanredspider

TailWindHome wrote:

YES. YES. YES.

In fact it's the very definition of a level playing field.

His natural genetic gifts + his hard work > Your natural gifts + your hard work

You adding EPO to your side of the equation is cheating NOT leveling the playing field.

And contact lenses in shooting??? Nothing natural about them. No hard work involved. Get a prescription and pop them in. Your eyesight is then just as good as the next guys (I use this example, BTW, because that's exactly what I did: used to shoot clays with specs and I was Mr Average. If I forgot my specs, I couldn't see if I'd hit the clay. Got contacts and there was a step-change in my shooting to the point I missed out on being student national champion by one clay. Is that fair?).

I'm not arguing for doping, BTW - I just think that LA is being singled-out of a much broader corrupt sport where it seems that a majority of people knew precisely what was going on. I mean, c'mon - weren't the authorities just slightly suspicious of how many of these riders' Hct were so close to 50???

TailWindHome wrote:

These arguments detract from the real crux of the matter. Not everyone cheated. Some chose to ride clean and either simply couldn't keep up or left the sport (Bassons/Obree and other we'll never know)

Absolutely - I suppose if I feel sorry for anyone (it's only bike racing after all - if only the rest of life had such simple rules) it's the guys who were truly clean. But history would at least suggest they may have been in the minority.

tailwindhome

meanredspider wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

YES. YES. YES.

In fact it's the very definition of a level playing field.

His natural genetic gifts + his hard work > Your natural gifts + your hard work

You adding EPO to your side of the equation is cheating NOT leveling the playing field.

And contact lenses in shooting??? Nothing natural about them. No hard work involved. Get a prescription and pop them in. Your eyesight is then just as good as the next guys (I use this example, BTW, because that's exactly what I did: used to shoot clays with specs and I was Mr Average. If I forgot my specs, I couldn't see if I'd hit the clay. Got contacts and there was a step-change in my shooting to the point I missed out on being student national champion by one clay. Is that fair?).

Were contact lenses against the rules?

Big difference.

meanredspider

TailWindHome wrote:

Were contact lenses against the rules?

Big difference.

Not a big difference if we're talking about the principle of a level playing field. We've already accepted they all those doping are cheating but was it a level playing field amongst the cheats.

To my mind, there's absolutely no difference (in principle) between enhancing your natural ability with contact lenses (in shooting) and enhancing your Hct with EPO (in cycling). The guy in shooting that turns up with natural 20:20 vision will gain nothing from contacts. The guy who turns up with natural Hct at 50 will gain nothing from EPO. Both are prescription. Both can be dangerous to health. It's either a level playing field in both or neither. Arbitrarily contacts are legal in shooting and EPO illegal in cycling - that's the only difference.

I'm playing devil's advocate, of course. But I'm am intrigued by how LA is being singled out amongst the cheats - he didn't invent cheating.

*****************************

I do have some first-hand experience of LA's humanity too. After the Twitter ride, he was mobbed for autographs. I waited in the group when he said he needed to go (he'd signed a lot and, with more riders arriving, could have been there all night). As he turned to go, I called to him to sign my book for my son who has cancer: that clearly caught his attention and he turned back and signed the book, asking how my son was doing. I don't think that's the behaviour of a sociopath - he really had nothing to gain by that act. I think of LA the cancer survivor VERY differently from LA the cyclist. I was never interested in his cycling exploits but his cancer stuff has really really helped me.

rolf_f

meanredspider wrote:

To my mind, there's absolutely no difference (in principle) between enhancing your natural ability with contact lenses (in shooting) and enhancing your Hct with EPO (in cycling).

But there is a difference. Society regards wearing contact lenses as a day to day normal activity - the risks are small and inconsequential partlicularly if they are just worn on occasion. Who takes EPO just for normal day to day activity?

If in the future we developed a society where it was considered acceptable to dose yourself up with EPO to carry the shopping home more easily, then certainly it would make it a reasonable sporting performance aid. But I can't see that ever happening.

For all the good Armstrong's done (and I suspect overall his legacy is actually positive) it's hard to see much good in the man himself. Even the Livestrong stuff isn't a fraction as useful than it could have been if had it not been so focussed on the Lance publicity machine; lets face it, if you want to put money to a good cause related to ending cancer, then Livestrong isn't going to be high on the list.

Agent57

I hate Schumacher, and I'm still an Armstrong fan. What can I say; I'm a flawed personality.

meanredspider

Rolf F wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

To my mind, there's absolutely no difference (in principle) between enhancing your natural ability with contact lenses (in shooting) and enhancing your Hct with EPO (in cycling).

But there is a difference. Society regards wearing contact lenses as a day to day normal activity - the risks are small and inconsequential partlicularly if they are just worn on occasion. Who takes EPO just for normal day to day activity?

If in the future we developed a society where it was considered acceptable to dose yourself up with EPO to carry the shopping home more easily, then certainly it would make it a reasonable sporting performance aid. But I can't see that ever happening.

For all the good Armstrong's done (and I suspect overall his legacy is actually positive) it's hard to see much good in the man himself. Even the Livestrong stuff isn't a fraction as useful than it could have been if had it not been so focussed on the Lance publicity machine; lets face it, if you want to put money to a good cause related to ending cancer, then Livestrong isn't going to be high on the list.

I don't actually see the difference in the principle of a level playing field though. Both confer greater advantage on some than others. EPO isn't illegal - it's just illegal in sports.

I'm intrigued as to why you think the LiveStrong Foundation hasn't done much for cancer. The cancer charity is different from the other LiveStrong corporation. I believe the cancer charity has done a great deal for American cancer sufferers.

See www.livestrong.org (and NOT www.livestrong.com which I don't think was even started by LA)

EKE_38BPM

Everyone is born with different abilities so there will NEVER be a truly level playing field.
Usain Bolt is taller than Yohan Blake and being taller makes for a higher top speed. This means that Bolt is slower off the line than Blake (and just about everyone else) but eventually he overhauls him and usually wins over 100m. If the IOC said that for the Rio Olympics there is a maximum permitted height which just happened to be Bolt's natural height then if Blake was a cheater he would suddenly grow to Bolt's height and then he'd have the natural ability he was born with (which got him to number 2 in the sprinting world) AND Bolt's height which would aid his top end speed.

So now we have a level playing field, right? Everyone is now the same height so Bolt's natural advantage is nullified. If Blake were to win the Rio 100m final by beating Bolt by 1/1000th of a second, who would be the better sprinter, Blake who enhanced his natural ability or Bolt who lost but only used the attributes he was born with and the training he did?

Back to cycling. A pro cyclist competing clean in the tour during the Armstrong years did it using only their natural ability, so to even be in the race is a great achievement against a field who were doped up to their eyeballs (or 50% Hct). If the dope was taken away, the whole peloton would have to rely on their natural ability and their training. The winner would be the rider with the best natural ability and the best training, as all sport should be. Anything else is cheating.

I assume contact lenses are legal in clay pigeon shooting. If so, using them isn't cheating.
EPO, HGH, blood doping etc are all illegal in cycling, so using them is cheating.

I don't care about privileged Vs deprived background.
I don't care about beating cancer.
I don't care about how much charity work you do.
I don't care if everyone else is doping, if you do, you are a cheat.

Lance gets more grief than the other cheaters because of his vehement denials, his constant lies about it, his defamation of his accusers, his suing of his accusers, his perjury etc. The other cheats shouldn't be praised, none of them are angels who admitted cheating just to get it off of their chests, but they didn't accuse others of being prostitutes etc so, Lance deserves more grief, as well as jail time for perjury, to be sued by every sponsor and former accuser (including for loss of earnings) and every person who believed his constant lies.
I'd quite like to see him bankrupt and in prison.

rolf_f

Absence of any actual research funding (which is where it could have made a real difference - and which is where it leaves a slightly bad taste because even a lot of Livestrong staff seemed to think it supported research) - I'm not sure that 'raising awareness' at glossy international Livestrong conferences where LA flies in to on his private jet is really helping that much. Don't get me wrong - I think Livestrong does a lot of good (ie direct support to sufferers) but I believe it to be poor value for money in terms of effectiveness; you could probably get more happiness per pound donated elsewhere.

meanredspider

Rolf F wrote:

Absence of any actual research funding (which is where it could have made a real difference - and which is where it leaves a slightly bad taste because even a lot of Livestrong staff seemed to think it supported research) - I'm not sure that 'raising awareness' at glossy international Livestrong conferences where LA flies in to on his private jet is really helping that much. Don't get me wrong - I think Livestrong does a lot of good (ie direct support to sufferers) but I believe it to be poor value for money in terms of effectiveness; you could probably get more happiness per pound donated elsewhere.

Believe me, in the absence of cures, direct support to sufferers is invaluable. If you're suffering from pancreatic cancer, knowing that someone somewhere is working on a cure is frankly nice but useless to you. You're very likely to die. What you and your family need is support. Even if it's treatable, the support you need whilst you and your carers can't work is massive. Please don't underestimate the value of this support. Research is vital too but whilst we struggle to make progress support is what really counts here and now. And raising awareness is what raises money.

tailwindhome

meanredspider wrote:

I don't actually see the difference in the principle of a level playing field though. Both confer greater advantage on some than others. EPO isn't illegal - it's just illegal in sports.

MRS on this one I think you are just plain wrong.

We'll have to agree to disagree

You're wrong though. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong

tailwindhome

meanredspider wrote:

See http://www.livestrong.org (and NOT http://www.livestrong.com which I don't think was even started by LA)

Very murky business.

Now the bubble has truly burst I wouldn't be suprised to see a lot of coverage on Livestrong.

rick_chasey

meanredspider wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not a level playing field in the sense that your receptiveness to doping becomes a key "natural talent".

So take two riders of identical performance only rider A has a natural heamacratic of 48 and B of 42.

So with the 50 heamacratic level rider B will be able to elevate his blood levels, and therefore performance, substantially more than rider A.

Accepted - but it "just" evens out one of the natural advantages that rider A had. I ride with a guy whose Hct is naturally >50. He also weighs 30kg less than me. He destroys me up hills through these natural advantages. I could lose all the weight in the world but I'm never going to match his Hct level. Is that a level playing field? I suppose I could go and live in Tibet somewhere and my Hct might improve over time. It's where you draw the line in sport. Are contact lenses ok in shooting? Or, if you're short-sighted, is that tough luck? After all, the guy with 20:20 vision has a natural advantage that you've artificially taken away. What about people that can't get on with contact lenses? Specs aren't as good. Then there's laser surgery. It's a pretty grey area once you cross a line. These guys "all" cheated so it must have conferred some advantage to them else they wouldn't have taken the risk. Once you've crossed that line, for me, you've given up your right to argue that it isn't a level playing field: live by the sword....

The point is that your responsiveness to doping shouldn't be a factor in deciding how good you are at your sport.

The type of doping that has been going on since the '90s means that that is the case.

You could be the best rider in the world sans drugs but when everyone's on them you might not be.

So in that sense saying "I'd have still won if everyone was off drugs" is a misnomer, and hence you can't call it a level playing field.

meanredspider

Rick Chasey wrote:

The point is that your responsiveness to doping shouldn't be a factor in deciding how good you are at your sport.

The type of doping that has been going on since the '90s means that that is the case.

You could be the best rider in the world sans drugs but when everyone's on them you might not be.

So in that sense saying "I'd have still won if everyone was off drugs" is a misnomer, and hence you can't call it a level playing field.

Yeah - it's academic because doping is illegal but I really don't see the difference IN PRINCIPLE to contact lenses in shooting. I wasn't blessed with good eyes. I use prescription medical aids to enable me to match the natural abilities of others so I can shoot well and win the trophies I have. Without them, I wouldn't have won - some guy with better vision than me would have. Other people can't wear contacts. I had to pay for the contacts. In all of those aspects, it's analogous.

As I say, it's academic. Lots of cheats - many of them got found out - there's probably a few that didn't. It's all a big shame. Fortunately it's just bicycle racing. Far more important things in the world to worry about.

I think they should open the whole thing up with a truth commission so we can understand exactly how it all worked in order to prevent it in the future.

rick_chasey

There's no incentive to come clean to doping if you've gotten away with it.

None whatsoever.

A truth and reconcilliation drive won't work for that very reason.

meanredspider

Rick Chasey wrote:

There's no incentive to come clean to doping if you've gotten away with it.

None whatsoever.

A truth and reconcilliation drive won't work for that very reason.

Except you don't know who is going to grass on you. It's like an amnesty - the point is you can get it off your chest. If implicated afterwards (like Armstrong, for instance - never "officially" caught), you then face the full punishment. That's why it will work and, in my opinion, needs to happen.

rjsterry

Taking a slightly different tack than the level playing field argument (it wasn't because not everyone was doping), the thing that struck me, particularly after the second instalment of the interview, was that LA seemed like someone who is barely able to admit to himself what he did, let alone anyone else. He seemed to understand that someone called Lance Armstrong had cheated their way to seven TdF titles, but hadn't actually accepted that it was him. His constant referral to himself as "that guy" and use of the passive voice - Emma O'Reilly "got run over" as opposed to "I ran her over". By contrast the initial admissions seemed almost robotic; as though he knew in the abstract that he had to answer yes, even though he didn't really believe it. The question about the tweeted photo of the 7 jerseys was interesting too. It's almost as though he's been telling the lies so long that he's started to believe them himself.

As for top sports people needing to be ar$eholes to succeed, I've heard the same said of great artists or entrepreneurs. Maybe it helps if you are less squeamish about trampling over people, but it's certainly not a requirement.

Edit: Just spotted this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/19/lance-armstrong-cycling

In the autumn of 1993, Greg LeMond and his wife, Kathy, were sitting at home in the suburbs of Minneapolis, when they received a visit from Linda Mooneyham, the three-times Tour de France winner has recalled. Her 21-year-old son, Lance Armstrong, had just become the world champion and she had travelled from her home in Texas for advice.

"What does he do now?" she asked. "What does he do with his money?"

"Well, let him find an agent – a good one with an attorney," LeMond replied. "And one word of advice – just be his mom."

They sat on the porch for a while and then moved inside to the kitchen. Linda had something else on her mind: "How do I make him less of an asshole. He doesn't care about anyone."

"Well," LeMond replied. "I can't help you there."

meanredspider

Sewinman wrote:

I don't think being calm in such circumstances is a trait of cancer survivors only, so its a bit of a stretch to 'credit' his cancer experience for his TV performance, with all due respect.

This is a bit OT, so forgive me, but it is SLIGHTLY relevant (and, IMO, quite interesting)

Was in Starbucks yesterday and got chatting to the lass that served me (it was very quiet) about cycling. Got onto talking about the effects of my son's cancer on me (doing tougher & tougher rides etc). It turns out that she is doing a masters thesis on the post-traumatic effects of things like this. Broadly, the thesis is that it takes a traumatic event for us to realise that we have far greater potential & resilience than we could imagine and that there's no short-cut to this realisation: you have to go through the "trauma". I've always said that I wished I could bottle the effects of our experience and pass it on - turns out (seemingly) that you can't.

rjsterry

meanredspider wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

I don't think being calm in such circumstances is a trait of cancer survivors only, so its a bit of a stretch to 'credit' his cancer experience for his TV performance, with all due respect.

This is a bit OT, so forgive me, but it is SLIGHTLY relevant (and, IMO, quite interesting)

Was in Starbucks yesterday and got chatting to the lass that served me (it was very quiet) about cycling. Got onto talking about the effects of my son's cancer on me (doing tougher & tougher rides etc). It turns out that she is doing a masters thesis on the post-traumatic effects of things like this. Broadly, the thesis is that it takes a traumatic event for us to realise that we have far greater potential & resilience than we could imagine and that there's no short-cut to this realisation: you have to go through the "trauma". I've always said that I wished I could bottle the effects of our experience and pass it on - turns out (seemingly) that you can't.

So a sort of PTSD turbo charger? That certainly fits with various other examples. Trouble is, with LA it seems to have given him even greater feelings of invincibility and willingness to steamroller everyone and everything out of his way.

meanredspider

rjsterry wrote:

So a sort of PTSD turbo charger?.

Yes - kinda, combined with mental rhino skin. The problem is it can also make you a bit of a stress junkie.

rjsterry wrote:

That certainly fits with various other examples. Trouble is, with LA it seems to have given him even greater feelings of invincibility and willingness to steamroller everyone and everything out of his way.

Yup - and that's what I mean about the mental rhino skin - it can de-sensitise you. I'm finding a bit of that. It's certainly not an excuse for LA (PLEASE don't read this as that at all)

ManiaMuse

meanredspider wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not a level playing field in the sense that your receptiveness to doping becomes a key "natural talent".

So take two riders of identical performance only rider A has a natural heamacratic of 48 and B of 42.

So with the 50 heamacratic level rider B will be able to elevate his blood levels, and therefore performance, substantially more than rider A.

Accepted - but it "just" evens out one of the natural advantages that rider A had. I ride with a guy whose Hct is naturally >50. He also weighs 30kg less than me. He destroys me up hills through these natural advantages. I could lose all the weight in the world but I'm never going to match his Hct level. Is that a level playing field? I suppose I could go and live in Tibet somewhere and my Hct might improve over time. It's where you draw the line in sport. Are contact lenses ok in shooting? Or, if you're short-sighted, is that tough luck? After all, the guy with 20:20 vision has a natural advantage that you've artificially taken away. What about people that can't get on with contact lenses? Specs aren't as good. Then there's laser surgery. It's a pretty grey area once you cross a line. These guys "all" cheated so it must have conferred some advantage to them else they wouldn't have taken the risk. Once you've crossed that line, for me, you've given up your right to argue that it isn't a level playing field: live by the sword....

The South Korean guy who won the archery at the 2012 olympics is registered blind and doesn't even wear glasses or contacts...

Sewinman

Re 'level playing field' - the level playing field is what is allowed in the rules of the sport, every team should exploit that to the maximum, if they don't that is their fault. If they have a problem with the rules then lobby for change or don't compete.

Any activity that is not permitted in the rules by definition causes the competition to no longer be a level playing field. Pretty straight forward - cheating is not fair.