For what it's worth, I feel similar to you, including for sports. Basically, life threatening things should be prohibited, but everything else is free-for-all.

This would eliminate a lot of cheating, and a lot of advantages for those in a good position (better access to new drugs and nutrition, better recovery programs, better training programs — aren't they all unfair at some level?)...

The ultimate goal is to get us to experience the top level combination of talent and effort, both in science/work and otherwise. Getting there is never going to be completely fair (hey, you scored better on it even though you prepared for 3 days and I took 30: tough luck for me, I guess, but the fact you are more talented for that exam is not something I can do anything about).

I've also seen non-cheating people who are excellent at exam taking (great scores) without ever taking anything from the actual material (zero learnings). I've never felt threatened by them either, though maybe I would have if I wanted to pursue an academic career.

There's a big grey area between the life threatening stuff, and the stuff that will slowly mess you up for life. Simple example, but the drugs people take for pain increase your odds of a heart attack if taken habitually. It feels deeply unethical to have "take drugs that will ruin you once your career is over" be the minimum requirement for a career in sports.

Sure, that big grey area also includes paracetamol, alcohol, smoking, even caffeine... — all allowed for both students and athletes even though we know of harm they can produce.

Many sports are life-ruinous by nature (check out those NFL head injury studies), yet we incentivise people to take part in them (by paying a lot for the games).

I always cringe when I hear from pro sportspeople how engaging in sports is promoting a healthy lifestyle: I mean, sure, unless overdone like all pro sports do.

I would pay money to have a "open rules" olympics kind of event. Drugs? Cybernetics? Let's do it.

For both academics and the olympics though, this ends up being an arms race that ends up just hurting those who participate. You wouldn't want an all natural, 90th percentile athlete to feel like the only way they can get ahead (or, worse, even just stay where they are) is by taking drugs with dangerous side effects. Similarly, we surely don't want students who are already doing just alright to feel like they need to get an off-script bottle of adderall in order to not fall behind their peers.

A 90th percentile athlete today is likely anything but all natural today.

By the same measure, pain killers, kinesio tapes, surgeries, ice baths: they are routine stuff for common athletes over-exerting themselves.

I've never seen anyone naturally grow a kinesio tape, yet I think 90% of people in pro sports wear them. :)

It always was and remains a question of where we draw the line?

I think that the rule should be the same for the entire population — if we are aware of the adverse effects, prescription required.

Okay, then I'm going up against people who are willing to risk their health to gain an advantage. Should I be penalized because I'm trying to make sure my equipment's going to last as long as I need it?

I suppose we accept that in sports -- even without doping, if somebody's gonna sacrifice their body to make a play then that's their call -- but in academia, too?

That's what people do all the time.

In academia, pulling all-nighters to meet unreasonable demands, psychological toll of political games, jerk mentors and professors...

In sports, I know of no-one participating even recreationally who does not have a lingering sports injury (me included).

Basically, if you want "your equipment to last", you would not participate in any high level sports at all.

I don't. Steroids are banned from competitive sports for a reason.