The same question applies to all of those. If we allow technological enhancements, why is one enhancement too far? You couldn't run the course as fast as you can cycle it, after all. The same argument applies to all those other things - if we allow them then the playing field needs to stay absolutely level otherwise the person who can afford the strongest drugs, the newest gene-splicing, and the most efficient exoskeleton wins.

It's either about the athletic competition or it's not. If it's about the athletic condition, then the impact of technological factors should be minimized.

It's already about which country/team/city can spend the most money scouting the best talent, or poaching them from ever-expanding pools.

Then there's the matter of paying the most for the best coaches, best data analytics to optimize the bio performance of the human individual, etc.

I'd argue that you can't really say that money is the reason for not include or limiting technology. If it's about a level playing field, then money should be the first thing to remove.

How about a random sampling of a country/city's population? Have them compete against each-other. Otherwise, it'll always be about money as it's integral to sport.

Then it'll be like, "why can I only have two wheels?"

Bicycle racing, whose equipment is required to have only one source of power, a certain minimum weight, and no disc brakes (and maybe a couple others) is probably one of the less-constrained pro sports.

Isn't there some secret conspiracy against recumbents? Some "tradition" rules disguising the "big diamond-frame" bike manufacturing cartel's absolute control over road racing rules, who know they'd get handed their asses by the Unix beard-o crowd on recumbents in a fair race? ;-)

The current bike rider position (on the diamond bike) makes riding less energy efficient, for one, and more agile - rider can more easily change direction or start sprinting or both.

All of this make bike riding sport more entertaining. I guess I can put it next to Formula 1 - low and high velocities, fast and slow turns, attacks, defense, etc.

The recumbent riding would be mostly technological and would have less action. I guess I can put it next to NASCAR - high velocities, slow turns, slow attacks.

I think that recumbent would be good for US, I also guess rest of world would prefer diamond bikes.

This is exactly what I was getting at.

You have to ban things that are outright bad for athletes. You also have to remember, given a competition people will do whatever it takes to win, because someone else will. So you have to draw the line somewhere.

Why though? In many areas of life, people for example work themselves to death voluntarily. Why is there not a sport where there are really no limits at all?

Because at some point it stops being fun to watch if your race from point A to B is won by a supersonic fighter jet.

Also there's the pesky little problem of poor or up and coming athletes literally killing themselves to try to win big money, all for the benefit of some FIFA-alike and its sponsors.

>Because at some point it stops being fun to watch if your race from point A to B is won by a supersonic fighter jet.

Not when the opponent pulls out a surface to air missile.

ha! This is exactly the kind of out-of-the box thinking that jet cycling needs!

> You have to ban things that are outright bad for athletes.

You're assuming all those things are bad for the athletes.

The answers are not necessarily the same for all those, and for all future scenarios. The conventional answer today is that sport should promote, among other things, a healthy life. Taking large amounts of amphetamines is not so healthy, but some of the currently-legal ways that pro athletes prep for competition are also not very healthy, like the use of extreme and possibly dangerous amounts of caffeine in many sports. Maybe people will do more bike touring than bike racing because racing has become pointless and un-compelling to follow as a fan.

It may be that many professional and elite amateur sports will not survive genetic modification, for example, because anyone can access elite athletic potential if they wanted to. Or, more disturbingly, only if their parents had chosen a genetic combination for one outcome over another. What would be the point of "being a fan" of an athlete with characteristics chosen from a menu?

That would probably be the first sporting event I'd watch! Imagine a race with three legged cyclists! That would be awesome!