Olympic Formula Libre

Every now and then, some race series tries to run on the idea of "formula libre" - a free formula, basically free of rules and restrictions. It's run what you brung. There are no unfair advantages. In this age of plastic surgery, body sculpting, and commercially peddled mind altering chemicals, is it time for the Olympics to follow suit?

That's the argument (basically) in this New York Times column, in relation to performance enhancing drugs:

Once upon a time, the lords of the Olympic Games believed that the only true champion was an amateur, a gentleman hobbyist untainted by commerce. Today they enforce a different ideal. The winners of the gold medals are supposed to be natural athletes, untainted by technology. After enough 'scandals,' the amateur myth eventually died of its own absurdity. The natural myth is still alive in Beijing, but it’s becoming so far-fetched — and potentially dangerous — that some scientists and ethicists would like to abandon it, too.

What if we let athletes do whatever they wanted to excel?

Before you dismiss this notion, consider what we’re stuck with today. The system is ostensibly designed to create a level playing field, protect athletes’ health and set an example for children, but it fails on all counts.

The argument is based on the idea that it's impossible to actually police these things, so take the reigns off and forget about it. It's not an incredibly persuasive argument. Competitors will always exploit whatever rule set they're given, some in a good-natured attempt to discover every nook and cranny of the rules' penumbras, while others will outright cheat. There may be better ways to enforce the rules, but there will always be people breaking them. Indeed, as this comment at the Times blog points out, the whole point of sport is artificial restriction on abilities. That's where the challenge lies.

The more interesting argument, I think, is in the idea of the "natural myth" as an Olympic ideal. What does that even mean? Look at the people competing in Beijing this year. How "natural" do they look to you? Are all the rigorous training methods, specialized diets, and cutting edge medical treatments that got them there "natural?" How can we tell?

If we've long since moved past the ideal of the "natural" athlete, anyway, what's the harm in letting them use all the tools science and commerce has made available to them to go faster, farther, and higher?