I pretty much agree with you, Frank. It got me to thinking about the definition of sports, and that perhaps that's the sticking point of the controversy.

Purists might say that it ought to be about the performance of the baseline unaugmented human, and I think part of that consideration is to be able to compare modern athletes against historical athletes...as if sports is an eternal. Sort of competitiveness across time, and reflects our fascination with setting milestones and beating records. Augmenting athletes with drugs renders those comparisons meaningless.

The opposite extreme is where it seemed like you were going: Sports is also about technology, and let every athlete incorporate technology as he/she sees fit. If everybody has equal access to technology like growth hormones and amphetamines, it's an approximately level playing field.

Actually, I find both viewpoints have their attractions. So maybe sports should bifurcate into those two camps and do each one right. Two kinds of Olympics (the tech variety held in an isolated location to limit collateral damage); in baseball separate Natural and Cyborg Leagues, and naturals aren't at a disadvantage as it is now...sports to satisfy all tastes. That'd be kinda fun; the current definition may be crimping our style.

I have to admit that I fit your description of a minimal interest in sports. But I might really like the Cyborg League if I had a chance. Sports for technopiles.

At the end of the day, sports is just a branch of the entertainment business anyway. It's getting dysfunctional to pretend that it's a separate and nobler category, not with NFL salaries as they are. Yeah, let's lighten up.