"Sci-Tech Today talks about the role of technology in the Olympics from a unique perspective:
Every advance in the ever-accelerating juggernaut of sports technology threatens to widen the divide between Olympic haves and have-nots. Well-sponsored teams and rich governments pay top-end scientists and engineers to shape their skis, perfect their skates, tighten their suits, measure their gravitational pull.
I'm no luddite, but this seems to make these sports more about who can afford the best tech, and less about the true spirit of the games: bringing the best athletes from all countries together to compete. How can it be about the athletes, when some of the best athletes may never win due to lack of funding/tech?"
There's another technology that determines the outcome, performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs). Just like the other technologies mentioned, it reduces athletic competition to who has the best R&D.
We may not know for years which athletes who win tonight use PEDs; we may never know. Many people know this, but they keep watching.
It never fails to amuse me if you substitute in "nutrition" for "drugs" then the freakout disappears although the situation is no different.
The idea that extreme athlete nutrition is inherently healthy for the body seems as unlikely as extreme athlete drugs are inherently healthy for the body...
Plus extreme athlete nutrition sounds like it could be marketed for hundreds of dollars to kids and parents. It probably is already and it probably is as harmful as a vial of Lance Armstrong's best go juice
Which was also hidden as extreme nutrition and is likely to have caused his original cancer.