Unpopular opinion but I really think that all competitions should be untested like WSM. As it currently stands, the competition in most sports is about who has the resources to best hide their PED use.
The rampant doping in other sports reflects an unwillingness to learn the lessons that cycling learned the hard way. Armstrong never failed a drugs test, because the tests were a joke. The biological passport isn't a magic bullet, but - when seriously enforced - it places hard limits on what dopers can get away with, no matter how devious they are.
Most sports are in denial, because they don't want to endure the painful process of actually rooting out the drug cheats. They have weak, ineffectual anti-doping programmes that are trivial to circumvent, then imagine themselves to be clean because of the low rate of positive tests.
The amount of money our governments waste on stadiums and financial incentives for sportsball teams is already ridiculous, it should at least not be completely fraudulent.
There is another article on the front page today about how the right amount of fraud is not zero. Align the incentives and doping will decline, and enforcement becomes less critical.
What makes you think that "Bread and Games" is no longer relevant today? It was an effective way to keep the masses under control 2000 years ago, and it's possibly still very cost-effective today.
If someone eats lots of potatoes and that gives them the energy to perform well at soccer, their performance was certainly "enhanced" by a "substance", but nobody would care.
The psychological aspects have possibly been more dangerous than the chemicals,
https://www.vice.com/en/article/xdpbnd/he-just-wanted-to-tak...
How is that not a negative physical effect?
The ban on doping dates from 1967, I believe, when British cyclist Tommy Simpson dropped dead from his bike during the Tour de France from having taken too many drugs (in combination with alcohol, too - truly these were different times).
The problem is, are we ok with people burning out their bodies in their 20s? And ending up dead or with horrific side effects that torture them for the rest of their lives?
And how much agency do some of these people have in their late teens early 20s when they start doing these drugs? Are we just allowing their parents and governments to put crazy things in their bodies, effectively ruining their futures, so that they can win?
The drugs used in cycling are extremely dangerous. Dozens of cyclists have died from doping, and those are just the ones we know about. Look up a documentary about Marco Pantani if you want to see the horrific effects of doping. He wrecked his body to the point where he couldn't sleep for long periods without risking a heart attack. He had to cycle at night on a stationary bike to stay alive. Sadly he passed away at only 34.
If we adopt this system where we just let people dope as they wish, we're signing their death warrant. No better than watching gladiators fight to the death.
Cycling is about endurance and power output. If you remove 'genes and training plan' you are left with dice roll. If anything I would remove team radios [0].
[0] Like when Anna Kiesenhofer won in Tokio.
edit: and it seems pointless to "solve" the problem of different genetics, because genetics would also influence how you reacted to PEDs. It's just adding a thing.
Needless to say it is a pure dystopia.
OTOH bodybuilding (the part people care about) and some strength sports allow PEDs. Some people do die young from steroid abuse, but not a lot of top dogs.
(Google first suggested Weston Super Mare, a UK semi-pro football club but I don’t think that’s right).