By &quot;stupid&quot; I mean unintelligent, premature, arbitrary, and weak. Rules such as &quot;don&#x27;t kill thy neighbor&quot; are pretty obvious and don&#x27;t need to be law for most people to get it. But being imprisoned for smoking weed when alcohol is legal is almost as &quot;stupid&quot; as a moving pick or doping. Those who get away with it have an advantage. Those that don&#x27;t get pulled over by a man in stripes blowing a whistle. Then rules change, as they should, but that doesn&#x27;t reverse the &quot;stupid&quot; past.<p>Not killing comes naturally. Referees are not very natural, but we need them to uphold rules that don&#x27;t come naturally. Rules don&#x27;t have to be bad to be stupid or somewhat arbitrary, and they do shape the game&#x2F;society. But cycling definitely was a stupid game knowing what we all know now. Almost as stupid as pro-wrestling, but at least they don&#x27;t hide it, which makes them far more respectable than cycling ever was. Armstrong could only do what he did with the higher-ups knowing, and with the leverage he had against them and the entire sport. No one idolizes the International Cycling Union[1] as one does an athlete, but they made the beast that was Lance Armstrong.<p>The takeaway is that it&#x27;s wrong to look just at the players. When cheating is a prerequisite to success, it&#x27;s often the game that is already rigged.<p>---
[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.foxsports.com&#x2F;cycling&#x2F;story&#x2F;investigation-international-cycling-union-allowed-lance-armstrong-to-cheat-but-no-evidence-of-payments-for-cover-up-030815" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.foxsports.com&#x2F;cycling&#x2F;story&#x2F;investigation-interna...</a>