Doping

To start:

1. It poses a significant disadvantage to ethical athletes who have lower testosterone ratios but are rightly unwilling to manipulate their levels with banned steroids.
   
2. Levels of response to doping vary. The impact of a 4:1 ratio is not equal across all athletes. Better 'repsonders' will therefore gain significant advantage.
   
3. Some athletes will have naturally higher testosterone levels. Why should that natural advantage be undercut by another athlete's ability to dope up to the same level?
   
   

To take the view that ability to dope up to the same ratios 'levels the playing field' is simplistic, inconsistent with the scientific evidence, and shown to result in unfair outcomes for athletes. Or did you think that the 50% rule was a good benchmark in cycling?