That's not actually measuring the "effect". If your goal is to level the playing field to some sort of effect, you need to somehow balance that the effect of, say, a given hematocrit level will have a different effect in different people.
There's a difference between discussing this from a morality point of view and another from a practical point of view. A game needs to have rules—that's inherent it any game or contest. Those rules can be made for any number of reasons, which can be practicality (this is something we can measure) or safety (we don't want to encourage dangerous behavior), tradition, or whatnot. Morality or ethics come in with respect to abiding by the rules or the spirit of the rules, not generally the rules themselves.
Sure, it will have a different effect, but that is due to external factors which can also be regulated in a similar manner. In any case, these are far more pragmatic methods than trying to find every single SARM molecule that pops up.
I fail to see how it's easier to control for biological variation and physical preparation than it is to control for PEDs. And if one is going to have rules controlling one or the other, I personally would lean towards considering PEDs as a variety of equipment: some of which is allowed and some of which isn't. I can see one arguing that the athlete's body is equipment. I'd say that's generally not how people think about it, and reasonable people can disagree.
What's your goal in this thread? From what I can tell, it's just an exercise in the Socratic method. Is there an actual position you're aiming for?
Being given a moral reason as for why they're bad. No argument I've had person to person about PEDs has had that. It always starts with "OMG you evil monster, PEDs are evil" and ends with "fine, you're right rationally, but that's how it's always been, and it's like sports or something"
Yet you're also arguing against the points I've made, when I've made clear to distinguish that morality/ethics is concerned with abiding by the rules rather than the use of PEDs. I think some people tend to conflate the two, which is understandable given that in many (most?) cases we rationalize our moral intuitions.
There's a difference between discussing this from a morality point of view and another from a practical point of view. A game needs to have rules—that's inherent it any game or contest. Those rules can be made for any number of reasons, which can be practicality (this is something we can measure) or safety (we don't want to encourage dangerous behavior), tradition, or whatnot. Morality or ethics come in with respect to abiding by the rules or the spirit of the rules, not generally the rules themselves.