The first response is to look toward individual responsibility for a solution. Do what you can to equal or better the quality of your equipment. This arises basically from a sense that the current matchup is unfair due to the equipment of the opponent. There is no reason to blame the opponent, for obviously they will do what is in their best interest to outperform you.
But this question likewise shows the importance of governance. That is, if there had been an umbrella organization setting standards of conformance, such a situation of unfairness would not have arisen in the sport. However, it must be acknowledged that the governance option need not be beneficial in the long-run if it results in the intentional or unintentional curtailment of equipment innovation. It is indeed likewise evident that an active, progressive, and creative governance structure could actually stimulate and cultivate development of equipment greater than unassisted competition itself. The tone of governance would therefore be critical – a tone that relies ultimately on the resources, inclinations, and values of the component population.
(Please read above again accompanied by following white noise.)
Print Page
