What makes more sense is focusing on the best possible path forward for everybody, or creating the opportunity for the racer to be as fast as he can be, independent of the speed of other racers.
Disagree.
> It’s like saying everyone has an equal chance to win the race” because the rules allow anyone to win
That's pretty much the definition of equal chance.
> But there could still be rocks in one of the lanes and not in the others.
Could. Maybe. But, staying in the metaphor: it's both exceedingly rare for there to be rocks in one lane and not another, and exceedingly obvious if it is the case.
And nobody assumes that there are rocks because there are clear winners and losers in races. Everybody assumes that the person who won was fastest.
But for some bizarre reason in other fields, we not just assume that there being winners means there must be rocks, we absolutely insist that that is the only possible explanation and vilify people who say "well, maybe the person who won was fastest?"
It is obvious if you’re not willfully blind. How many women have to tell stories of, e.g., trying to make professional connections only to have a coworker make a sexual advance on them instead before you’ll believe that there’s rocks in their lane?
(a) Anecdotes != data
(b) You cannot assume that a man in the same situation would have made a successful professional connection
(c) In fact, the woman, if she isn't entirely daft, will have additional levers to pull
(d) You might have noticed "staying in the metaphor"