Same as the point of disallowing it? They're both arbitrary, because the competition is pointless.
Allowing it has the exact opposite effect, the athlete herself is worthless and it becomes a competition of who has the better drug cocktail or is more willing to sacrifice their health. There's nothing arbitrary about this, it destroys the very essence of what athleticism is about. It's as if we allowed chess engines at chess tournaments.
The actual point of this has of course nothing to do with sports:
"He said that the data would be “very useful to determining compounds and therapies to extending human life.”"
It's yet another typical Thiel supervillain-esque attempt to turn himself into Leto II.
Scores of doped up athletes should not compare to regular athletes.
Everyone would be bigger, faster, stronger and the best athletes would come out on top. There’s an argument to be made that it’s a more level playing field than what you have now where most winners are using PED’s and you’re at a disadvantage and unlikely to win if you don’t.
Or do you think that in swimming, it's all the 6'5 guys with broad shoulders that have all the effort and will, but in the marathon it's all the 70kg guys that have the effort and will?