Oh, I didn't mean that there is no line in teaching! I meant just the opposite, that that's one of those places where the spirit of the rules *does* matter, both in terms of the integrity you want to teach your students, and in terms of, at least what USED to be the purpose of testing before the technocrats took over, which was not for the sake of the test itself, but to evaluate actual progress.

I was thinking about Rita Jeptoo's case on my run today, and how it seems to me that illustrates both ends of it. Yep, if she doped, she should lose her titles. Doesn't matter whether she'd have won without doping, doesn't matter whether "everyone else was doing it." She got (or at least preliminarily seems to have been) caught, she knew the rules, they get enforced, end of story. But her agent, on the other hand ... going into full covering-his-own-azz mode the minute he got the news - going so far as to break the news to the media himself, saying they might as well not bother to test the B sample, and cutting her completely loose ... that's not right, and AFAIC a contract with an agent creates both a legal and a personal relationship. If he sues her, without myself knowing the precise language of their contract, I'd want her to have a colorable counterclaim.