What's the difference in terms of crafting lighter bicycles, or any athletic equipment that makes it easier to compete in a sport. As training, coaching, nutrition, and equipment are increasingly perfected, the best times of the best athletes have been increasing at a slower rate and slower rate. Eventually, athletes will hit a wall. Now we are faced with the question as to how we can keep sports entertaining. Yes, we could start measuring the 100m race to the thousandth of a second, but how would these sports remain interesting and engaging if the winner of every race was decided by margins undetectable to the naked eye? 
A possible solution is found in doping. And according to Julian Savulescu, an ethics professor at the Oxford Centre of Neuroethics, "The war on doping has failed... Lance Armstrong never failed a doping test, despite being subjected to thousands. Nearly every recent winner of the Tour de France has been implicated in doping. About 80 percent of 100-meter finalists are or will be implicated in doping. The fact is that blood doping and use of growth hormones have not been possible to detect, and because doping mimics normal physiological process it will always be possible to beat the test. Thus, we should embrace the inevitable, and control doping as best we can."
It is through regulation that sports can still be a test of athletic ability.
Moreover, why is it an issue for pharmaceutical companies to face competition as well? By creating competition in the pharmaceutical industry, sports are ensured to never hit a wall. People still need to train to make the most of their drugs.