How could Floyd Landis do this? Just a week after his victory in the Tour de France – with a damaged hip, no less – he was found to have had abnormally high levels of testosterone in his bloodstream. These levels coincided with his astonishing – some might say improbable – move from 11th to third place in the 17th stage, an advancement that was instrumental in clinching the yellow jersey. The reputation of cycling, already haunted by the specter of doping, seems more ghoulish than ever.

Should we really be surprised? The Tour de France requires a level of stamina that’s been compared to running a marathon almost every day for three weeks on end. Retired Penn State professor Charles Yesalis, an expert on performance-enhancing drugs, has been quoted in many newspapers: “You cannot win the Tour de France without drugs.” This year, nine riders, including three favorites, were disqualified before the race because they were linked to a blood-doping scandal. Landis shouldn’t be convicted prematurely, but the doubts cast on him, the history of drug use in the sport, and even lingering suspicions about seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong have to make you wonder whether the race has become as much about science as it is about talent.

On the other hand, what isn’t a triumph of science over nature these days? Whether we’re talking about lifespan, beauty standards, sexual vitality, concentration levels or athletics, there’s no ignoring the fact that the bar is constantly being raised and we’re constantly finding we need help to meet it. A few days after the Landis scandal broke, it was reported that Olympic gold medal sprinter Justin Gatlin, who shares the current world record in the 100-meter race, tested positive for elevated levels of testosterone last April, a few weeks before he clocked that record time.

Though Landis is the bigger story, a brief history of the 100-meter dash raises some interesting questions about the whole state of affairs. In 1936, Jesse Owens broke the 100-meter record with a time of 10.2 seconds. That record held for 20 years, until it was broken by a tenth of a second, and it took another 12 years for a runner to go below 10 seconds. Times improved incrementally and predictably until 1991, when Carl Lewis ran it in 9.86 seconds. Since then, however, something remarkable has been happening: The record has been broken every few years, including three times in the last 13 months.

So what is an athlete – or anyone in a competitive situation – to do? In a world where so many people appear to be using artificial means to get ahead, does playing by the rules constitute an act of self-sabotage?

As cynical as that sounds, I think that may be the case. That’s because average isn’t as average as it used to be. Take the Miss America pageant. Even though a spokeswoman said the pageant neither encourages cosmetic surgery nor keeps records on average sizes of contestants, various observers think that Miss America’s weight has gone down, but her bra size has increased.

Forty years ago, according to one news report, the average Miss America was a size 10. Today, she’s a size 2. And according to Carolyn Latteier, author of “Breasts: The Women’s Perspective on an American Obsession” (no, I am not providing the Amazon link here), in the 1920s, the average Miss America contestant had a 32-inch bust. Today, the norm is 36 inches. So we could be talking about C and D cups on size 2 bodies, an occurrence in nature somewhat akin to a four-leaf clover.

But these days, we seem to be under some kind of cultural mandate to make ourselves into four-leaf clovers. Even if we’re not competing for Miss America or trying to win the Tour de France, most of us view our raw material as tragically sub-par. And because the technology to fix ourselves is readily available (and increasingly affordable), many feel entitled, even morally obliged, to do just that.

What’s striking is that most of us aren’t taking these measures in order to look spectacular; we’re just trying to get in the range of acceptability. When manicures can be had for $6 and teeth can be whitened overnight, there’s simply no excuse for neglecting the details. Blame it on the flip-flop craze, but even going around without painted toenails is considered questionable.

Going around with synthetic testosterone in your body also is questionable, especially if you’re headed for the finish line of the Tour de France. Ethically speaking, if Floyd Landis is found guilty of doping, he will have no excuse for his actions. He’ll have to cede his title to the second-place finisher, and let’s just hope that guy didn’t cheat. Even so, the larger issue is this: Is it possible to compete in any arena, let alone win a race, without getting a little help from science?

As we crack down on athletes for using performance-enhancing drugs, we’d do well to consider where many of us would be without our own artificial enhancements. Given the amount of effort it takes these days to be ordinary, how can we expect the extraordinary from mere unmedicated mortals?