Are you a cheater? It's never so cut and dry.

"Cheaters never prosper".
"Cheaters never win.  Winners never cheat."

We've been told this since we were kids. Competition is important, but what's more important is to compete honestly and fairly.  We were taught that cheating is wrong and that even if we benefit in the short term, in the long run we lose.

That's debatable.

What's more fundamental really is defining what actually constitutes cheating?  Where do we draw the line between cheating and simply being creative within the confines of the rules?

Let's take sports as an example. In most high-level competitions, athletes are not allowed to take certain substances that modify their bodies' chemistry and allow them to enhance their performance. However, athletes are allowed to do resistance training and cardiovascular exercises.  Those activities will result in changes in their bodies' chemistry, composition, strength and endurance. This will eventually enhance their performance. The latter's not considered cheating, but the mechanism is pretty similar (albeit slower).

What if an athlete drinks a couple of cups of coffee or takes a "pre-workout supplement" filled with stimulants right before starting a resistance training work out?  Their body chemistry's changed.  They're more stimulated and able to lift more weight, for more repetitions, and for a longer period of time.  Being able to work out that way will of course have the result of enhancing future performance. Is that cheating?

Let's take it a step further.  When it was finally proven that Lance Armstrong was on PEDs when he won multiple back-to-back Tour de France races, they cycling association tried to award the win to the cyclist who came in second place.  Except that guy was also on PEDs.  So they tried to give it to guy in third place, who they found was also on PEDs.  They had to go all the way down to the person in 17th place or something similar to find someone who wasn't "cheating".  But in that case, if almost everyone is on PEDs, can we still say that it's cheating if someone gets caught using prohibited substances?

Or what about in business?  Sure, there are rules and laws to prevent quid pro quo practices and ensure that no bribery or corruption happens to ensure that competition between companies are fair when interacting with clients.  But ask anyone working in a sales job about "relationship building activities".

Can you consider having a meal or even a coffee with clients a quid pro quo practice?  What about organizing and sponsoring special events for clients?  Or inviting them to your company's special private box at major sporting events and concerts? Or how about paying for a round of golf with a client? Can we honestly say that businesses aren't engaging in these activities to get something in return from their clients?  If so, is that really cheating or just improving business relationships?

It is possible to set rules to ensure that specific behaviours are discouraged and cheating is well-defined. Sure, you could work perfectly by the book all the time to ensure that you're not cheating. The problem is, when you're trying to win at such a high level, no matter what the field, your competitors are going to be operating within the gray areas between the strict application of the rules and cheating. So if you decide to stay away from that area, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage.