[kazinator]

Let's substitute cheating with something else in your sentence.

"So you wanna compete as a road runner? Fine, you can only run with other competitive runners."

See where that is going?

Cheaters don't care about other cheaters being there; they either think they can out-cheat them, or else that the other cheats don't matter: there is enough of a bonanza there that all cheaters can win, and in fact more is left if non-cheaters are eliminated.

[manicdee]

Not only that, but being aware of the environment as being "cheating-enabling" means that when they lose the cheaters can blame the competitor having better cheats, rather than having lost because they're a worse player.

I win? I'm the better player!

I lose? They had an advantageous cheat!

[gryn]

wait, but no. the goal of the runner is probably to get better at running not just winning whatever the cost.

someone who wanted to win no matter the cost even if it made them over the long run worse at running would probably find way to disqualify better runners or some other methods that doesn't necessarily involve enjoying running.

the difference between what you're describing and the the scenario is a difference between instrumental and intrinsic goals

[kazinator]

The intent was to create an analogy between the motivation to cheat and some other motivation (not involving cheating).

Let's assume that the goal of the cheater is likewise to get better at cheating, and that cheaters intrinsically enjoy cheating.