[mat0]

By that logic, every sports player that uses high quality gear is "paying to win". Is Nadal winning solely based on the quality of his racquet? Of course not. Would he play with a basic or low quality one? Absolutely not. What's wrong using the best gear possible?

I don't know where'd you get this notion that it stops at 120hz. It's been proven again and again that even with monitors with low refresh rate you still get a better experience by having more fps available. Better so when you have both the frames and the refresh rate in your monitor.

[bullen]

Nope, because they play at even odds, because the computers are all 120Hz.

[taeric]

To be fair, it is a big factor in competitive cycling. Such that, just getting good is not enough. You have to get good and but the best equipment.

Not that big of a deal when you are all getting together in real life. You can see if you were at a disadvantage due to equipment. Online, you don't get to see.

[jaywalk]

There's nothing unique about competitive cycling in this regard. Take two tennis players of comparable skill and give one the best racket and the other a $20 one from Walmart. Or in football, do the same with two receivers and give one the latest Nike Vapor Jet gloves and have the other use no gloves. Or golf with clubs. I could go on and on.

Equipment quality will always have an impact in sports.

[taeric]

To an extent, I can't but agree. The number of components in cycling is staggering, though. And I have seen far more people effectively buying a few seconds time in cycling than I have elsewhere.

And, at high end competitive, I don't really see a problem. Even low level, I don't see a huge problem. But it does exist. Is why I offered this as a "being fair."