Actually, the question would be more "what is judged by a competition ?". Levelling the playing field is not only a reason for pleasing the crowds (which happens sometimes) but also a way to assert what the competition is for. A car racing organization can decide that to judge the pilot skills is more important than judging the technology level, and therefore setup rules for that. On the other hand, we could see in the foreseeable future another competition judging only the technology and letting a standard I.A. do the driving (Google car racing team ?). But spectators would maybe not enjoy much such competitions because they have to relate to competitors. Same thing : at the Olympics, it is generally considered that the important part is the human effort, not the technological one, so they set up standards to judge only this human part. This is not a marketing strategy, but a philosophical choice. And this is interesting because this can be debated as the lines between the technology and the human will become blurred (remember the polemic when it was discussed if the blades of Oscar Pistorius were or not giving him an advantage ?). But my view on that is we need to keep a strong 'human only' part of sports, even those where tech can play a role. I don't mind that there is a whole range of competitions with the whole spectrum of human / tech association in any proportion, but I would not be very interested long if the human part was very minor.