One could try handicapping as is done in horse racing to even things out.
See https://www.britishhorseracing.com/about/handicapping/
"Around 60% of all of the races run in Britain each year are handicaps. These are races where the Handicappers try to give each horse an equal chance of winning by allocating them different weights.
The highest rated (or ‘best’) horse in the race is given the highest weight to carry; and then inferior horses will carry lower weights.
For most owners, handicaps offer their best chance of winning a race. Without them, the top horses would almost always win and there would be no point in owning anything other than a top horse."
This might make sense in gambling, but I don’t see how it applies to the Olympics. I’m sure I (a non-runner) could beat Olympic runners in a race if they hade 150 pound vests on, but why is that interesting?
Now obviously that’s a dumb example, but why would it be interesting to see olympic sprinters beat Usain Bolt in a sprint if Bolt has a 10 pound vest on? I feel like the challenge at that point is determining how much to handicap everyone, and all the results would tell you is if you handicapped them correctly or not.
See https://www.britishhorseracing.com/about/handicapping/ "Around 60% of all of the races run in Britain each year are handicaps. These are races where the Handicappers try to give each horse an equal chance of winning by allocating them different weights.
The highest rated (or ‘best’) horse in the race is given the highest weight to carry; and then inferior horses will carry lower weights.
For most owners, handicaps offer their best chance of winning a race. Without them, the top horses would almost always win and there would be no point in owning anything other than a top horse."