Why is it that elections are reported as race horses but when steroid time

comes, it's something totally different?
If one discovered that a horse was doped, the terrain altered, the jokey weight fixed (one or all of the above) would they start to recalculate the time of different horses or cancel the damn thing and have another?
Why not stay with the horse race metaphor till the end?
Why is fraud more acceptable in elections than in sports?

of choice! bettors, of course, would shoot them if they tried fix a race...

The horse who came in second is declared the winner. They do not run the race over again and do not recalibrate times.

Depending on how they cheated, the jockey, trainer and or owner would face disciplinary charges including suspension, fines and criminal charges if applicable. If there was a question about the identity of a racehorse, the horse in question could also be ruled off the track for life (kind of sad for the one innocent in these sort of scandals but essential for the integrity of the sport)

You're right, of course. The standards in politics should be the same as in sports. Of course the same rule applies in horse racing as in politcs--it ain't cheating if you don't get caught--the number of racing people who get caught each year is just the tip of the iceberg.

Was it prevalent? Was it only a little bit of steroids? Should a little cheat affect the outcome? These questions are not asked in a race horse, are they?
Somehow, fraud is unacceptable in sports.
If only democracy were held in such high regard as sports....