It would depend on how cheating is defined. Take chess for example. Online it is considered enough that you've played too consistently beyond human capability

It would depend on how cheating is defined. Take chess for example. Online it is considered enough that you've played too consistently beyond human capability in order to be deemed a cheater. This isn't proof, though, it just that it defies astronomical odds. In over the board play, it is required that the mechanism be discovered -- you have to catch them with an app on their phone for example. Or that they break tournament rules by not showing you what's on their phone. The point above being that cheating would likely (eventually) elevate to the point of building the ruleset such that one's particular method of "cheating" is allowed, or can't be discovered. I think with a lot of things we're already there now. F1 has people clearly "cheating" every intention of the rules, but if it's not in the rulebook it is legal until the rulebook is changed. Players in a variety of sporting leagues are only drug tested with urine samples that have been beatable for decades -- they're effectively not actually testing these players -- cheating has effectively been negotiated into the rulebook.