I've been following this thread since it was started and the more I've thought about the - surprisingly - sophisticated and sincerely passionate posts, the more I've become unsettled.
The runners of Frank's era and just after -the roadies of the 70s and 80s were my heroes growing up. Not least because they bucked the establishment. The fact that they did take money to compete in the amateur era was an act of civil disobedience. Nothing could be more basic than to receive fair compensation for your labor. Especially when others - meet organizers et al were often profiting so handsomely on the back of it.
Despite all of that, though, what's not in dispute are the following facts:
1. No matter how hypocritical, exploitative and arcane the rules were, those guys broke them
2. Breaking the rules gave them some competitive advantage.
Now reasonable people can argue about the size of that advantage, or whether the rules should have existed, but those facts, are, I think, beyond dispute. They are also the facts that matter any time a governing body - or fan - considers punishing a competitor. They are why doping should result in sanctions. (There's other reasons besides, health, being a role model, etc. but, in terms of competition, they are the most important.)
So, with a bad feeilng in the pit of my stomach, I've got to agree with the minority here: Shorter is being hypocritical.
That said, Shorter is to be admired for speaking out. He has every right, and, I would argue, the responsibility to do so. He's not demanding - the whole Montreal thing aside - that he be rewarded somehow for taking this public stance. I'm glad he is.