Should the FIG 'allow' wins? Comments on the World Rhythmic Gymnastics Championships

I was reading International Gymnast Online yesterday and came across a story about the Rhythmic Gymnastics World Championships:

http://www.intlgymnast.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1921:russia-wins-three-more-golds-in-moscow&catid=5:competition-reports&Itemid=164

What caught my eye was Tanya's comment at the bottom of the page, to the effect that the Russian team had won too many golds at this championships, and that the FIG shouldn't 'allow' it. Now, granted, I don't know much about rhythmic. The 15 point winning margin of the Russian team suggests that there wasn't much doubt about their win, though, and there seem to be enough people in the world gasping about Kanayeva's grace and artistry to make these wins seem reasonably legitimate; if anything can be legitimate in this sport given the amount of controversy surrounding figures such as Irina Viner.

What really got me thinking, though, was the poster's emphasis on the idea of the FIG exercising power over who can or can't win.

There is an important point of principle here.

Surely sport is about the best winning - not administrators 'allowing' countries to win as a sop to national pride. But what is 'best?', and who decides? Who exercises control over the form that gymnastics takes - the performers and coaches, spectators, or the administrators, and for what reasons? Is fairness about an equal spread of medals amongst diverse countries, or about awarding wins to those who perform the 'best' under the current set of rules? Who should decide what those rules are? Is who wins more important than the sport itself? Is it right to let the sport's administrators try to 'level the field' artificially?

I'm not a rhythmic expert and I may have missed the point - perhaps the Russians aren't clearly the best and should have come second, third, or even last. But if they are the best, what is the problem?