*edit: sorry, misread that. My answer is not valid to your question.
original answer: because if you dont come up with these ints randomly they are sequential which can cause many unwanted situations where people can guess valid IDs and deduce things from that data. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem
Hence the presumed implication behind the public_id field in GP's comment: anywhere identifiers are exposed, you use the public_id field, thereby preventing ID guessing while still retaining the benefits of ordered IDs where internal lookups are concerned.
Edit: just saw your edit, sounds like we're on the same page!
Decades of security vulnerabilities and compromises because of sequential/guessable PKs is (only!) part of the reason we're here. Miss an authorization check anywhere in the application and you're spoon-feeding entire tables to anyone with the inclination to ask for it.
Getting treatment or not is a decision. It is linked to pressure of suffering. You write that you did well and managed your life well. Awesome.
Other people feel extensive pressure of suffering and are not able to manage their lifes like you did. For those, professional treatment can be life saving.
I think it is pretty safe to assume that at least one third of Googles users will take what the chatbot says as gospel and will not look any deeper, just as users previously took the first search result as the verbatim truth.
That, I think, is a very interesting question!
I guess Google found itself in a situation where they had to jump on the AI bandwagon and add AI features to their search. Summaries existed before for certain topics, now they pop up always.
In the long run they probably need to integrate ads into these responses or they find another way to monetize the combination of "knowing about user intent" and "present matching answers".
I think there are different factors. One is that doping in cycling had big media coverage, especially in the 90ies to 2010s. Media uncovered that basically everyone in the race org knew that doping was involved. See for example Cofidis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cofidis_(cycling_team) This adds to the perception that cycling is very prone to doping.
Whether it is so more than other sports... I don't know. As was mentioned before, in cycling as in other endurance sports, doping can push you very far.
Then there is the way the whole sport is organized. In the tour de france, privately sponsored teams compete against each other. I think this is very different to, say, a world championship. A country or trainer may have the interest of pushing their athletes beyond what is legal. But in a privately sponsored team, the pressure could be much higher.
Not sure your last statement is necessarily correct, just think of the massive doping in the former soviet union. The prestige gained by countries due to e.g. the Olympics regularly causes people to use illicit means.
original answer: because if you dont come up with these ints randomly they are sequential which can cause many unwanted situations where people can guess valid IDs and deduce things from that data. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem