An open letter to the IOC Athletes Commission
To the Commission Members
IOC Athletes Commission
15 July 2025
OPEN LETTER TO IOC ATHLETES COMMISSION
On 12 June your Commission published a statement on the Enhanced Games. In a landscape that is dispiritingly sterilised by PR-polished media releases, it is important for people to find their own voice. I do not speak on behalf of Enhanced, but I have written publicly in support of the concept.
In what is perhaps an understatement, you condemned the Enhanced Games. I wonder if you have reflected on the implications of your condemnation. For instance, the goal of the Olympic Movement is to educate youth through sport practiced without discrimination of any kind. A key notion is that there is more that unites us than divides us.
Commendably, in that vein you set aside rivalries and extend your hand to athletes from countries who are at war.
As well, you extend your hand to athletes who have used banned substances as long as the IOC’s doctors have signed off their therapeutic use exemption.
I wonder if I can persuade you to extend your hand to athletes who have used substances banned by the IOC that Enhanced’s doctors have signed off.
Let’s see.
What your Committee stands for
Your statement began with:
“As athletes, we believe that the Enhanced Games or any events encouraging the use of performance-enhancing substances and methods are a betrayal of everything we stand for.”
Yes and no.
First, I unreservedly respect your decision not to participate in the Enhanced Games.
But the Enhanced Games are not a betrayal of ‘everything’ you stand for because Olympian traits are numerous but not universal across sports. For example, the worthy traits of teamwork and bravery are displayed in football and boxing (respectively) but conversely boxing does not invoke teamwork, nor football bravery. Neither of those traits are linked to either athletics, swimming or weightlifting (the three sports in the first Enhanced Games).
Similarly, with the best intentions in the world, no-one could sensibly suggest athletes, swimmers or weightlifters display the high-sensation seeking personality that helps competitors cope in chaotic environments like bobsleigh and downhill skiing.
The traits athletes, swimmers and weightlifters do display are exceptional physiological and physical characteristics plus psychological attributes like competitiveness, goal setting and resilience. And a lot of training.
So the question becomes: ‘Which of the traits displayed by Olympic athletes, swimmers and weightlifters will be betrayed by those competing at the Enhanced Games?’
The inconvenient truth for critics is the same traits that put an Olympian on the podium in athletics, swimming or weightlifting will be found in competitors breaking a world record at Enhanced. Anyone who has pushed the boundaries of elite performance knows that to be true.
So I don’t agree that Enhanced will betray everything you stand for - in fact there is more that unites than divides.
Role models and the integrity of sport
Your statement continues with:
“Most importantly, these events undermine the integrity of sport, and the responsibility athletes hold as role models in society. Promoting performance-enhancing substances and methods sends a dangerous message - especially to current and future generations of athletes. Such substances can lead to serious long-term health consequences - even death - and encouraging athletes to use them is utterly irresponsible and immortal. No level of sporing success is worth such a cost.”
I have a very different perspective.
First, let’s look at the integrity of athletics, swimming and weightlifting.
At least two of those three would be on the podium in any public poll asking which sports already use banned substances. Can you tarnish the reputation or undermine the integrity of a sport already linked to banned substances? You can’t unring the bell.
Next, regarding role models, with due respect to your successful careers I am hesitant to advocate for elite athletes in those three sports as being role models, for the following reasons:
1. Based on the leaked IAAF database I analysed for The Sunday Times, it is reasonable to speculate that 1 in 3 Olympic and world champion medallists may have used a banned substance;1
2. Infamous examples involving the highest profile athletes have proven cheats can win while testing negative; and
3. As I have pointed out previously, the ex-president of WADA concluded that the Olympic Movement did not want to change how many athletes are caught doping.2
Taking those considerations together, we cannot know which medallists have used banned substances, but we can reach a moral certainty that some of them have.
Consequently, youth who dip their hand into the bucket to choose a medallist for a role model have one chance in three of idolising someone without Olympian values.
That is a hero lotto which I hesitate to endorse.
In my opinion, because there are so many other roles in society deserving praise and emulation ahead of sportspeople, athlete’s prominence as role models should be downplayed and/or discouraged. Not marched out by you as a plea for sanctification of the Olympics.
But there is one vital contribution sport can make to society - to inspire physical activity. Nothing surpasses exercise for its diverse health benefits.
Here there is a sharp distinction emerging between the Olympics and Enhanced. Emulating an Olympian means winning some medals in your twenties. Emulating an Enhanced participant means using enhancements to remain active and healthy into old age. In my opinion, the Enhanced ethos better serves and aligns with our aging society than does the Olympic focus on sporting success in early adulthood.
Nor do I agree with your assertion that Enhanced sends a dangerous message to future generations of athletes. Quite the opposite. The unmistakeable message that Enhanced promotes is: “If you are going to take enhancements, do so under close medical supervision.’
Unlike our generation, future athletes will grow up with their parents and peers using life-long medications, such as Ozempic. In an era where unprecedented leaps in biomedical interventions are being reviewed and spruiked by amateur social media opionistas, I cannot think of a more responsible message to send future generations than to seek out and be guided by doctors.
Yet I agree with your statement that performance enhancing substances can lead to health consequences, provided you qualify your statement with ‘if not medically supervised.’ Unless and until you are familiar with the scope and sophistication of Enhanced’s medical monitoring, I do not see how you can reach an informed opinion on the level of risk entailed with their protocols.
Which brings me to my last, and perhaps most fundamental, point.
Respect for autonomy
Your statement concluded with:
“We stand firmly together for the values of fair play, ethical behaviour and respect - principles that have shaped our journey and that we believe should guide and inspire the next generation of athletes. We will do everything we can to protect the integrity of sport for generations to come.”
This seems to be an overreach.
Previously I have emphasised how autonomy underpins any athlete’s decision to participate in the Enhanced Games.3
So I had reason to stop and re-read your reference to ‘respect’. The IOC lists respect as one of its three core values and your Committee cites those values as the starting point for how your Committee approaches everything it does.
Consequently, I wonder if your Committee has pondered whether it should also respect the autonomy of athletes at Enhanced. I believe you should. But not just me. In what has been referred to as the Bible of bioethics, Beauchamp and Childress describe what respect for autonomy entails:
“Respect [for autonomy] involves acknowledging the value and decision-making rights of autonomous persons and enabling them to act autonomously, whereas disrespect for autonomy involves attitudes and actions that ignore, insult, demean, or are inattentive to others’ rights of autonomous action.” - Beauchamp T.L. and Childress J.F., Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 8th ed, Oxford University Press page 104.
Your Committee may have morally acceptable and even praiseworthy beliefs. But those beliefs do not bind other people. Your convictions do not have authority outside the Olympic Movement.
Conclusion
Coming back to the values that drive your Committee, for you setting aside rivalries takes centre stage. But your implication that Enhanced athletes are “utterly irresponsible and immoral” falls well short of that goal. And I humbly hope you might now acknowledge that sentiment as being somewhat misplaced.
Reasonable minds may differ on how enhancements should be integrated into human wellness. But all minds should respect the autonomy of those who do so lawfully.
There is a sector of society - particularly it seems those born into the digital age - who do not hesitate to marry technology, pharmaceuticals and wellbeing seamlessly into their aspirations. Enhanced strive to speak to, engage with and serve that sector. Enhanced’s goal is scientific understanding that can lead to sound interventions to enhance the health span.
Although ‘each to their own’ is a touch simplistic, your values do state that the Olympic Movement practices without discrimination of any kind. You spotlight mutual understanding. In terms of inputs relevant for your contemplation, Enhanced has not gone to war. Its athletes do not break your doping rules. There is more in common than not.
So what do you say - shake hands?
Yours sincerely,
Michael Ashenden PhD, J.D.