Not So Fast
Comments on the Enhanced Games
Introduction
The Enhanced Games are radical and have provoked strong reactions. Almost all negative. As was mine.
As I had managed the development of tests that are still used to catch cheats at the Olympic Games today, the Enhanced Games seemed an anathema to me. Twenty years ago, I had written that naïvely practising blood doping endangered athlete’s lives. I had also suggested, and eventually saw through to fruition, today’s Athlete Passport. I stood against international cycling and athletics when I thought they could be doing more to stop cheats. I stood against Armstrong before it was popular.
But one by one my visceral objections to the Enhanced Games fell away. I realised that not following the WADA rules was not so radical after all. For example, as private businesses based in the United States, the NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL do not follow those rules, although they do instead run in-house programs negotiated with player unions.[1]
I was also reminded that Dick Pound, founding WADA President, had always invited athletes to ‘opt out’ if they weren’t prepared to follow WADA’s rules.[2]
Today I advocate for the concept of an Enhanced Games to co-exist with the Olympic Movement, provided their athletes do nothing illegal. The following reflects my journey coming to that view.
The author has had no contact nor has any connection whatsoever with the Enhanced Games or its organisers (financial, indirectly, or otherwise).
The author declares the substantial financial assistance provided via previous WADA grants, and wishes to acknowledge the unwavering personal support and inspirational integrity of a high-ranking WADA official who will remain anonymous.
Doping vs. cheating vs. enhancements vs. illegal drugs
First, some definitions to guide our path.
‘Doping’ is the use of substances (or methods) that are on a banned list. A ‘banned’ substance is whatever sport decides to put on its list. If a substance is not on a list, or a sport does not have a list, then using that substance cannot be doping.
‘Cheating’ is intentionally breaking agreed upon rules to obtain an advantage whilst avoiding detection so as to escape penalty.[3] An activity only becomes cheating if there is a rule against it. Cheats prey on competitors who follow the rules.[4]
‘Enhancements’ improve athlete’s normal capacities and performances beyond what is required for good health.[5] For example, condoned enhancements already used in sport include nutrition and hydration supplements, improved equipment, hypobaric chambers, hypoxic tents, sophisticated strength and conditioning, ice baths and recovery modalities, all-weather playing surfaces, biomechanics and feedback from motion analysis.
‘Illicit drug’ is an umbrella term that includes both illegal drugs (e.g., cocaine, heroin or marijuana) as well as legal drugs used in an illegal manner (e.g., counterfeit fentanyl, selling a prescription drug on the black market, using someone else’s medication). For the sake of clarity, this discussion will define illegal drugs as being stimulants (cocaine, ecstasy), narcotics (heroin), cannabinoids (marijuana) and anabolics (steroids).
Drawing these preliminary threads together, if the Enhanced Games do not have a banned list, its athletes cannot be doping. If there are no rules against enhancements, its athletes cannot be cheating. It follows that in order to be valid, criticisms of the Enhanced Games must be based on some rationale other than cheating or doping.
For instance, there are concerns the Enhanced Games will ignore health risks and encourage rampant drug use, in a way that betrays the spirit of sport and glamorises flawed role models. I’ll touch on each of those, but let’s start at the beginning: critics have objected to the use of enhancements.
Today’s athletes are already performance enhanced
Critics argue that performance enhancers obscure whether it was the athlete’s talent, or instead the enhancers, that yielded the outcome. Because the Olympic Movement* promotes itself as an arena for moral development and human self-realisation, it argues that performance should be developed by athletes who cultivate their talent primarily by their own effort.
The Olympic Movement argues that it is not about any sporting performance,[6] but instead what matters is sporting performance that is the outcome of hard work, talent, motivation, courage and commitment.
Yet every current professional or international-level athlete has benefitted from the condoned performance enhancers noted above in some form or another. Elite sport is now a competition between engineers, strength and conditioning specialists, recovery scientists, movement analysis technicians and nutrition experts. And the enhancements they bestow.
Consequently, the Olympic Movement cannot escape the contradiction that it promotes itself as a test of natural human limits, yet it simultaneously endorses scientific and technical enhancements to surpass those limits.[7]
When viewed through this lens, the issue becomes: ‘Which additional enhancements should society tolerate participants using in the Enhanced Games?’
Tolerating risk in sport
Outside of sport, societal attitudes toward the risks associated with enhancements have shifted. To cite but one example, a rapidly growing number of individuals use cosmetic enhancements such as injectable dermal fillers for purely cosmetic reasons. Yet even with medical supervision, injectables can cause death, stroke and blindness.[8],†
Hence it is not entirely clear why, provided there was medical monitoring, contemporary society would condone the health risks associated with cosmetic, but not performance, enhancements.
It is relevant that all substances on banned lists that have regulatory approval can, by definition, be taken safely with medical monitoring. Even (some) steroids, ruthlessly stigmatised* by the media and therefore misunderstood by the general public, have some clinical applications and are considered reasonably safe if taken under medical supervision, with the physician evaluating the benefit/risk ratio.[9]
Harmful effects from virtually all banned substances may occur after prolonged or excessive use, but it is possible to address both via medically monitoring participants in the Enhanced Games. Of course, how that monitoring process is implemented and executed will determine its efficacy.
Inside sport, the fact remains - and this is almost always discretely tucked aside during polite conversation - that sport carries an inherent risk of serious harm or death, whether enhancements are used or not. For example, participating in contact sports can lead to life-long consequences for those who suffer serious concussion, while in combat sports imposing harm on the opponent is seen as a praiseworthy skill.[10]
In fact health risks have been used as an argument for banning elite sport entirely, especially when competitive pressure and expectations on performance tend to increase intensity levels. But sport embraces risk.
For instance, in ski jumping risk is seen as a valuable element of the activity. Risk is also implicit when deciding to make a faster descent in Alpine skiing. Spectators call it bravery when taking higher risk leads to success, tragedy when it leads to injury.
Yet contemporary society defends the athlete’s right to take those risks. More generally, society condones agency – the right to determine one’s own way of life and choices despite risks to well-being. Think of free solo rock climbing, running the bulls in Pamplona, summiting mountains or freediving.
I am not aware of anything that trumps the application of these principles to athletes who wish to use enhancements and participate in the Enhanced Games.
What’s more, it seems inconsistent for the Olympic Movement to argue otherwise. The Olympic Movement’s mantra that it places athlete health above all else seems irreconcilable with its willing deferral to athlete autonomy when it comes to things demonstrably damaging to health, such as smoking and alcohol. Nor does the Olympic Movement intervene if athletes sacrifice family relationships, financial security, education and career in pursuit of success.[11]
Consequently, it seems both inconsistent and arbitrary for the Olympic Movement to adopt the paternalistic stance that it knows better than athletes about the risks of enhancements.
But isn’t there a risk of death?
The hill that critics of the Enhanced Games seem willing to die on is that participants must not use enhancements because they are harmful to health.
Historically, two headlines are rushed forward to trumpet health risks: professional cyclists who died in the late 1980s and early 1990s due to unrestrained EPO use, and the East German women who suffered the effects of State-sponsored steroid treatment.
However, in 2011 Bernat Lopez convincingly deconstructed the sensational story linking EPO to deaths in cycling which was propagated throughout media, literature and academia without proper fact-checking.[12] There is no evidence linking EPO to the deaths, which may instead be tragic incidences of sudden cardiac death in young athletes.
Conversely, what happened in East Germany is irrefutable. For decades the State experimented on its children, who were given oral steroids without their knowledge or consent. It was ghastly, abusive, and unconscionable. Hundreds continue to suffer debilitating side effects.
So it is distasteful to weaponize or associate that abuse with the Enhanced Games, which has no association whatsoever with the forced administration of steroids.
Yet I think the most contentious issue facing the Enhanced Games will be the inevitable use of masculinising hormones by women to enhance their performance. It seems an issue on which reasonable minds will disagree.
Relevantly for those who support an athlete’s autonomy to choose, contemporary society affirms the use of masculinising hormones for persons who wish to align their gender identity and sex-related physical characteristics. There is some uncertainty about the risks of long-term gender-affirming hormone treatment. Despite this, after individual consideration and consultation, a person’s autonomy to use testosterone to induce masculine physical traits is ultimately respected.
But critics seem to have hijacked the health risk argument, adopting the disingenuous stance that using banned substances introduces health risks into an otherwise pristine environment. Their adopted baseline is deceptive, and ignores the ‘exercise paradox’ that although exercise has obvious health benefits, it can also lead to sudden cardiac death even in highly trained athletes who are not using enhancements.
Tragically for affected families, 143 sudden cardiac deaths occurred among American collegiate athletes in NCAA sports between 2002 and 2022.[13] Autopsies revealed previously hidden cardiac disease/anomalies in 4 out of 5 cases. But the remaining 20% of deaths could not be explained. Consequently, even medical screening may not be capable of eliminating risk.
But if a competitor died, would it be caused by enhancements they had used? In the United States, over a 27-year period from 1980 to 2006 (which spans the height of drug use in sport) from a total of 1,866 athletes who died while participating in organised team or individual sports, autopsy results concluded that only 2% of deaths were attributed to drugs.[14]
Deaths in sport do occur but are rare. Of those rare events, history shows it is wrongheaded to blame the use of enhancements. As the risk of death does not deter athletes from participating in the Olympic Movement it seems sensationalist to raise this in the context of the Enhanced Games.
Will the Enhanced Games incentivise* drug use?
I acknowledge that by offering incentives for record performances the Enhanced Games are tacitly encouraging the use of performance enhancing substances. But by offering a gold medal, the Olympic Movement also incentivises the use of performance enhancing substances.
Since testing began in 1968, athletes have tested positive at every summer Olympic Games (except Moscow where there was alleged urine swapping).[15] From Sydney 2000 to London 2012, 118 Olympic medals were won by athletes found to be positive.[16]
Using as a test case the London Olympics, which is the most recent to close the 10-year window of retrospective testing, 31 medals have been withdrawn and 46 medals reallocated.[17]
If the proposition that the Olympic Movement incentivises the use of performance enhancing substances still seems dubious, then as a simple thought experiment, ask: ‘But for the Olympic Games, would those athletes have had those substances in their system on that day?’ The answer is enlightening.
With incentives in play, the focus becomes how each brand deters the abuse of performance enhancing substances. My view of the deterrents in place is summarised in the table below.
Of course, law enforcement will apply equally to athletes in both the Enhanced Games and the Olympic Movement. As will susceptibility to journalistic exposes, whistleblowers or intelligence & investigations. Historically, from Armstrong to Sochi, it is these elements, rather than testing, that have kept rogues in check. In this respect, there is no difference in deterrence between the two brands.
As widely publicised, the Enhanced Games will not test for illegal substances, on any day. Less well publicised is that the Olympic Movement also do not test for illegal substances, except on game day.
The Olympic Movement’s deliberate decision not to test collected samples for illegal substances, except on game day, seems compelling evidence that they have inserted bans to serve some purpose other than protecting the athlete’s health or enforcing the law. This is not a criticism of WADA, who do what they are told by governments and the Olympic Movement. WADA is correctly seen as a custodian, not a rule-maker.
But there does not seem to be any coherent basis for the Olympic Movement to treat one illegal substance like cocaine (tested only game day) differently to another illegal substance such as steroids (tested year-round). Especially so when the Olympic Movement proclaims that using cocaine in conjunction with exercise (something athletes do throughout the year, not just on game day) risks death.[18]
Both cocaine and steroids seem to be widely used in society. Both foster trafficking and organised crime. Often by the same dealers. If concerns for athlete well-being and the law are paramount, it is perplexing that the Olympic Movements tests for steroids year-round but cocaine only on game day.
Hence, in the context of the first two rows in the table above, law enforcement and illegal drugs, it seems a threadbare argument to suggest the Enhanced Games incentivise their use, unless it is conceded that the Olympic Movement also incentivise their use by not testing for illegal substances except on game day.
It follows that the presence or not of a barrier against banned substances, the third row in the table, becomes the distinguishing feature. In fact I don’t think it overstates to say that it alone separates the two brands.
Deterrents against year-round-banned substances
Once it is accepted the Olympic Movement and Enhanced Games both incentivise performance enhancing substances, then, given the equivalence of law enforcement and (for all practical purposes) deterrence of illegal substances, the barrier represented by testing for year-round-banned substances comes to front and centre stage.
Undeniably, the Olympic Movement relies on testing as its main deterrent. But testing seems fallible. For example, in a commendable step back in 2019 authorities issued international warnings and began testing to stop athletes using the experimental substance GW1516 which had been discontinued because animal testing linked it to cancer. Yet in a reversal of the hoped for trend, in 2020 there were 12 positives, in 2021 there were 18 positives, and in 2022 another 44.[19]
Nor can the Olympic Movement maintain that year-round testing gives them unimpeachable legitimacy. They admit 1000+ athletes escaped their year-round testing in Russia alone.
In my opinion, the barrier’s compromise since 1968 precludes the Olympic Movement from using its absence as justification to outlaw the Enhanced Games on the grounds they don’t test. An owner whose fence is so low that it can be stepped over is in no position to criticise their neighbour for having no fence at all.
That is not to suggest year-round testing should be abandoned. Only that its absence is not a convincing reason to outlaw the Enhanced Games.
I concede that reasonable minds will disagree whether a sound justification exists for banned lists in sport.[20] But I believe they serve an important purpose and should exist. Nor does the Enhanced Games exhort the Olympic Movement to drop their banned list. Instead, they wish to operate their own sport without one.
In my view, once a sport has an agreed upon banned list it must be followed by participants as it forms a rule of that sport. Deliberately using banned substances is preying on participants who follow the rules, and is cheating.
But I do not see how a banned list is integral to sport. For example, no substances were banned at all in the Olympic Games until 1968. Caffeine was not banned, then it was banned from 1984 until 2004, now it is not banned. Sport survived.
I remain adamant that an athlete should not be forced to compete against another who cheats by using banned performance enhancing substances. Nor should they be forced into the ‘if you can’t beat them, join them’ dilemma.
But to my mind, here is the crucial point: the Enhanced Games do not force athletes to make either of those choices. Instead athletes have autonomy to opt in, or opt out, of those choices. I’m not saying athletes must use, or compete against others who are using, banned substances. I’m saying let them if they want to.
A more-is-better, drugs arms race
As just discussed, the possibility of an Olympic medal, a world championship, or a record at the Enhanced Games, are each powerful incentives for participants to gain an advantage over their competitors. Critics argue that the absence of testing will lead to deadly dosages and outrageous physiques in the latter.
I do see this as a risk. I don’t see it as grounds to outlaw the Enhanced Games, for the following reasons.
As a preliminary point, fears of cartoonishly muscle-bound competitors are overstated. Unlike bodybuilding, success in the vast majority of events demands a trade-off that balances power with weight. Nonethless, I do acknowledge there are exceptions, such as some field events and those with unlimited weight categories.
It is a common misconception that doping in sport orbits around exotic, even deadly, substances. I have noted the use of GW1516, which in 2022 comprised 44 out of 256,769 samples or a hit rate of less than 0.02%. Either the overwhelming majority of cheats are not using exotics, or the Olympic Movement is not testing those who do. Foolhardy individuals willing to risk their lives already contaminate the Olympic Movement and I doubt the Enhanced Games will be immune. But that does not justify outlawing the Enhanced Games. If it did, then a ban for the goose should also be a ban for the gander.
Instead of exotics, every year over half of positives come from pedestrian steroids and diuretics to mask drug use. Overall, 9 out of 10 positives are for steroids, diuretics, stimulants, hormones and cannabis (the balance comprising beta blockers and narcotics like oxycodone and morphine). These are substances that can be taken safely under medical supervision.
Consequently, I believe that medical supervision while taking enhancements, in tandem with medical screening as a pre-requisite to entry, can comfortably replace mere testing as a deterrent against deadly dosages or outrageous physiques.
I liken the Enhanced Games with a 300 km/hr supercar. Both can be dangerous. Both can be safe. It depends on how they are operated.
It is dangerous to drive at 300 km/hr on a city street. It is dangerous to use performance enhancing substances without medical supervision. A supercar can be operated safely on a race track. Performance enhancing substances can be taken safely under medical supervision. Note that in both instances, safely does not mean entirely without risk.
The vast majority of citizens do not have the wealth or physical ability to own a super car or compete at the Enhanced Games. But for those fortunate few who do, I see no grounds to prevent them from safely doing so.
Respecting the sovereignty of sport events
There is no moral high ground here. The Olympic Movement only test year-round for banned substances because to do otherwise would allow cheats to demolish the system by scheduling administration to ensure the substance cleared their system before game day. As evidenced above, year-round testing is only to deter athletes from using banned substances, not to deter them from using illegal substances.
It does not require a giant leap to surmise that the Olympic Movement has one eye on its brand when promoting its stance against banned drugs. I’m not convinced the Olympic Movement’s self-interest trumps an individual’s autonomy.
Autonomy is not lawlessness. Everyone must follow their local laws. But no-one has to follow sport’s rules, unless they choose to participate in that sport.
By way of illustration:
1. An athlete might choose to kick a ball in the park on weekends and not be subject to WADA’s banned list.
2. An athlete might choose to participate in the Olympic Games and be subject to WADA’s banned list.
3. An athlete might choose to participate in the Enhanced Games and not be subject to WADA’s banned list.
The Olympic Movement can only impose its rules in one of those scenario. To suggest otherwise smacks of hubris.*
Although founded on admirable intentions, from an athlete’s perspective year-round testing has morphed into a contorted behemoth: obliged to tell authorities where they are every day; substances tested for on some days, not others; what’s banned changes every year; no flu tablets if they’re feeling lousy on game day; one athlete banned for eating a dodgy kebab, another in a state-sponsored drug program walks free...
I admire, and I believe my past work demonstrates that I stand up for, athletes willing to pay that price and adhere to the testing regimen. But I respect the decision of other athletes who decide to opt out and instead kick a ball in the park on weekends or participate in the Enhanced Games.
What example does this set for younger children?
Elite athletes are role models. As are social influencers, pop icons and movie stars.
For two years I lived with hundreds of elite athletes as a supervisor in halls of residence at a national training centre. In my experience a handful had especially praiseworthy characters and most others were decent people with human foibles.
However, their on-field athletic abilities – which were always exceptional – did not predict their off-field personalities. Admiring a role model based only on their athletic ability is the quintessential ‘judging a book by its cover’. Little wonder that some revered athletes have endured a devastating fall from grace. It was a pedestal on which their personality did not belong.
Regardless, athletes will continue to be adopted as role models. Given sport’s saturation media coverage, there will never be a shortage of famous athlete candidates. The Enhanced Games do not reduce that choice. Consequently, its critics instead charge from the opposite direction, namely that enhanced athletes will set a bad example for younger children. Anti-role models.
It is difficult to comprehend how. These enhanced athletes will not cheat. They will not dope. They will exercise autonomy. They will model medical supervision to mitigate health risks. All these seem worthy traits. I even expect a handful of enhanced athletes will have especially praiseworthy characters and most others will be decent people with human foibles.
The co-founder’s investment into the Enhanced Games seems to be a sincere extension of his ongoing development of anti-ageing drugs to prolong the human life and health span.[21] Although the Enhanced Games are controversial, they are not moronic.*
In my view, critics who cast blanket aspersions on participants, simply because they chose to opt out of the Olympic Movement, are sailing uncomfortably close to the dictionary definition of bigotry.*
Aren’t enhancements against the spirit of sport?
Critics argue that taking performance enhancing substances affords otherwise impossible improvements and circumvents the need for training. It goes against sport’s intrinsic values and emphasises results. But so do super shoes.
Indeed, a cynic might argue that a federation’s attitude on which enhancements to allow is skewed toward making their sport more marketable or lucrative to its sponsors, rather than maintaining a level playing field. For several years, non-sponsored athletes unable to access super shoes were forced to compete at a disadvantage. Athletes from poor financial backgrounds still do. Similarly for the staggered adoption of aerodynamic track bikes and new fibres in sportswear. But fans still watch athletes running in super shoes.
This demonstrates that enhancements in and of themselves do not erode the spirit of sport.
Despite enhancements, I also expect outcomes in the Enhanced Games will be unpredictable. For example, in medical settings, as well as in administration trials I have been involved with, individuals react differently to even the most potent drugs. According to his award-winning documentary Icarus, Bryan Fogel experienced comparable unpredictability when using a sophisticated drug regime that failed to materially improve his cycling performance.
Just as individuals respond differently to a particular training bout, such that sophisticated programs are tailored to address those idiosyncrasies, this unpredictability also occurs with condoned performance enhancers, such as ‘responders’ and ‘non-responders’ to altitude training.
Consequently, there is good reason to believe that the Enhanced Games will represent a new, but inherently unpredictable, playing arena where results will vary depending on the athlete’s idiosyncratic response to the type, combination, and timing of enhancements.
It’s the same spirit of sport, just served in a different glass.
Time to be candid,* not just truthful
‘If you walk outside you can be struck and killed by lightning’ is a truthful statement. But adding ‘the odds are less than 1 in 100,000 during your lifetime, and there’s zero chance in a clear, dry sky’ makes it a candid statement too.
‘Cosmetic injectables can cause death, stroke and blindness’ is a truthful statement, written for maximum impact. But adding ‘if accidentally injected into an artery’ makes it a candid statement too. Being candid places the risk in context and flags that the practitioner’s thorough knowledge of the location of blood vessels and correct injection technique reduces the risk.
‘Taking steroids can cause acne, hirsutism, high blood pressure, liver damage, infertility, enlargement of breast tissue and cardiomyopathy’ is a truthful statement, with maximum impact. But adding ‘treatable, reversible, small, rare, reversible, resolvable and unlikely to lead to clinical complaints’[22] respectively to each of those side-effects makes it a candid statement too. Being candid places the risk in context and flags that medical supervision reduces the risk.
However, despite its best intentions and countermeasures, the fallibility of the organiser’s model is laid bare by the revelation that in the past year over 500 athletes registered with the Enhanced Games were found to have procured steroids on the black market and used them without medical supervision. It is an uncomfortable reality check that undermines the organiser’s carefully manicured public messaging.
If reading the above paragraph triggered a rising sense of condemnation, I invite you to re-read it but substitute ‘the Olympic Movement’ for ‘the Enhanced Games’. The amended sentence is a fact,[23] while the original sentence merely represents a critic’s pessimistic forecast. Is your sense of condemnation warranted in either scenario?
The Enhanced Games could help natural athletes
If they co-existed, I believe the Enhanced Games could help natural athletes who still wished to compete within the Olympic Movement. I am not convinced their co-existence will necessarily partition out all those who use performance enhancing substances. But I believe the Enhanced Games have the potential to help natural athletes in additional ways.
For example, the Olympic Movement will continue to rely on testing to identify cheats. Using a ‘passport’ database to monitor biological variables over time underpins modern strategies. The successful operation of these models depend on a sophisticated understanding of the biological signature associated with various banned substances and methods.
Previously, I was funded to conduct administration trials of EPO, blood transfusion and testosterone to collect and better understand those signatures. Trials are expensive and time consuming. However, as a condition of acceptance into the trial, participants were not allowed to compete in organised sport while they benefitted from the substance. Free of those restrictions, the Enhanced Games represent an opportunity to collect substantial amounts of data from enhanced athletes during competition conditions.
For an example of one potential application – with a caveat that many nascent technologies have been excitedly adopted but eventually found wanting in antidoping science - machine learning and artificial intelligence seem to promise breakthroughs in signature recognition. When sifting through data to yield a unique biological signature, adding more datasets improves recognition (‘more data is better’) but the models must be trained on high quality, real world data.
Consequently, if enhanced athletes provided consent to collect research samples, those real world data may yield a signature that could be used by the Olympic Movement to catch those who cheat natural athletes. It is one potential outcome that would benefit natural athletes.
My position today
In a nutshell, that’s my journey.
I love sport played for sport’s sake. I continue to stand against cheating, because it preys on those who follow the rules. But taking performance enhancing substances is not cheating when there are no rules and no banned list. Their policy not to test for banned substances is not grounds to outlaw the Enhanced Games and I see no reason they cannot co-exist with the Olympic Movement.
If we accept humans have a positive right to enhance and improve themselves, it is far from clear why an athlete who injects a toxin to prevent facial muscle movement cannot also inject a substance to enhance their leg muscle movement. Neither enhancement is necessary. Neither is risk-free.
It is one thing to identify moral ideals as part of sport, but another to argue that the contemporary Olympic Movement is a legitimate platform to propagate those ideals. Evidence to support that participating in the Olympic Movement creates better individuals, or better relations between countries, is vastly outweighed by evidence all around us that it does not.[24] Look no further than Sochi.
Unfortunately the Olympic Movement no longer epitomises the athlete’s quest for excellence. It has morphed into a marketable commodity sold to the highest bidder. Its stewards must take their share of responsibility for transforming sport into a multi-billion dollar, multi-national entertainment business.
In doing so, stewards have unwittingly transformed athletes into entertainers. Where entertainment is marketed and sold, athletes deserve to share the profits and market forces should dictate their remuneration. Else those athletes will defect to other codes.
Similarly, the Enhanced Games’ for-profit mentality is no different than every sport’s naked ambition to increase their market share and sponsor revenue. Except the Enhanced Games are candid about their motivation.
I share the view that commercialisation has skewed the value of sport from intrinsics, such as development of excellence, toward extrinsics such as financial reward.[25] I mourn that loss.
But in closing, although it may be a bitter pill for the Olympic Movement, it was foreseeable that the commercialisation of sport under their stewardship would create an environment that seeded a corporate disruptor.
So now, may the best team win.
Definitions used in text
[*] The Olympic Movement is comprised of the International Olympic Committee, the various International Sport Federations (who establish and enforce each sport’s rules) plus the National Olympic Committees (who promote the Olympic Movement in their country).
[†] See ‘Time to be candid, not just truthful’.
[*] Stigmatised: ‘described in a way that shows strong disapproval’.
[*] Incentivise: ‘to provide a motivation for some action, to make someone want to do something by offering prizes or rewards’.
[*] Hubris: ‘exaggerated pride or self-confidence’.
[*] Moronic: ‘foolish, stupid or idiotic’.
[*] Bigotry: ‘expressing strong beliefs with intolerance of people who have different beliefs’.
[*] Candid: ‘being open, sincere, direct and with the absence of deception’.
Endnotes
[1] See https://www.usada.org/resources/faq/
[2] Pound, R.W., Inside the Olympics, 2004, Toronto: Wiley & Sons.
[3] Paraphrased from Fraleigh, W.P., Intentional Rules Violations – One More Time, Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 30 (2003):163.
[4] Loland, S., Fairness and Justice in Sport, in The Bloomsbury Companion to the Philosophy of Sport, C.R. Torres, Editor. 2014.
[5] See Teetzel, S., The Ethics of Enhancing Performance, in The Bloomsbury Companion to the Philosophy of Sport, C.R. Torres, Editor. 2014.
[6] See Loland, S., Fairness and Justice in Sport, in The Bloomsbury Companion to the Philosophy of Sport, C.R. Torres, Editor. 2014.
[7] Ryall, E., Philosophy of Sport. 2016, London: Bloomsbury.
[8] See https://www.health.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/migrated/files/collections
/factsheets/a/adverse-health-effects-from-injectable-cosmetic-procedures---pdf.pdf
[9] Kicman A.T., Pharmacology of anabolic steroids, British Journal of Pharmacology, 154 (2008):502.
[10] See Loland, S., Fairness and Justice in Sport, in The Bloomsbury Companion to the Philosophy of Sport, C.R. Torres, Editor. 2014.
[11] Ryall, E., Philosophy of Sport. 2016, London: Bloomsbury.
[12] Lopez, B., The Invention of a ‘Drug of Mass Destruction’: Deconstructing the EPO Myth, Sport in History 31:1 (2011):84.
[13] Petek, B.J. et al., Sudden Cardiac Death in National Collegiate Athletic Association Athletes: A 20-Year Study, Circulation 149(2) (2024):80.
[14] Maron, B.J. et al., Sudden Deaths in Young Competitive Athletes: Analysis of 1866 deaths in the United States, 1980 – 2006, Circulation 119(8) (2009):1085.
[15] Kolliari-Turner, A. et al., Analysis of Anti-Doping Rule Violations That Have Impacted Medal Results at the Summer Olympic Games 1968-2021, Sports Medicine (2021) 51:2221
[16] Kolliari-Turner, A. et al., Analysis of Anti-Doping Rule Violations That Have Impacted Medal Results at the Summer Olympic Games 1968-2021, Sports Medicine (2021) 51:2221.
[17] See https://ita.sport/resource/ita-london-2012-sample-re-analysis-report/#:~:text=The%20entire%20re%2Danalysis%20program,and%20reallocated%2046%20Olympic%20medals.
[18] For example, see https://www.sportintegrity.gov.au/what-we-do/anti-doping/prohibited-substances-and-methods/cocaine-use-sport.
[19] World Anti-Doping Agency. Anti-Doping Testing Figures. See https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/anti-doping-stats/anti-doping-testing-figures-report.
[20] Loland, S., Performance-enhancing Drugs, Sport, and the Ideal of Natural Athletic Performance, The American Journal of Bioethics 18:6 (2018):8.
[21] See https://apeiron-investments.com/about
[22] Bond, P. et al., Anabolic-androgenic steroids: How do they work and what are the risks?, Front. Endocrinol. (2022) doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.1059473.
[23] World Anti-Doping Agency. Anti-Doping Testing Figures. See https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/anti-doping-stats/anti-doping-testing-figures-report
[24] See Russell, J.S., Competitive Sport, Moral Development and Peace, in The Bloomsbury Companion to the Philosophy of Sport, C.R. Torres, Editor. 2014.
[25] See Ryall, E., Philosophy of Sport. 2016, London: Bloomsbury.