The Enhanced Games-Is this the Future of Human Performance?

Sport has always been obsessed with pushing the boundaries of human performance. Elite athletes are always seeking to gain the edge through advanced training and nutrition strategies for the smallest competitive advantage. Some of these trending training methods include altitude training, hypoxic training or warm weather training camps. Elite level sport is constantly innovating for athletes to enhance their performance. However, the announcement of the Enhanced Games has forced sport into an uncomfortable conversation many have avoided for decades. Where do we draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable enhancement?

The concept behind the Enhanced Games is simple, but controversial. Athletes would be allowed to use performance-enhancing drugs under medical supervision, without the fear of bans or sanctions. Their aim is to push the limits of human performance offering substantial prize money for competing athletes, incentivising them to break existing world records. Enhanced Games has recruited ex-Olympians who have competed at the highest level in their field, but also a number of these athletes have achieved numerous medals at Olympic Games. The response of the wider audience has varied, with some supporters encouraging these games for honesty, transparency and entertainment purposes whilst critics believe these events will fundamentally destroy the meaning and integrity of sporting competitions. At a first glance, the idea appears extreme. However, the deeper question may be centred around whether athletes in modern day elite sport have been “enhanced” in countless ways without it being brought to surface.

Modern athletes are already enhanced in countless ways. Cryotherapy chambers, altitude training, carbon-plated footwear, recovery boots, personalised supplementation protocols and other various advanced sport science training methods. The reality is that elite sport is ever evolving and has never been “natural”. Instead, it has always rewarded whoever could best manipulate the margins of performance. Some of the extreme high profile cases of doping include Lance Armstrong’s Tour De France dominance, the Russian State doping programme which led to over 100 Russian athletes being banned from Rio Games in 2016 and Winter Olympics in 2018 and finally Ben Johnson who broke the 100m world record back in 1988 before being sanctioned for his use of anabolic steroids just 48 hours later. This creates an uncomfortable question, if enhancement is deeply embedded within modern sport, why are certain forms of enhancement accepted while others are condemned?

The answer is often framed around fairness, integrity and athlete safety. It is well documented by Anti-Doping organisations that banned substances provide unfair advantages while exposing athletes to health risks. However, it could be argued that high performance sport is not particularly healthy. Athletes subject themselves to extreme levels of physiological stress, play through injuries or collide repeatedly at high speeds. These health risks can have a delayed effect such as traumatic brain injuries from concussions or musculoskeletal degenerative conditions such as arthritis or joint replacement surgeries. Athletes accept this trade-off between risk and reward to have a successful career in high performance sport.

This is where the concept of the Enhanced Games becomes particularly interesting, with organisers arguing that the use of performance enhancing drugs already exists in hidden forms. In modern sport this drug use often occurs underground where athletes pursue it secretly, typically without proper medical supervision due to the heightened risk of getting caught.

History suggests that anti-doping systems are far from perfect. There have been many major doping scandals exposed throughout the years, from cycling and athletics to weightlifting. This highlights the difficultly of truly eliminating the use of performance enhancing drugs. Despite billions invested into testing systems and consistent exposure to testing, it seems athletes and their coaches are often one step ahead. Microdosing strategies, masking agents and therapeutic use exemptions have generally blurred the line between legal and illegal enhancement for years. In high performance sport, even incremental gains from the use of a prescription inhaler may be the marginal difference between gaining success or losing. This generates a difficult question, is anti-doping genuinely making high performance sport clean? Is the pressure of competing at the highest-level forcing athletes to take performance enhancing drugs without the necessary medical supervision exposing them to increased health risks?

The idea of medically supervised enhancement is becoming increasingly difficult for some people to dismiss entirely. If athletes are already taking risks behind closed doors, would a regulated environment reduce harm? It is quite a controversial argument, and difficult to find an answer. In theory, supervised enhancement could provide medical oversight, safer dosages and increased transparency which could argue lower risk. On the other hand, could athletes and coaches push for higher dosages in order to ensure they compete well putting even higher risks in place? There are clear dangers in normalising enhancement, it is still not fully known the extent of the damage it may cause to athletes due to lack of public research. Athletes who are microdosing behind closed doors to go undetected will likely experience some health issues using low dosages. Is promoting the use of performance enhancing drugs opening the door for higher dosages, higher pressures and higher risks of health complications? If performance enhancing drugs became accepted within high performance sport would this promote young athletes to use substances to gain an edge or simply remain competitive? The pressure for youth athletes to succeed in modern sport is already immense, introducing legal enhancement may intensity this even further. The knock-on effect could potentially strip any remaining integrity that modern day sport has left and normalise the use of drugs to gain success.

Modern day sport is built hugely on entertainment, sponsorships, social media and fan engagement. Fans demand entertainment, they enjoy seeing athletes push their limits and continuously break world records. Athletes are now expected to run faster, recover quicker and train harder than ever before. Social media amplifies this with fans engaging in training footage and insights into testing data on a regular basis. In some cases, the Enhanced Games may represent more than just a sporting event. This might be the next stage of high-performance culture entirely. If fans demand athletes to continuously strive for improvements and records, it becomes extremely difficult to ignore the incentives that drive athletes towards enhancements in the first place. Many of the athletes in the Enhanced Games have opened up about the financial struggles they faced as Olympians, making it clear that the main incentive for the switch in most cases is a financial decision. Ben Proud a swimmer, who was the first British athlete to join the event stated that financially he would have to win 13 World Championship titles in Swimming to earn the same as winning 1 event at the Enhanced Games. As an athlete coming towards the tail-end of their career could this be an extremely tempting prospect which could set them up for life? Potentially.

However, there is something uncomfortable about removing the limits entirely. Sport has traditionally celebrated physical achievement, but also the idea of struggling past human limits. The process of getting to the top and achieving these results. There is a lot of meaning in the preparation, discipline and sacrifice that the athletes partake in to reach these massive milestones. Promoting the use of performance enhancing drugs would likely alter this fundamental relationship between athletes and spectators. If world records became heavily associated with enhancement, would they still have the same appreciation? Would these achievements still actually feel authentic? On one side, this could be extremely entertaining and allow the world to see what is humanly possible. The other side presents a case of completely ruining the integrity, authenticity and human value of sport.

Ultimately, the Enhanced Games have forced sport into confronting contradictions that have existed for decades. Elite sport celebrates enhancement when it comes through technology, science, nutrition, or financial investment, yet condemns enhancement when it crosses certain boundaries. The distinction may not always be as clear or objective as sport often presents it to be. This does not necessarily mean the Enhanced Games are the future of sport, nor does it mean performance enhancing drugs should be embraced without concern. The ethical, medical, and social consequences remain enormous. However, dismissing the conversation entirely may prevent us from examining deeper questions surrounding modern performance culture, financial incentives and the pressures placed upon athletes.

The greatest significance of the Enhanced Games may not be whether they ultimately succeed or fail, but whether they question how far sport is willing to go in the pursuit of performance. As technology, science, and innovation continue to evolve the challenge may not simply be deciding how much enhancement is acceptable but determining what we want sport to represent in the future.