The Enhanced Games: Should Sport Allow Performance-Enhancing Drugs?

Timeline

1. Jun 2023The Enhanced Games are announced as an event that will not follow WADA rules.
2. Jan 2024Organizers announce a multi-million-dollar investment round including Peter Thiel and Christian Angermayer.
3. Feb 2024Retired Australian Olympic swimmer James Magnussen says he will come out of retirement to try to break the 50m freestyle record with enhancement.
4. May 2025Organizers announce the first Games for May 2026 at Resorts World Las Vegas, featuring swimming, track and field, and weightlifting.
5. Jun 2025World Aquatics adopts a bylaw barring anyone who participates in or supports enhanced events from its competitions.
6. Aug–Nov 2025The Enhanced Games sue World Aquatics, WADA, and others under U.S. antitrust law; a federal judge dismisses the suit in November 2025.
7. May 24, 2026The first Enhanced Games are held in Las Vegas; Kristian Gkolomeev swims 20.81 seconds in the 50m freestyle, under the official world record of 20.88, earning a $1 million bonus; the time is not officially recognized.

The ethical issues

• Bodily autonomy vs. paternalism: should competent adults be free to enhance under medical supervision?
• Health and coercion: even voluntary events may pressure athletes, including younger ones, to take risks.
• The meaning of sport: is the point of competition natural human ability, or the furthest reach of human performance?
• Athlete pay and governance: organizers attack the Olympic model for paying athletes little while generating billions.
• Exclusion as punishment: governing bodies banning participants from their events may be protective or anticompetitive.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
Participating athletes	Earnings, autonomy, and health; possible exclusion from mainstream sport.
Clean athletes	The value of their achievements and the spread of pressure to enhance.
Enhanced Games organizers and investors	Commercial return; promoting enhancement products and research.
IOC, WADA, and federations (World Athletics, World Aquatics)	Protecting their model of clean sport and their authority over athletes.
Medical professionals	Duties of non-maleficence; legitimacy of supervising enhancement for competition.
Young athletes and the public	The messages sent about drugs, bodies, and success.

The case

In June 2023, an Australian entrepreneur based in London, Aron D’Souza, announced a new international competition: the Enhanced Games. Unlike the Olympics, it would not follow the World Anti-Doping Agency’s rules. Athletes could use performance-enhancing substances. Organizers later said these substances would have to be approved for medical use and taken under clinical supervision. D’Souza framed the project as a matter of bodily autonomy, scientific honesty, and fair pay. He accused the International Olympic Committee of an exploitative relationship with athletes and called WADA an “anti-science” extension of the IOC.^[1]

The project attracted serious money. In January 2024 organizers announced investment from Silicon Valley figures including Peter Thiel, German biotech investor Christian Angermayer, and Balaji Srinivasan; Donald Trump Jr.’s venture fund later joined.^[1] Retired Australian swimmer James Magnussen said in early 2024 he would return to try to break the 50-meter freestyle world record while enhanced, for a promised $1 million bonus.^[1]

Background

D’Souza has said the idea came to him in 2022, when he noticed that many people at an American gym were obviously using steroids.^[1] He had earlier worked with Thiel on the lawsuit that drove the website Gawker into bankruptcy.^[1] The original plan was far more ambitious than what happened. It called for an annual event in five categories (track and field, swimming, weightlifting, gymnastics and combat sports), first planned for December 2024.^[1] Organizers said prosthetic limbs and any shoe technology would be allowed, cocaine and heroin would not, and athletes would be categorized by chromosomal sex.^[1] D’Souza summed up his position as “my body, my choice,” arguing that no “paternalistic sports federation” should decide for adults.^[1]

The rules and governance

The World Anti-Doping Code binds athletes through the federations and events that sign up to it. An athlete who leaves that system is not subject to its tests, but may lose eligibility to return. That is why the main enforcement tool was exclusion, not prosecution.^[1][2] World Aquatics’ June 2025 rule barred anyone who took part in or supported such events from its competitions, and WADA warned athletes and support staff that they risked violating anti-doping rules.^[1] The organizers’ antitrust challenge to those exclusion rules was dismissed.^[1]

The organizers’ own safety rules relied on medical regulation, not sport regulation: only substances approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, used under medical supervision, for what D’Souza described as insurance reasons.^[1] In December 2025 chief executive Maximilian Martin said the venture was not trying to compete directly with the Olympic movement.^[1]

Condemnation

Sport’s establishment responded with rare unanimity. The IOC said the concept would “destroy any concept of fair play and fair competition.” World Athletics president Sebastian Coe said no one in athletics took it seriously. WADA warned that participants and support personnel risked violating anti-doping rules. World Aquatics called the event a “circus, built on shortcuts.” In June 2025 it adopted a rule barring anyone who participates in or supports such events from its competitions. Sports-medicine bodies warned that the event could exploit young people and normalize dangerous drug use.^[1][2]

WADA’s formal statement came on May 22, 2025, the day after the Las Vegas venue and date were announced. It condemned the event as “a dangerous and irresponsible concept” that would promote “powerful substances and methods by athletes for the purposes of entertainment and marketing.” It said the organizers’ focus was “to sell their products and to play down the associated risks.” WADA said it would encourage anti-doping organizations to test involved athletes “before, during and after this event.” It also called on governments and law enforcement to assess whether athletes who admitted using performance-enhancing drugs, or the physicians who supplied them, might be breaking criminal laws or professional rules.^[7]

In 2025 Enhanced US LLC sued World Aquatics, USA Swimming and WADA in federal court in New York. It claimed that World Aquatics’ By-Law 10, which made anyone who “supports, endorses, or otherwise participates” in such events ineligible for World Aquatics competition “in any capacity,” violated the Sherman Act. It also brought a state-law claim for tortious interference. On November 17, 2025, Judge Jesse M. Furman held that the court had jurisdiction over WADA but dismissed the claims. They fell short “principally because By-Law 10, on its face, does not bind USA Swimming or any other entity,” so no conspiracy was plausibly alleged. Enhanced had also failed to allege that World Aquatics held monopoly or monopsony power. The judge noted that Enhanced’s efforts had, “to put it mildly, not been well received in the established world of international athletics competition.” He allowed 30 days to amend.^[8] Organizers did not refile.^[1]

Las Vegas, May 2026

The first Games took place on May 24, 2026, at Resorts World Las Vegas, with competitions in swimming, sprinting, and weightlifting and generous prize money. By most accounts the results were underwhelming. Only one event saw a time better than the official world record: Greek swimmer Kristian Gkolomeev swam the 50-meter freestyle in 20.81 seconds, against the record of 20.88. He received the $1 million bonus, although no federation recognizes the time.^[3][4] Former world champion Fred Kerley, who said he did not compete enhanced, won the 100 meters in 9.97 seconds, well short of the record. Three athletes who competed without enhancement won their events, a result some observers seized on as proof that “winning takes more than chemistry.”^[3][4] The company behind the Games, by then listed on a U.S. stock exchange, celebrated a world record and many personal bests, and raised the prize for breaking the men’s 100-meter record at the next edition.^[5]

The deeper argument

Philosophers and sports scientists have long debated whether enhancement is wrong in itself. Proponents of the Enhanced Games argue that sport already accepts technology (altitude tents, carbon-plated shoes, surgery), that anti-doping is costly and inconsistent, and that medically supervised enhancement is safer than secret doping. Some academics have cautiously welcomed the research potential.^[1]

Opponents argue that sport’s value lies in comparing natural human abilities developed through effort. They say enhancement shifts competition toward pharmacology and money, and that “voluntary” risk-taking becomes coercive once records and prize money depend on it. Even if adults consent, they argue, the example will reach teenagers in gyms and locker rooms.^[2][6]

Aftermath

The organizers reported that 12 athletes set personal bests.^[1] Mainstream coverage largely described the event as a flop, and after the Games, shares in the listed parent company fell by about 70%.^[1]

The core dilemma

If adults freely choose to enhance under medical supervision, in a competition that openly allows it, is anything wrong? Or are the risks to health, to the meaning of sport, and to young people serious enough to justify governing bodies excluding those who take part?

Competing values

• Autonomy vs. protection: respecting adults’ choices about their bodies vs. preventing harm and coercion.
• Openness vs. integrity: honest, regulated enhancement vs. sport as a test of natural ability.
• Athlete economics vs. institutional authority: new income for athletes vs. federations’ power to set eligibility.
• Innovation vs. precaution: research into human performance vs. unknown long-term health effects.

Strongest arguments

For permitting enhanced competition: it is honest about what many athletes already do, it brings medical supervision into the open, and it pays athletes fairly. Banning participants from other sport protects incumbents’ monopoly more than athletes’ health.

Against it: health risks are real and long-term, and supervision cannot make them disappear. Competitive and financial incentives turn “choice” into pressure. Above all, the event erodes the idea that sport celebrates human effort rather than chemistry, and it sends a dangerous message to young people.

Applying the frameworks

Utilitarian

Consequentialists weigh possible benefits (athlete pay, open research, safer supervised use instead of secret doping) against harms: health risks to participants, pressure on others to follow, and spread of drug use to young people who copy elite athletes. The underwhelming results may reduce the event’s pull, but the broader question remains whether permitting enhancement increases or reduces total harm.

Rights

A rights lens takes autonomy seriously. Adults may choose risks with their own bodies, and D’Souza frames sport’s ban as paternalism. The counter-argument is that consent is shaped by money and records, and that clean athletes have a right to compete without being forced into pharmacological arms races. Exclusion rules by federations also raise questions about athletes’ right to earn a living.

Kantian (duty)

A Kantian lens asks whether enhancement respects the athlete as a rational agent or turns the body into an instrument for spectacle and investors. It also asks what sport is for. If the practice is meant to test human excellence developed through effort, enhancement changes the activity itself. Honesty matters too: an open event avoids the deception of secret doping, which counts in its favor.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue. You are a national swimming federation’s athlete commission chair in 2025. A retired champion asks for advice about competing in the Enhanced Games. The stakeholders include the athlete, current team members, younger swimmers, coaches, sponsors, World Aquatics and WADA. The codes in play are the World Anti-Doping Code and World Aquatics’ exclusion bylaw.
2. Gather facts. What are the health risks of the proposed substances, and what don’t you know? What financial pressures are shaping the athlete’s choice?
3. Test options. Options: (a) advise against and warn of sanctions; (b) respect the athlete’s choice while explaining consequences; (c) push for policy that limits the event’s influence on younger athletes. Weigh autonomy against wider harms.
4. Check codes and law. Are you giving accurate information, not only discouragement? Are you treating a retired athlete’s choice differently from a current athlete’s for good reasons?
5. Decide and document. Record the advice given and the rules explained.
6. Communicate and follow up. Communicate openly with the athlete and the team, and provide education for younger swimmers on the risks of enhancement.

What’s settled and what’s contested

• Settled: the event’s founding, its funding, the dismissal of its antitrust suit, and the May 2026 results.
• Contested: whether enhancement can ever be safe enough; whether exclusion rules are justified; whether the event will last and what it means for mainstream sport.

Why this case matters

The Enhanced Games turn the doping debate from “how do we catch cheaters?” to “why is enhancement wrong?” Practitioners, educators, and policymakers need to be able to answer the second question.

Key terms

Consent and autonomy

Whether people have agreed freely and with full information, and whether their right to make their own choices is respected.

Paternalism (hard and soft)

Restricting someone’s choices for their own good. Hard paternalism overrides competent, informed adults; soft paternalism steps in when information or autonomy is compromised.

Rules vs. spirit of the game

Rules are the written minimum; the spirit is the fairness and respect the rules exist to protect. Rules set the floor; spirit sets the ceiling.

Equalizer vs. enhancer

Whether a technology or adaptation restores a level field (adaptation) or gives an advantage beyond it (augmentation).

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. Is there anything inherently wrong with using performance-enhancing drugs in sport, if the rules allow it and athletes consent? Defend your answer.
2. Does medical supervision make enhancement ethically acceptable, or does it make doctors complicit in avoidable harm?
3. Were World Aquatics and others justified in barring Enhanced Games participants from their competitions?
4. The Enhanced Games criticize the Olympic system for underpaying athletes. How much does the legitimacy of that criticism matter to the ethics of the event?
5. Could enhanced and unenhanced sport coexist as separate categories, the way weight classes do? What would be lost or gained?

Sources

1. Enhanced Games — Wikipedia
2. What are the Enhanced Games and why are they controversial? — BBC Sport
3. Kerley runs 9.97 at Enhanced Games and swimmer Kristian Gkolomeev earns $1M — Associated Press
4. Enhanced Games claim 'we changed the world' but only one record broken and three clean athletes win — The Guardian
5. 'No-one's going to explode' – Enhanced chief says Games will change minds — BBC Sport
6. In crazy world of the Enhanced Games you cannot call doping cheating any more — The Daily Telegraph
7. WADA condemns Enhanced Games as dangerous and irresponsible (May 22, 2025) — World Anti-Doping Agency
8. Enhanced US LLC v. World Aquatics, No. 25-CV-7096 (JMF), Opinion and Order (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2025) — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (via Courthouse News)