The inaugural Enhanced Games are underway in Las Vegas and are set to be a unique spectacle that promotes drug-induced “enhancement”.
The International Olympic Committee has condemned the event as a way to “destroy any concept of fair play” and “moronic”.
Read more:
The Enhanced Games: ‘dangerous clown show’ or a wake-up call for traditional sport?
But the Enhanced Games remain appealing to many athletes and followers.
In our recent study, we analysed some of the organisers’ claims, including:
-
doping is an inevitable progression of sport
-
athletes should be free to choose what they do with their bodies
-
many athletes already use performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs)
-
ageing is a “disease” that can be overcome using PEDs.
Jae C. Hong/AP
How it all works
Forty-two athletes will compete in swimming, sprinting, weightlifting and strongman. They can claim $1 million bounties for “breaking” world records (previously set by drug-tested athletes).
The athletes involved include Australian former 100 metres freestyle world champion James Magnussen, US 2022 world 100m sprinting champion Fred Kerley, and the UK’s Ben Proud, who won silver in the Paris Olympics in the 50m freestyle.
Unlike “mainstream” athletes, those competing in the Enhanced Games can use US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved performance-enhancing substances under a proposed framework of medical supervision. This includes physician-supervised use of drugs such as testosterone, human growth hormone and erythropoietin (EPO), pre-competition medical screening and health profiling.
Any records set won’t be ratified by international sporting federations (which implement anti-doping rules and doping controls). So, this “record-breaking” will only count inside the Enhanced Games ecosystem – and perhaps in the minds of others who deem it legitimate.
What we studied
In our newly accepted paper in the Journal of Drug Issues, we analysed 13 key YouTube interviews featuring the founder of the Enhanced Games, Australian tech entrepreneur Aron D’Souza. We found D’Souza returns to the same handful of arguments designed to destabilise and discredit anti-doping policy, justify PEDs and legitimise the event.
The first argument claims all elite athletes are doping and that “clean sport” is a myth. A favourite study cited by D’Souza claims 40% (or more) of elite athletes use PEDs, even though only about 2% get caught. On this basis, D’Souza highlights failures in anti-doping to seek justification for a new approach.
A second argument centres on bodily autonomy – athletes should be free to choose what they do with their bodies (think “my body, my choice”).
But autonomy within the Enhanced Games does not hold up. Mandatory blood testing for health markers is invasive and strips choice away from athletes. Beyond this, athletes are given drug protocols – they are told which drugs can be used, in which quantities and for how long.
This is not choice, it’s a form of control.
As athletes are paid mid-to-high six-figure salaries simply to take part, the notion of choice is also blurred.
In a third argument intended to discredit anti-doping, D’Souza claims athletes in
“regular” sports use PEDs under the guise of Therapeutic Use Exemptions – medical approvals to use an otherwise-banned substance for a legitimate health condition.
But the data D’Souza presents are selective. He overlooks a study that found the number of athletes competing with valid exemptions at the Olympic Games is less than 1%, with no association between being granted an exemption and winning a medal.
Nonetheless, such claims are powerful and spread widely over social media platforms.
D’Souza also argues the event will “end the stigma” of PED use. While this is positive from a harm reduction perspective, it might also increase the numbers of people who use them.
Finally, D’Souza argues ageing is a “disease” that can be overcome using PEDs. However, with Enhanced Games organisers and sponsors directly marketing and selling testosterone, peptides and longevity drugs to consumers, there is a clear conflict of interest in such claims.
The money and the politics
Beyond social media, the Enhanced Games has some rich and powerful backers. These include 1789 Capital (Donald Trump Jr’s fund) and Peter Thiel (a billionaire entrepreneur and conservative political activist best known as a co-founder of Palantir Technologies).
They seem to have political backing too. In 2026, the FDA, under Robert F. Kennedy Jr, loosened restrictions on testosterone prescribing and certain peptides.
These broader regulatory shifts have occurred alongside the Enhanced Games’ expansion into consumer health and longevity products. Using athletes, influencers (such as Joe Rogan and Bryan Johnson), the Enhanced Games has sought to expand visibility, attract followers online and gain legitimacy, increasing its potential market as part of a broader commercial ecosystem.
The possible health risks
The normalisation and commercialisation of enhancement drugs is concerning from a public health perspective.
Considering some of the well-documented health risks, as well as the unknown long-term health harms, Enhanced Games’ aggressive propotion of PEDs is worrying.
Unlike the Enhanced Games, where athletes will have around-the-clock access to healthcare professionals, the general public will likely be exposed to a much wider degree of harms.
Notably, the over-prescription of testosterone is one such concern, exposing people to potentially irreversible damage. This is especially dangerous for younger males caught up in the “T Maxxing” phenomenon.
Where’s the duty of care?
Despite the boldness in launching a so-called “steroid Olympics”, the Enhanced Games still has a duty of care to protect its true target market: the general public.
Failure to do so reflects not scientific innovation but institutional recklessness.
The games should draw on its rapidly expanding global reach on social media to share health-focused messages.
