Table of Contents
In May, Las Vegas will host the inaugural Enhanced Games, a multi-sport event that has ignited conversations and raised eyebrows within the athletic community. This competition blurs the lines between traditional sports ethics and the acceptance of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs), transforming the essence of athletic competition into what can be described as a marketing spectacle.
With a roster of notable athletes, including Jamaican sprinter Shockoria Wallace, who has yet to break the 11-second mark in the 100 meters, and Marvin Bracy-Williams, a silver medalist at the World Championships but currently serving a ban for testosterone use, the credibility of the event is already under scrutiny. The inclusion of Hafthor Bjornsson, known for his role in Game of Thrones and as a world champion strongman, further complicates the narrative, as his presence raises questions about what the Enhanced Games truly represent.
The duality of competition and commercialization
At its core, the Enhanced Games is not just a showcase of athletic prowess; it is a platform for promoting testosterone replacement therapy (TRT). The event’s website features multiple pathways leading to a questionnaire designed to match potential customers with the appropriate form of testosterone, either oral or injectable. This strategic positioning underscores the commercial intent behind the games.
British sprinter Reece Prescod has publicly stated that he is not currently using any drugs, while Fred Kerley, the reigning world champion in the 100 meters, maintains a PED-free status as he gears up for an event that resembles the fictional All-Drug Olympics once parodied on Saturday Night Live. However, the uncertainty surrounding whether athletes will be using Enhanced products complicates the evaluation of the effectiveness of the TRT regimen.
Setting the standard with world records
To entice competitors, the organizers are offering a lucrative $1 million bonus for any athlete who breaks a world record. However, the current roster lacks athletes who are even close to the legendary Usain Bolt or Florence Griffith-Joyner. For example, Kerley’s personal best of 9.76 seconds is significantly behind Bolt’s record of 9.58 seconds. The question looms: if none of the participants are capable of threatening existing world records, what does that say about the event’s legitimacy?
As the Enhanced Games aim to redefine competitive standards, they must grapple with the implications of their approach. If the argument is that doping controls hinder athletes from surpassing historic records, then the onus is on the organizers to provide evidence supporting that claim. The initial statistics paint a grim picture; Prescod’s best time of 9.93 seconds and Bracy-Williams’ mark of 9.85 seconds are far from record-breaking.
Rethinking the narrative around athlete enhancement
The women’s competition mirrors the struggles of the male sprinters, with athletes like Shania Collins, whose personal best of 10.92 seconds dates back nearly four years. This raises the stakes for the Enhanced Games, where the likelihood of witnessing a PED-aided world record seems slim. Nevertheless, there is a glimmer of hope as the event has attracted legitimate sprinters with distinguished accolades.
Initially, the Enhanced Games promoted a fictional narrative featuring an anonymous athlete claiming he could outpace Usain Bolt, highlighting the gap between marketing and reality. The notion that an athlete could run 9.5 seconds on steroids implies that they should ideally be running 9.8 seconds without them. Yet, the fastest white male sprinter, Christophe Lemaitre, hasn’t come close to that mark in years.
The need for transparency
To substantiate their claims about the effectiveness of TRT, the organizers should consider adopting a more transparent approach. By sharing athletes’ PED usage history and performance statistics, the Enhanced Games could evolve from a mere spectacle into a legitimate examination of performance enhancement in sports. Alternatively, pitting enhanced athletes against natural competitors could provide a clearer picture of the advantages conferred by drugs.
However, such a scenario poses a risk to the event’s integrity. If a drug-free athlete were to outperform their enhanced counterpart, it could dismantle the very premise the Enhanced Games are built upon. Ultimately, this event serves as a commercial for performance enhancement rather than a genuine athletic competition, raising ethical concerns about the future of sports.