Records at What Cost? A Critique of the Enhanced Games

The recently announced Enhanced Games (EG) positions itself as a revolutionary alternative to the Olympic Games, proposing a sporting event in which performance-enhancing drugs are not only permitted but medically supervised and celebrated. Founded by Dr Aron D'Souza, the initiative markets itself as a more transparent, scientific, and technologically progressive and equitable model of elite sport. In contrast to the World Anti-Doping Agency's long-standing global commitment to banning doping substances, the EG advocates for full transparency and deregulation of enhancement practices, aiming to eliminate what is perceived as hypocrisy in contemporary elite athletics. The purpose of the current commentary is to critically evaluate the medical, societal, ethical, and regulatory consequences of the EG. Conclusions: We argue that many of the claims made by the advocates of the EG are flawed and the use of scientific rhetoric is often misleading. Moreover, we argue that the EG represents a high-risk social experiment with potentially profound medical, societal, and ethical consequences that abandons the principles that govern current elite sports: respect for athlete autonomy and health, fair competition, and the quest for sporting and human excellence. We point to the need for a renewed commitment to these principles, not their abandonment. Contrary to the EG, strengthening antidoping systems and investing in safe, evidence-based performance support are all viable paths forward. The EG may produce new records but challenge radically the moral relevance and nature of sport.