‘The Enhanced Games is organising an alternative to the corrupt Olympic Games. We believe that science makes humanity – and sports – better and fairer. Sports, without drug testing.’ All that was lacking from the mission statement of the controversial pronouncement back in June was a clap of thunder.
The image of a track athlete pushing off from the starting blocks to the strains of the narrator’s commentary, ‘I’ve broken Usain Bolt’s 100m record but I can’t show you my face,’ courted controversy and column inches. Equally controversial is the very concept of a drug-free-for-all and a Games designed on a budget to counter the profligate International Olympic Committee (IOC).
The planned launch is December 2024 with five sports pencilled in: athletics, aquatics, gymnastics, combat sports and strength events. No cycling, but if the annual Games are successful – if they indeed happen happen – cycling and other sports would likely soon be on the radar. Cyclist digs a little deeper to search beyond the headlines and to ascertain if there are any persuasive arguments for a testing-free future…
Related questions you can explore with Ask Cyclist, our new AI search engine.
Natural and unnatural
Brett Fraser is the chief athletics officer of the Enhanced Games, which is the brainchild of Aron D’Souza, who some have likened to Baron Pierre de Coubertin (founder of the International Olympic Committee) and who made his money in technology and law. As for 33-year-old Fraser, he was once a professional athlete himself, competing in the pool at the 2008, 2012 and 2020 Olympic Games for the Cayman Islands.
Given his controversial new role, the opening question was a natural one. Brett, did you ever dope? ‘I was a natural athlete; I was happy with the progress I was making. I never felt the desire to, or needed to take anything that would jeopardise my position as a natural, clean athlete. I didn’t want to go against the rules; I wanted to play fairly.’
If you were racing today, would you sign up for the Enhanced Games? ‘It would depend on where I was in my career. But I’d probably compete in the Enhanced Games and the Olympics.’ But surely you wouldn’t be allowed? ‘You can be a natural athlete and compete at the Enhanced Games. In fact, I can’t wait to see natural athletes competing amongst enhanced athletes because maybe taking all these enhancements actually doesn’t help performance in the long run.’
So, the Enhanced Games are open to all and, at the time of our interview, Fraser said over 500 athletes had contacted him to find out more. They can also search the Enhanced Games website that details why stimulants on WADA’s prohibited list would no longer be prohibited.
Under the ‘Overview of Performance Therapies’ section, it reads… ‘Performance therapies range from anabolics, prohormones and stimulants to ergogenic aids, nootropics and gene transfers… Safe steroid use is a common part of many people’s everyday lives. Approximately three million Americans have said that they regularly use anabolic steroids to boost their performance, while 75% of regular male gym-goers have considered incorporating steroids into their performance-therapy routine.’
So, it seems it is a drug free-for-all? Maybe not. ‘The hope is that we have a team of doctors and scientists who, if they say it’s fine to follow a certain programme, then it’s fine to enter the Games,’ says Fraser. ‘Each athlete must be under clinical supervision.’
Who will give the pharmaceutical green light?
One of Fraser’s altruistic hopes is that they’ll learn what doping products today’s current athletes might be using and feed back to the IOC so they can improve their testing protocols. That, says Andy Miah, is getting way ahead of themselves. Miah’s the chair in science communication and future media at the University of Salford and is known as ‘the Renaissance man of the enhancement enlightenment’.
His research discusses the intersections of art, ethics, technology and culture. As such, he’s had published over 150 academic articles, many around how we as a society manage emerging sciences and technology. I first came across Miah nearly 10 years ago with the publication of his book Genetically Modified Athletes: Biomedical Ethics, Gene Doping and Sport. When it comes to the Enhanced Games, he sees a clear obstacle that could derail the Games at the planning stages.
'It’s something I’ve written about for years but one of the problems they’ll come across is applying therapeutic practices in a performance enhancement environment,' Miah explains. 'Which doctor will prescribe blood doping and steroids for an athlete to race faster? Who would underwrite the procedural regulations? I suspect there would be none as they’d face severe repercussions from the medical profession.
'There’s simply no efficacy model for applying, say, EPO in an enhancement setting because that’s beyond the limits of the drug’s licence. So any application beyond the therapeutic is inherently beyond what’s both legal to prescribe and palatable from a risk perspective. Imagine having eight athletes line up at the start of the race and four not making it as they’ve collapsed. I don’t think too many people would be that interested that the winner broke the world record.’
We posed the question to Fraser as to who would prescribe medical pharmaceuticals in a sporting setting after our original interview. There was no response.
There’s also the issue of who would sponsor such a competition. Scan the website and as yet there are no sponsors on board. Beyond the public relations disaster of a competitor becoming severely ill or dying, there’s simply the public perception that these athletes are cheating. It’s drilled into us from the moment we take an interest in sport that cheating is bad, that doping is bad.
But what does that mean at the WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) level? Well, any substance or method that satisfies two of the following three criteria sees it banned: it has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance; it represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete; it violates the spirit of sport.
This, says Fraser, can result in a list that’s rather arbitrary in nature. 'Why are some substances allowed in training and not in competition,' he asks? A clear example is the painkiller Tramadol, which has been on the WADA monitoring programme for years but is not prohibited. It will be from 1st January 2024, though, albiet in competition only (unless an athlete has a Therapeutic Use Exemption certificate). You’ll be able to use it in training but must ensure it’s washed out of your system before competition.
It is perceived inconsistencies like this and the notion that WADA is stifling scientific advancement and athlete freedom that are key tenets of the Enhanced Games. But, while obviously these are early days, there are clear gaps. The Games are mooted as an annual event, for instance, but what about build-up events? Olympic track cyclists don’t just turn up and race. They’ve qualified via many events including the UCI World Cup.
'Like any start-up, we begin with a core suite of products, which are our core disciplines – the five sports – and then we’re going to expand and refine,' Fraser explains. So, cycling would be of interest? 'Of course,' says Fraser. But would a Tour de France rider give up the chance to ride the Tour de France to compete in the Enhanced Games? It's hard to imagine.
What of the future?
Clearly, the Enhanced Games is a provocative idea. But, says Miah, 'It does raise a wider issue about where humanity is going. How far do we take technology before we feel that everything’s falling apart? Recently, we’ve seen strikes within the film industry and a backlash against the use of artificial intelligence (AI). There’s a fear of the erosion and complete destruction of the creative art itself. And that’s a monumental point in human history because it’s indicative of what's to come for many industries including sport.
'You might have seen recently another news story where they’ve designed a new drug to alleviate the symptoms of Alzheimer’s. In the past, we’d have talked about ageing as something you accept in life; now we talk about it as a disease. But when you push back against disease using technology, well, then people don’t die early, they don’t degrade in the way that they used to. And potentially, they live forever.
'So, the technology that we’re developing pushes into a world where we live far longer and live healthier. And that is a radical redistribution of what we think of as normal. And it’s critical that we think about that and come to terms with it because it has implications in every aspect of our lives including sport and what’s deemed illegal and legal.
'The very first presentation I gave about genetic enhancements in sport was trying to imagine a future games. An athlete was born as a result of parents who’d been genetically modified. And the question I posed is, what do we do in that situation? This athlete may have benefitted from enhancements that their parents had through absolutely no fault of their own. Do we ban then? Is that ethical?’
A safe environment?
Miah feels the Enhanced Games won’t galvanise the support to get off the ground. He’s also concerned about how they’d inspire children through their principles and what their education programme toward successful drug adoption for youngsters is; in other words, because drug enhancements are spoken of as central to the values of performance in the Enhanced Games, the absence of any route to their promotion toward children who may aspire to these Games surely makes it impossible to deliver responsibly?
‘I don’t think we’re breeding an unsafe environment or encouraging teenagers to take anything that would harm themselves,' Fraser says. ‘Doctors and medicine and medical professionals are going to be the ones that are going to support and approve these programmes for the athletes. So anyone who’s a consenting adult with free and informed consent will be allowed to do this. Teenagers today are free to do this as well.’
Fraser cites the example of prescribing amphetamines (like the methylphenidate Ritalin) to help children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder focus. But, again, that’s considered therapeutic rather than an enhancement.
Where does the Enhanced Games go from here? Time will tell. They say the Games will take place in university campuses, though how many educational establishments will be happy to be associated with a ‘doping-friendly’ sporting event is questionable. And will a doping free-for-all ultimately force clean athletes into taking drugs? Shouldn’t there be a protection of the innocent?
We conclude by catching up with former professional cyclist Joe Papp, who wasn’t only banned because of taking illegal performance enhancers, but for distributing them, too. Joe’s a reformed character and is open about his doping past…
What are your immediate thoughts on the Enhanced Games?
My first thought was, ‘Is this a joke?’ Saturday Night Live effectively parodied this concept 30-odd years ago with their ‘All-Drug Olympics skit’ – yet someone now thinks it’s a viable project! My second thought was that there must be transhumanists involved.
In your opinion, how dangerous or not would a doping free-for-all be?
I don’t think you’d actually see guys tearing their arms off in failed clean-and-jerk lifts, but the lengths coaches and athletes will go to in order to gain a performance advantage regardless of risk isn’t encouraging. A doping free-for-all just invites the most ambitious person to be the most reckless person, and to take the most drugs possible without literally killing themselves.
Were you ever in danger when doping?
Yes! I lost about a quarter of my blood volume and risked class 2 hypovolemic shock after crashing during a period in which I was effectively abusing anticoagulants to counteract a too-high haematocrit.
In your experience, how meticulous were the instructions?
Doping under the supervision of a doctor felt fairly precise, with a low risk of an adverse physical reaction. Doping without the direct involvement of a physician was obviously much riskier and more dangerous.
When doping, did you staircase, ie, start with one drug and then build up with others?
Combining doping agents/methods can produce desirable synergistic effects, but I’d think the answer here depends on the athlete’s access to doping products, access to information or guidance on doping, their risk tolerance, what sport they compete in, fitness state, event calendar, the time of year, the perceived effectiveness (or weakness) of the anti-doping regime and lots more variables. But if you’re asking how it was for me, I started doping with EPO and added more drugs and techniques as I became more sophisticated and the opportunity to benefit from them arose.
The Enhanced Games feel that we’re in such a pharmaceutical world, banning drugs is futile. They also feel that what’s legal and what’s illegal is arbitrary. Are these persuasive arguments?
While I wouldn’t exactly describe their inclusion as ‘arbitrary’, I do think there may be substances on the banned list that are comparatively innocuous, and anti-doping cases based on them are a distraction from combating much more serious, harmful drug-taking. But anti-doping exists to protect athletes who don’t want to harm their health unduly. I don’t want to cheer for the talented athlete who’s simply the most willing to dope and the best passive responder to chemicals.
Do you feel the Enhanced Games will happen?
Hopefully not. But if organisers don’t have to rely on corporate backing… maybe? But are there really doctors who’d be willing to be involved in the all-drug Olympics? If not, would the organisers be happy to stimulate the black market for PEDs and encourage drug-trafficking? Dystopian times!
