Risk, harm, and the enhanced games: Whose job is harm reduction?

Abstract

The Enhanced Games (TEG) have drawn interest from sports organizations, athletes, media, fans, and academics since they were first announced as a possibility. TEG not only presents a shift in how enhancement is approached, but it also turns the entire logic of anti-doping on its head and adopts an approach intended to support enhanced athletes and reduce the risks they may otherwise face in sport. This change was why here I will both concur with Andrew Richardson's general view on harm reduction and challenge some of the points around risk, harm, and responsibility. Specifically, I argue that many of the risks posed to athletes result from anti-doping itself and that by shining a light on enhanced performance TEG are already doing more to reduce those harms than other sport interventions in recent decades.