Can the enhanced games be defended, and are they a good idea?

Abstract

In the wake of the 1998 Festina affair, which exposed widespread doping in professional cycling, sports organizations, led by the International Olympic Committee, established a global anti-doping program. This initiative aimed to combat doping, which was seen as a threat to both the integrity and economic viability of sports. The alternative approach—legalizing performance-enhancing drugs—was dismissed as unrealistic and unworthy of serious consideration. Its advocates, if not outright ignored, were criticized as irresponsible attention-seekers who would turn sports into a spectacle.

Today, a quarter of a century after the founding of the World Anti-Doping Agency, a group of wealthy investors has begun efforts to turn this once-dismissed idea into reality by organizing a competition where drug use is permitted. This paper critically examines the proposed Enhanced Games, evaluating whether a sporting event that allows performance-enhancing drugs can be ethically and practically justified. It explores arguments both in favor of and against this model, addressing issues related to technological and biomedical enhancement, fairness, athlete health, and regulatory feasibility. The objective is to assess whether such a competition can be defended within the broader ethical and institutional framework of sports and, ultimately, to determine if it makes sense at all.