The “Enhanced Games,” held May 21–24, 2026, in Las Vegas, Nevada, allowed the use of performance-enhancing substances and technological equipment that are normally prohibited. They were unanimously condemned by anti-doping agencies and were the subject of fierce criticism, particularly in the media.
While Inserm recently published a review of the current state of knowledge on doping, scientists who have examined this scientific literature are analyzing Enhanced Games: where do they come from, and what do they entail? Beyond the prophecies of doom voiced by the Cassandras, what consequences do they generate or could they produce? In what ways do they raise ethical issues, and if so, what ethical framework are we referring to?
Where do Enhanced Games come from?
Enhanced Games draw inspiration from the arguments of Julian Savulescu, a professor of bioethics at the University of Oxford, who asserts that legalizing doping would lead to a fairer sport and be better for athletes’ health. They are promoted by Aron D’Souza, an Australian lawyer and venture capitalist. D’Souza builds on and updates Savulescu’s arguments while criticizing Olympic sports. He asserts that the fight against doping has failed and that regulatory bodies—particularly the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)—act in contradiction to the values they claim to uphold. Athletes, including those who have used performance-enhancing drugs, are portrayed as victims of an unjust and ineffective system.
To lend credibility to his cause, D’Souza appropriates several values associated with the Olympic movement. In particular, he echoes the IOC’s rhetoric on the links between sports and health. Rather than depriving athletes of scientific and technological advances due to anti-doping regulations, he clearly states his intention to harness them for the betterment of humanity. The latest medical advances would be used under the supervision of a “world-class” medical and scientific committee.
Through this disruptive use of science and technology, D’Souza claims not only to improve athletes’ performance but also to make sports safer for everyone. This strategy—which involves neutralizing critics by appropriating the values espoused by his detractors—can create some confusion and blur the lines. The narrative is structured around promises of progress and a better world through technoscience in the service of performance and the conquest of new markets.
However, the purported scientific support does not stand up to scrutiny. D’Souza draws on Savulescu’s arguments to claim that most athletes are incentivized to use performance-enhancing drugs in Olympic sports. He fails, however, to mention that Savulescu relies on models developed by economists for an argument that lacks an empirical basis.
To further support the idea that the fight against doping has failed, he cites several studies on the prevalence of doping and claims that 40 to 99 percent of athletes are doping. To do so, he cites a controversial investigation conducted in 2011 amid state-sponsored doping in Russia and an athletics federation led by a corrupt president, drawing general conclusions from it—and, moreover, distorting certain figures.
A Policy Proposal
According to D’Souza, the use of so-called “disruptive” sciences to enhance athletic performance is intended to “build a superhumanity” and thereby “change the world.”
Their political ambitions are clearly stated, as are their ties to the MAGA movement. Among the early investors is Peter Thiel, one of Donald Trump’s most loyal supporters among the billionaires funding the MAGA movement. He is joined by others close to the president, such as the president’s son, Donald Jr. The promoters of Enhanced Games also highlight their ties to Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a proponent of disruptive programs, such as testosterone replacement therapy as part of an anti-aging program.
The strategy to discredit WADA and the IOC—key players in the fight against doping—is driven by the MAGA movement and its aversion to any form of regulation. Libertarian values align with the idea that participation in technoscientific experiments is a matter of individual choice and responsibility, which should not be restricted by regulations imposed by scientific institutions and their ethics committees.
For these advocates of the market and commerce, turning Enhanced Games into a premier sporting event is, first and foremost, a strategic tool. The goal is to secure a central position in the highly promising market for products designed to enhance human performance throughout a lifetime that we seek to extend.
Viewing the body as the most desirable consumer product lies at the heart of a shift in health strategies. Healthcare is no longer aimed at fighting disease, but rather at achieving individualized improvements in physical performance, which is viewed as a key factor in health. The stated goal is to develop a new segment of the health economy that is free from regulatory constraints.
D’Souza and his associates hope to capitalize on images of athletes breaking records to legitimize the use of substances and methods intended to “enhance” human performance. They have, in fact, quickly established themselves in this market by offering, for example, a range of testosterone treatments and touting their potential.
Inspired by transhumanism, these performance alchemists hope to use sports as a testing ground to provide “evidence” of the beneficial effects of the substances and methods they promote.
Are the authorities giving in to moral panic?
This view of health, the body, and sports offers a critique of regulation. Those involved in the fight against doping base their argument on public health concerns (even if, in practice, the relevance of this justification remains debatable) and on the need to preserve the integrity of athletic competition.
Pierre de Coubertin’s motto of “surpassing oneself” comes with certain limitations. Questions such as “What can the human body do?” or “How far can it go?” raise others, such as: “How far can performance preparation go?” ” In this regard, one might argue that the “debate” proposed by D’Souza—admittedly provocative—is not unrelated to the regulation of doping. We can explore the limits of high-level performance by examining its reality.
The federal system’s support of a young athlete with high potential has an impact on the athlete’s emotional, cognitive, and social development. Training demands, biological and scientific preparation, the constraints of a competitive schedule in relation to high school, college, or vocational training, as well as the obligations imposed by anti-doping agencies (biological passport, geolocation, etc.) are all issues that sports organizations certainly address, but which call into question the limits ofthe “Citius, Altius, Fortius ” (“Faster, Higher, Stronger”).
The organization of these “enhanced” games is therefore intended to spark a renewed discussion about them. This could open the door for sports and anti-doping organizations to defend the foundation of the ideal of “clean sport,” WADA’s slogan. But instead of engaging in a debate about the vision and the political and social project underpinning athletic competition, one might be surprised by the statements issued by these institutions. They generally follow this pattern: these Enhanced Games are condemned because they are said to represent a break with tradition—they are claimed to be contrary to the “spirit of sport”—and sanctions are being considered against any athlete who participates in the event.
Statements by anti-doping agencies may appear to fall under the category of “moral panic,” a concept used by some sociologists who write about doping (Critcher, 2014) to describe reactions that are often disproportionate to what is considered deviant behavior.
The comments are striking for their predictive nature. It seems that no matter what happens, these games will prove one thing or another: whether the fight against doping is effective or not; whether traditional sports should be defended or not; and whether we are entering a new era of sports entertainment or not.
The process of moral panic relies on the ability to perpetuate the problem: by demonizing these “Enhanced Games,” stakeholders—often from sports organizations—emphasize the need to combat doping and tend to view the impact of these games as greater than it likely is.
Protecting Athletes' Health
D’Souza’s position is based on arguments similar to those of scholar Andy Miah. In his provocatively titled book (“Genetically Modified Athletes”), this bioethicist criticizes the lack of debate surrounding anti-doping efforts. Sports organizations choose to shut down the debate, believing they can avoid engaging in ethical reasoning by hiding behind the specter of doping’s effects on athletes’ health.
One study aims to be reassuring on this point, but the study’s conditions, methodology, and funding discredit it, as FranceInfo points out. In their report on doping, the experts from the Inserm group cannot rule on the health consequences for the athletes participating in this sporting event, since the doping protocols are unknown (and we will likely never know them). This obviously does not mean that such consequences do not exist or are not serious.
Faced with this uncertainty, is there reason to fear a “trickle-down” effect that could lead young athletes—envious of the fame (and money) earned by champions not bound by anti-doping regulations—to dope, regardless of the potential consequences for their health?
A study often cited in response to this question is the one by Bob Goldman, published in 1984. Based on a survey of elite athletes, the researchers found that half of them would be willing to take a drug that guaranteed athletic success, even though they had been informed that it would also lead to their death within five years.
However, other authors who have examined this issue have found much lower rates, as only 1% of the athletes in their sample would accept the Faustian bargain. It will be interesting to investigate these supposed trickle-down effects, now that the Enhanced Games competition has ended.
The Ethical Argument
While it may be tempting to invoke ethical considerations to criticize Enhanced Games, it is not certain that this approach is conclusive—at least not based on traditional arguments.
Generally speaking, the conditions under which elite and competitive sports are practiced are indeed dominated by the systematic pursuit of performance—in the training of both body and mind, the equipment used, and the conduct of competitions.
While it may not be as explicitly “enhanced” as the organizers of the Enhanced Games claim, elite and competitive sports are nonetheless heavily influenced by the implementation of innovations of all kinds. Under these circumstances, it is truly difficult to label the Enhanced Games as unethical, unless one adopts a naturalistic conception of ordinary sports. However, adopting such a position is difficult, since the traditional focus on performance (the principle underlying competitive and elite sports) leads us to view athletes’ bodies as something shaped and constructed—or even, to some extent, as a laboratory for experimentation.
Strictly speaking, ethical discourse is evaluative in nature, and its scope is normative—that is, it aims to transform the actions of those who adhere to it. The ultimate goal of ethics is, in fact, to strive to live with dignity and justice.
From this perspective, ethical evaluation can take three forms of reasoning. These are the deontological form of reasoning, which appeals to a sense of duty and the rights of the individual conscience; the utilitarian form, which is based on weighing the costs of an action against its benefits for existence; and finally, the aretaic (also known as perfectionist) form, namely, a type of evaluation based on the pursuit of personal excellence or on values considered superior.
How do Enhanced Games measure up against these criteria? Participating in them could be seen as a form of utilitarian reasoning—one that appears to be more economic than ethical, or even contrary to the spirit of ethics. However, this line of reasoning also applies to the everyday approach of athletes (and their professional environment) in their pursuit of performance.
Paradoxically, this type of reasoning may even serve as a form of justification by those involved in elite and competitive sports for the acceptance of Enhanced Games: enhanced athletes can be viewed as rational maximizers of their performance.
Furthermore, do Enhanced Games violate the rights of conscience, according to deontological ethics? This is by no means certain, since the participants—who are under no compulsion—appear to be fully willing to take part in these challenges and must be held responsible for the consequences of their actions, such as those affecting their own health.
Finally, the spirit of competition and the pursuit of excellence through performance can be invoked by athletes, organizers, or any stakeholders interested in their conduct. In this sense, by interpreting the intrinsically athletic nature of this line of reasoning (which originated in ancient Greece), an ethical stance inspired by perfectionism seems entirely possible when it comes to the Enhanced Games.
Traditional forms of ethical argumentation therefore do not seem capable of invalidating Enhanced Games.
On the other hand, two types of arguments can qualify this observation. First, what is being called into question from an ethical standpoint is the concept of sportsmanship. These “augmented games” can be described as elitist in that they concentrate a considerable amount of resources (material, financial, and human) toward achieving feats that are literally superhuman—since they are beyond the reach of both ordinary people and most average athletes. In any case, that is what their organizers have claimed and hoped for.
However, this does indeed run counter to the spirit of sportsmanship—an ethically rich concept that embodies values such as fairness, generosity, and fair play, and is characterized by its strong role as a model in democratic society, far beyond the world of professional sports. Viewed through the lens of sportsmanship—even taking into account the shortcomings of its competitive form mentioned above—sport is not essentially a selfish pursuit, nor is it strictly tied to an ideal of quantified performance. This is, in fact, what the World Anti-Doping Code intends when it considers sportsmanship to be a core value.
Reserved for an elite group of privileged athletes, the Enhanced Games, on the contrary, appear to be underpinned by an ideology that advocates neoliberal elitism, mobilizing athletes viewed as “entrepreneurs of themselves,” all of whom are driven by a capitalist logic that is highly questionable from an ethical standpoint.
Furthermore, moral issues are currently being reshaped by environmental concerns, which provide ethics with a much broader framework than that of traditionally defined moral issues. Driven heavily by entrepreneurial logic and dreaming of a global expansion that is extremely costly in material resources, Enhanced Games seem completely indifferent to these changes, whereas today we can no longer view the environmental responsibility of sports as something ethically neutral.
A problem that is not ethical, but political
From our perspective, Enhanced Games could provide an opportunity to revisit certain realities of sports, as well as the agenda of the promoters of these enhanced games. These are issues that fall not within the realm of ethics, but within that of politics.
Representatives of anti-doping agencies might have been better off adopting a strategy of avoidance: by ignoring these games and taking care not to contribute to the media coverage surrounding them, they would have avoided getting caught up in a debate for which they did not seem sufficiently prepared.
Having chosen to use this opportunity to reaffirm the values of sports, they have no choice but to truly engage with the political issues by deconstructing the event organizers’ “vision” and taking an uncompromising look at the issues that highlight the relative similarities between the current state of competitive sports and those games they consider problematic.
And there are many such questions, whether they concern the reality of how athletic performance is achieved, the health realities of elite athletes, the foundations of the fight against doping (and its related issues: athletes’ involvement in defining the rules, individual autonomy, and respect for privacy), the commodification of sports spectacles, or even environmental considerations related to elite sports and the organization of sporting events.
The following individuals also contributed to the development of this article on behalf of the Inserm collective expert group “Doping and Doping Practices in Sports”:
François Carré, Signal and Image Processing Laboratory (LTSI), UMR 1099 Inserm – University of Rennes 1, Rennes;
Louise Carton, Inserm U 1172 – Lille Neuroscience & Cognition, Degenerative and Vascular Cognitive Disorders Team; Department of Medical Pharmacology, Lille School of Medicine, University of Lille-Nord-de-France, Lille;
Katia Collomp, Laboratory for Complexity, Innovation, Motor and Sports Activities (CIAMS), STAPS Division, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Orléans, Orléans;
Aymery Constant, School of Advanced Studies in Public Health (EHESP), Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Rennes;
Karine Corrion, Laboratory of Human Motor Skills, Expertise, Sports, and Health (LAMHESS, UPR 6312), STAPS Campus – Sports Sciences, Université Côte d’Azur, Nice;
Éric Janssen, DATA Unit, French Observatory on Drugs and Addiction Trends (OFDT), Paris;
Maryse Lapeyre-Mestre, Department of Medicine, Division of Medical and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Toulouse; UMR 1295 CERPOP (Center for Epidemiology and Population Health Research), Inserm – University of Toulouse;
Guillaume Martinent, Laboratory on Vulnerabilities and Innovation in Sport (L-VIS) (EA 7428), UFR STAPS, Claude-Bernard Lyon I University, Villeurbanne;
Mathias Poussel, University Center for Sports Medicine and Adapted Physical Activity (CUMSAPA), Medical Office for Doping Prevention (AMPD) – Grand Est, Respiratory Function Testing Department, Nancy Brabois University Hospital; UR 3450 DevAH (Development, Adaptation, and Disability), Cardiorespiratory and Motor Control, University of Lorraine; Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy.
