Enhanced Games: Why the “Doping Olympics” Disappointed

The Enhanced Games were presented as a radical break from traditional elite sport: a competition in which anti-doping controls disappear and the use of certain substances is allowed. The stated ambition was spectacular: to show how far human performance can be pushed when doping-related restrictions are lifted.

Held in Las Vegas, the event was expected to include sprinting, swimming, weightlifting and strongman events. It promised world records and announced a one-million-dollar reward for any world record broken. Yet the reported sporting results appear to have fallen far short of that initial promise.

Enhanced Games built around optimisation without anti-doping controls

The project was announced in 2023 by entrepreneurs Aaron de Souza and Christian Angermayer. Named financial backers included Peter Thiel and Donald Trump Jr. Its principle was clear: to allow participants to use substances authorised by the organisers, as part of a competition openly embracing an approach based on human optimisation.

Athletes had access to a list of substances they could use during the two months before their event. The products mentioned included testosterone, growth hormone, stimulants and peptides. According to the information provided, these products were to be approved and regulated by the FDA.

Of roughly fifty participants, 90% reportedly used authorised substances, while three athletes competed without taking anything. The event also drew attention with the announced participation of swimmer James Magnussen, who said he was willing to undergo intensive preparation in pursuit of the one-million-dollar prize.

An organisation seen as inadequate

Beyond the results, the organisation itself reportedly left a strong impression. The original programme included around ten events, but only a few disciplines were reportedly actually offered: sprinting, weightlifting, swimming and strongman.

Technical problems were also noted: malfunctioning microphones, disrupted broadcasting and the absence of a timer during part of the competition. These issues reinforced the impression of an event that was still poorly structured, despite communication promising an exceptional demonstration of sporting performance.

Record promises largely unfulfilled

The central appeal of the Enhanced Games was the possibility of breaking major records. In sprinting, however, the reported results remained well below world-class benchmarks.

Sprinting: no world records, or even personal bests

In the women’s 100 metres, the best reported time was 11.25 seconds. That performance did not come close to the world record and, according to the account presented, no participant improved her own personal best. It also would not have been enough to qualify for the Olympic Games.

In the men’s event, the best announced time was 9.97 seconds. No world record was broken, despite Fred Kerley’s statement that he was targeting Usain Bolt’s record. Once again, no personal bests were reportedly improved. By the comparison mentioned, such a time would have placed its runner last at the most recent Paris Olympic Games.

Weightlifting and strongman: some individual progress, but no world-class benchmark

In weightlifting, some athletes reportedly beat their own best marks. No world record was set, however. This is consistent with the idea that doping may have a particularly significant effect in disciplines focused on strength and muscle mass, without by itself guaranteeing a world-class level.

In strongman, Thor Björnsson and another Canadian competitor attempted to break records. The conditions of the event reportedly complicated their attempts: an outdoor competition, intense Las Vegas heat and a surface considered slippery. No record was ultimately validated in this discipline.

Swimming, the only announced record

Swimming produced the only result presented as a world record. Kristian Kolomev reportedly broke the 50-metre record. That performance was nevertheless challenged for two reasons: swimmers were allowed to wear suits banned at the Olympic Games because they may improve speed, and internet users questioned the precise moment when the timer was stopped.

In any case, the record was not expected to be recognised by official sporting bodies. It nevertheless allowed organisers to claim at least one benchmark performance at the end of a day when the initial announcements had not been borne out.

Doping does not replace genetics or training

The most striking result concerned the three participants said to be drug-free: all reportedly finished first in their respective disciplines. This observation does not make it possible to draw a general conclusion about doping, but it is a reminder that performance depends on many factors.

In sports involving speed, precision or explosiveness, genetic qualities, body structure, technique and years of preparation remain decisive. A substance may provide an advantage, but it does not automatically turn a regional-level athlete into a world record holder.

At elite level, even a limited gain can nevertheless alter a ranking or decide a medal. That is precisely why performance-enhancing substances are prohibited in official competitions. The difference can sometimes come down to a fraction of a second, a few kilograms or slightly better recovery.

The situation varies by discipline. In fitness and bodybuilding, the impact of performance-enhancing drugs on muscle gain and strength improvements can be considerable. In Olympic sports, they do not replace the fundamental abilities required to reach the highest level.

Why the best athletes were difficult to recruit

The disappointing performances may also be explained by the competitors’ profiles. Several participants were no longer at the peak of their careers; some had retired or been excluded from their sporting circuit. For an athlete still pursuing a professional career, taking part in a competition that explicitly permits doping may mean giving up a future in traditional competitions.

The one-million-dollar sum is attractive, but it is awarded only if a record is broken. For an active athlete, potential income from sponsors, qualifications and official competitions can therefore make that choice unattractive. The event thus reportedly faced structural difficulties in attracting the top performers in each discipline.

A commercial showcase as much as a sporting event

The Enhanced Games did not appear to pursue only a sporting objective. During the broadcast, references to a site called Enhanced reportedly promoted the sale of products such as testosterone and growth hormone, substances comparable to those permitted for participants.

This commercial dimension raises a major question: was the event primarily intended to set records, or to make optimisation products more desirable? The fact that the allowed substances corresponded to those offered for sale fuels that question.

The risk is that sporting performances, even modest ones, may be presented as proof that a consumer could replicate athletes’ results by using the same products. Yet the long-term effects of certain substances remain uncertain or insufficiently understood, while the health consequences can be significant.

Enhanced Games FAQ

Did the Enhanced Games break many world records?

No. According to the reported outcome, no world record was broken in sprinting, weightlifting or strongman. Only a 50-metre swimming record was announced, in a contested context and without any expected official recognition.

Why did doping not produce exceptional performances?

Performance-enhancing substances are not enough to compensate for a lack of suitable genetics, technique or elite-level training. In addition, many participants were no longer at the peak of their sporting careers.

Why is this competition controversial?

It normalises the use of performance-enhancing drugs in a competitive setting and links that spectacle to commercial interests. Its critics see a risk of trivialising substances whose long-term effects are not always established.

The Enhanced Games therefore mainly demonstrated the gap between a marketing promise of unlimited human advancement and the realities of elite performance. Doping can provide an advantage, but it is not enough to instantly create champions or automatically bring down the most demanding records.