The Enhanced Games: A New Era of Athletic Capability or a Money-Making Scheme?
The Enhanced Games, a controversial sporting event where athletes are encouraged to dope using substances that would get them kicked out of the Olympics or most other international competitions, has sparked a heated debate about the ethics of performance-enhancing drugs in sports. Despite the condemnation of many top worldwide sporting agencies, the event has attracted some of the biggest names in sports, including strongman Hafthor “Thor” Björnsson and Olympic swimmer Shane Ryan. The event’s CEO and cofounder, Max Martin, argues that the Enhanced Games are about harm reduction and providing a safe environment for athletes to use PEDs under medical supervision.
However, the event’s messaging about never doping without proper support ignores reality: most people don’t have the resources to personalize their own expensive drug cocktail, but still might be motivated to dope if groups like Enhanced fulfill their stated goals of making PEDs more common throughout sport and society. The financial argument and the idea of helping aging athletes prolong their careers make up the most compelling case for Enhanced, but it’s the business side of the organization where some conflicts of interest become tougher to ignore.
The Enhanced Games’ products page features a range of PEDs, including copper peptides, sermorelin, and testosterone injections, which are available for purchase alongside GLP-1s, semaglutide, and tadalafil. Martin is open about the mission: to bring these products to the masses. However, if the Enhanced mission is successful, and PEDs become a bigger and more financially appealing part of sports, assuming these products will only be sought after and used in responsible ways is just as naive as pretending doping hasn’t happened in the past at supposedly “clean” events.
The Decision Logic and Mechanics Behind the Enhanced Games
The Enhanced Games’ decision to allow PEDs is based on the argument that harm reduction is a more effective approach than trying to eliminate doping altogether. The event’s organizers argue that by providing a safe environment for athletes to use PEDs under medical supervision, they can reduce the risks associated with doping. However, this approach ignores the fact that most people don’t have access to the same level of medical supervision and resources as the athletes competing in the Enhanced Games.
The operational mechanics of the Enhanced Games are complex, involving a range of stakeholders, including athletes, coaches, and medical professionals. The event’s organizers have implemented a range of measures to ensure athlete safety, including regular medical check-ups and monitoring of PED use. However, the fact that the event is sponsored by companies that sell PEDs raises questions about the potential for conflicts of interest.
The Enhanced Games’ approach to PEDs is not without precedent. In the 1990s and early 2000s, the use of PEDs was widespread in professional sports, particularly in the NFL and MLB. However, the introduction of stricter testing and penalties for doping led to a significant reduction in PED use. The Enhanced Games’ approach is different, however, in that it seeks to normalize and legitimize the use of PEDs, rather than trying to eliminate them.
The Winners and Losers in the Enhanced Games
The Enhanced Games have the potential to benefit a range of stakeholders, including athletes, coaches, and sponsors. Athletes who are able to use PEDs under medical supervision may be able to improve their performance and extend their careers. Coaches and trainers may also benefit from the ability to work with athletes who are using PEDs, as they may be able to provide more effective guidance and support. Sponsors may also benefit from the increased visibility and exposure that the Enhanced Games provide.
However, there are also potential losers in the Enhanced Games. Athletes who do not have access to the same level of medical supervision and resources as those competing in the Enhanced Games may be at a disadvantage. The event’s focus on PEDs may also lead to a lack of attention and resources for athletes who do not use PEDs. Additionally, the event’s approach to PEDs may lead to a lack of transparency and accountability, which could have negative consequences for athletes and the sport as a whole.
The Enhanced Games may also have broader implications for the sports industry as a whole. If the event is successful, it could lead to a normalization of PED use in sports, which could have significant consequences for athlete health and safety. It could also lead to a shift in the way that sports are marketed and promoted, with a greater emphasis on the use of PEDs and the achievement of high-level performance.
The Skeptical Case Against the Enhanced Games
Despite the potential benefits of the Enhanced Games, there are also significant concerns about the event’s approach to PEDs. One of the main concerns is that the event’s focus on PEDs may lead to a lack of attention and resources for athletes who do not use PEDs. Additionally, the event’s approach to PEDs may lead to a lack of transparency and accountability, which could have negative consequences for athletes and the sport as a whole.
Another concern is that the Enhanced Games may be promoting a culture of doping in sports, which could have significant consequences for athlete health and safety. The event’s approach to PEDs may also lead to a lack of emphasis on the importance of fair play and sportsmanship, which are essential values in sports.
The Signal to Watch Next
One of the key signals to watch next is the response of the sports industry to the Enhanced Games. Will other sports organizations and leagues follow the Enhanced Games’ lead and allow PEDs, or will they maintain their current policies and procedures? Additionally, will the Enhanced Games be able to achieve its goal of normalizing PED use in sports, or will it face significant resistance and criticism?
Another signal to watch is the impact of the Enhanced Games on athlete health and safety. Will the event’s approach to PEDs lead to a reduction in athlete health problems, or will it lead to an increase in negative consequences? Additionally, will the Enhanced Games be able to demonstrate a clear and measurable benefit to athletes who use PEDs, or will the risks outweigh the benefits?
Pick one tactic from this post and apply it today. Which one will you start with?
By Daniel Cross, Digital Growth Strategist at TrendFlashy
Ready to launch your own asset?
Check out our guide on Building a Profitable Online Business.
