The Enhanced Games: A new era for sport or a dangerous step backward?

The Enhanced Games promise a future of superhuman athletic feats through performance-enhancing drugs. But as a practitioner and parent, I see a dangerous precedent that could reshape how we define success, health, and fairness in sport

Enhanced Games founder Aron D'Souza.

In 2026, Las Vegas will host the inaugural Enhanced Games — a sporting event where athletes are encouraged to use performance-enhancing drugs to push the limits of human capability. 

The event, founded by Australian entrepreneur Dr Aron D’Souza, promises million-dollar prizes, no anti-doping rules, and a bold vision of “superhuman” performance through science and self-determination. The games are being marketed as a bold alternative to the Olympic model.

Irish Olympian Shane Ryan has confirmed he will compete in the Enhanced games. Picture: Nikola Krstic/Sportsfile

As a performance nutritionist working with elite and youth athletes — and as a parent — this development is deeply concerning. While the Enhanced Games claim to promote bodily autonomy and scientific progress, they raise serious questions about health, fairness, and the future of sport.

The Enhanced Games are framed as a response to what organisers call the “hypocrisy” of modern sport. They claim doping is already rampant and anti-doping rules simply hide it rather than stop it. By removing restrictions, they claim to level the playing field and reward athletes more fairly.

Some athletes are already on board. Irish Olympian Shane Ryan and British swimmer Ben Proud have announced their participation, citing a desire to explore their full potential. But this vision of sport as a pharmaceutical arms race is fraught with risk.

The games promise medical oversight, but many experts remain sceptical. The long-term effects of performance-enhancing drugs — especially when used in combination — are not fully understood. Anabolic steroids, for instance, are linked to cardiovascular disease, liver damage, and mental health issues.

Catherine Norton: 'The idea doping can be made 'safe' in a competitive environment is not supported by current evidence. It’s a dangerous message to send, especially to impressionable young athletes. Picture: Alan Place

As a practitioner, I’ve seen how even legal supplements can be misused. The idea doping can be made “safe” in a competitive environment is not supported by current evidence. It’s a dangerous message to send, especially to impressionable young athletes.

Polypharmacy means using multiple drugs at the same time. In sport, this often involves combining substances like steroids, stimulants, and hormone boosters to enhance performance. 

But mixing drugs without medical supervision can be dangerous — leading to unexpected side-effects, long-term health risks, and damage to organs. These risks are even higher when there's little research or oversight. Caution is essential to protect athlete health.

Sport is not just about winning. It’s about discipline, resilience, and fair play. The Enhanced Games challenge this ethos by removing the level playing field. Success may depend more on access to cutting-edge drugs and medical teams than on talent or training.

This could create a two-tiered system: one for “enhanced” athletes with resources, and another for those who choose to compete clean. It risks deepening inequality and undermining public trust in athletic achievement.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect is the message this sends to children and teenagers. If doping becomes not only accepted but celebrated, what incentive remains to pursue clean sport?

As a parent, I worry about the pressure this could place on young athletes. If the path to success is paved with syringes and pills, how do we protect their developing bodies and minds? How do we teach them that effort, patience, and integrity matter more than shortcuts?

In my work, I focus on helping athletes optimise performance through food, hydration, recovery, and mindset. These are powerful tools — but they require dedication, consistency, education, and trust.

The Enhanced Games risk undermining this foundation. If pharmacological enhancement becomes the norm, the value of nutrition and training may be diminished. Worse, it could push athletes toward riskier behaviours, believing optimised training, food and sleep are no longer enough.

What can we do?

We can’t ignore the Enhanced Games. But we can respond with clarity and commitment to athlete welfare.

• Educate early and often: Young athletes need to understand the risks of PEDs — not just the health consequences, but the ethical and psychological costs;

• Champion clean role models: Celebrate athletes who succeed through hard work, not shortcuts;

• Support evidence-based performance strategies: From periodised nutrition to sleep and recovery, there are many ways to enhance performance safely;

• Advocate for athlete-centred systems: The Enhanced Games tap into real frustrations — about underpayment, burnout, and lack of autonomy. These issues must be addressed within clean sport, not used to justify abandoning its principles.

The Enhanced Games are a provocation — a challenge to the status quo. But they are also a warning. If we fail to support athletes holistically, we risk losing them to a model that promises more but delivers less.

As a community of coaches, scientists, healthcare practitioners, parents, and athletes, we must decide what kind of sport we want to build. One that values health, fairness, and human dignity — or one that trades them for spectacle and sensationalism.

The Enhanced Games may promise more, but clean sport can offer something they never will: trust, meaning, and genuine human achievement.