The Enhanced Games may be the best advert possible for clean sport

The Herald Scotland

25-05-2025

Earlier this week, it was revealed that Kristian Gkolomeev from Greece swam the 50m freestyle faster than anyone in history. His time of 20.89 seconds, set in a time trial in the US in February, is 0.02 seconds quicker than the current official world record, which was set by Brazil's Cesar Cielo in 2009.
In normal circumstances, Gkolomeev swim would be the cause for much celebration. It is, after all, impossible not to be impressive by an individual going faster than has ever been seen before.
Yet Gkolomeev's record, or should I say 'record', was set in entirely atypical circumstances. Since January, the Greek, who has competed at four Olympic Games, is a World Championship medallist and reigning European champion, has been doping.
He's not been doping in the usual covert way that athletes dope but rbather, as someone who's involved in the Enhanced Games, he's been openly doping, and he's happy to admit it.
Gkolomeev's 'record-breaking' swim was revealed at the glitzy launch of the Enhanced Games on Wednesday, at which the organisers announced that the inaugural event will take place next May, in LA.
Founded by Australian businessman, Aron D'Souza, the Enhanced Games will include short-distance swimming, sprinting and weightlifting in its programme and participants are permitted to use drugs banned in elite sport.
This extraordinary sporting event has attracted financial backing from heavyweights such as Donald Trump Jr and billionaire entrepreneur Peter Thiel. Unsurprisingly, though, the Enhanced Games has also attracted considerable derision. From claiming that any 'records' that will be set, including Gkolomeev's, are meaningless to calling the event "boring" to branding the entire concept as "a danger to athletes' health", the criticism has been widespread.
Donald Trump Jr is backing the Enhanced Games (Image: Getty Images for amfAR) It's hard to disagree with any of these claims. Yes, the records mean little given the athletes have been aided by performance-enhancing drugs, as well as equipment which is banned within official competition. Yes, there will be many who are entirely disinterested in watching athletes compete when they know their performances are drug-fuelled. And, most significantly, yes, it's hard to disagree that there's considerable health risks.
The Enhanced Games organisers have implemented some rules regarding what substances their athletes can and cannot take; only drugs which are FDA-approved are permitted and cocaine and heroin are banned.These rules, however, only mitigate a proportion of the health risks. Many of the drugs that are permitted have not been tested on humans, nor have the long-term risks been assessed. And given the whole point of the Enhanced Games is to push the boundaries as far as possible, it's not much of a jump to think the athletes involved may be willing to take untested and unregulated substances.But despite all of these obvious drawbacks to the Enhanced Games, I am, I'm ashamed to admit, fascinated by it.
I'm not fascinated by it in the same way I'm fascinated by the Olympic Games or the Wimbledon final or the World Cup. These sporting events are fascinating because I'm watching athletes compete for something that has, for so long, been their dream to win. They're the best in the world at their respective sport and they have, in the main, done it by fair means.
The Enhanced Games are not fascinating in the same way - clearly, the Enhanced Games has been a dream of no one, the very best on the planet are staying well clear and they are, by definition, not competing clean. So, given I'm someone who is very much a proponent of clean sport, I, and everyone who has the same mindset as me, should, on paper, have zero interest in the Enhanced Games, zero interest in the performances of the doped-up athletes and consequently, zero interest in the results.
But despite all of this, I'm intrigued. I'm interested in what substances the athletes are taking, and I'm extremely interested in how exactly, these substances affect their performance. Olympic sport, as things stand, is purported to be clean. Everyone knows Olympic sport isn't entirely clean; drug testing is behind the dopers, but Olympic sport is sold as clean sport and I believe most athletes are clean. This, though, is why the Enhanced Games is piquing my interest because what remains unclear with Olympic sport is quite how significantly performance-enhancing drugs benefit athletes. Each individual athlete will respond differently to each particular performance-enhancing substance so there's no definitive answer as to quite what percentage difference doping will make.
Olympic sport may well benefit from the Enhanced Games (Image: Kirby Lee, Kirby Lee-Imagn Images) Equally, doping, alone, does not automatically make an individual world-class. I still laugh at the people who say they could, too, have won seven Tour de France titles if only they'd taken the same drugs as Lance Armstrong. Spoiler, they couldn't have. Doping or not, an athlete still needs to train insanely hard and commit their life to sport if they're going to produce world-class performances. Injecting, for example, EPO and sitting waiting for the benefits to kick-in is not how it works.
And this is why the Enhanced Games is quite so interesting, to me anyway. The athletes taking part in the Enhanced Games may not be the very best in the world, but there's certainly a few who can be considered world class. Gkolomeev, the Greek swimmer who swan faster than the official 50m freestyle world record has, for a decade, been mixing with the world's very best, without ever being at the very top of the tree. But, with only a couple of months of doping, it appears that he's now faster than any swimmer who's ever lived. There's something quite scary about seeing how quickly and how significantly even a short-term doping programme can benefit an individual.
But rather than the Enhanced Games becoming an advert for doping, I believe there's every chance it does the exact opposite. Yes, it will highlight the positive effects on performance that taking banned substances can have but it also is likely to prove that in the bigger picture, there's far greater benefits to competing clean both in terms of health and in terms of approval from the public and society. After all, is there any point in breaking a world record if no one applauds it, or even acknowledges it? Surely, it's far better to compete legitimately and take any genuine plaudits that may come as a result of a good, clean performance.
We're yet to see just how far ahead of clean athletes the doped-up athletes end up; we'll find out more come the inaugural Enhanced Games next year. But rather than act as an advert for doping, my guess is it'll do more to promote clean sport than any anti-doping programme has ever managed.