The Drug-Olympics – Why the Enhanced Games Could Change Sports Forever

The Enhanced Games, an Olympic-style event advocating for the use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs), is poised to disrupt traditional sports with a radical redefinition of athletic excellence and human potential. Founded by Australian venture capitalist Aron D’Souza, the Games aim to create a competitive platform where athletes are not just permitted but actively encouraged to employ any available enhancement technology to push human performance boundaries. Scheduled tentatively for 2025, the Enhanced Games has positioned itself as a counterpoint to the established Olympic model, raising questions on ethics, fairness, health, and the very nature of sport.

One million dollars prize money

In the Enhanced Games, prize money for winners can reach up to $1 million per event, with a total of $10 million available for each competition. In contrast, Olympic athletes often earn minimal direct compensation, with top medalists receiving only around $37,500 for gold medals in the U.S.

Hafthor Bjornsson – who won Arnold Strongman Classic, Europe’s Strongest Man, and World’s Strongest Man competitions in the same year and played ‘The Mountain’ in Game of Thrones. Bjornsson admitted to having used steroids

The Birth of a Movement: Motivation and Mission

The Enhanced Games were conceived as a response to what D’Souza and supporters see as restrictive and hypocritical practices surrounding drug use in athletics. D’Souza argues that existing doping policies infringe on athletes’ personal autonomy, preventing them from exploring their full physical potential. The Enhanced Games aim to address these limitations by allowing athletes to compete using any enhancement of their choice—whether pharmacological, technological, or otherwise. The Games seek to promote what D’Souza terms “performance medicine,” an area he believes could yield broader societal benefits by accelerating advancements in health and longevity.

“My body, my choice, your body, your choice,”
Aron D’Souza, billionaire co-founder of Paypal, and president of the Enhanced Games. Aron D’Souza: the man behind the ‘Olympics on steroids’ – The Spectator

Backed by Silicon Valley heavyweights like Peter Thiel, Christian Angermayer, and former Coinbase CTO Balaji Srinivasan, the Enhanced Games embodies a tech-forward vision for sports. Thiel’s support, particularly, underscores the ideological aspirations of the event. Thiel’s interest in life extension and anti-aging research aligns with D’Souza’s hope that enhanced athleticism can lead to discoveries in biomedical research and regenerative medicine. In contrast to the nonprofit model of the Olympics, the Enhanced Games are a for-profit enterprise, a structure that proponents argue allows for fairer compensation to athletes and lower operational costs without the need for elaborate stadiums or city-busting infrastructure.

Controversy and Criticism: A Divisive Vision

Unsurprisingly, the Enhanced Games have provoked backlash from several corners. Travis Tygart, head of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), condemned the Games as a “dangerous clown show,” and a flagrant dismissal of athlete health. Tygart’s remarks echo the broader consensus in the anti-doping community, which views PED use as not only physically risky but ethically corrosive to the spirit of sportsmanship. The practice of allowing enhancements risks blurring the lines of fair play, potentially creating a divide between enhanced and unenhanced athletes, and could undermine the legitimacy of competitive records.

A dangerous clown show
Travis Tygart, the head of the US anti-doping agency (Usada).

The Enhanced Games also face logistical and legal challenges, as many performance enhancers remain illegal under federal laws in various countries. This adds a layer of complexity for athletes who, despite being eligible to compete, may be legally restricted from using enhancements depending on the location of the Games. Tygart and other critics argue that the Enhanced Games are primarily a marketing stunt, a “farcical” event that misunderstands the complexities of doping’s health risks and the public’s resistance to PED-friendly sports.

Ethics of Enhanced Performance: Individual Choice or Exploitation?

One of the most contentious aspects of the Enhanced Games is its central philosophy: that enhancement is a matter of personal choice. Proponents argue that athletes should be allowed to make informed decisions about their own bodies and explore the outer limits of human performance without regulatory interference. In their view, contemporary sports already hinge on technological advantages—from high-altitude training centers to specially engineered equipment. The Enhanced Games merely widen the scope, granting athletes permission to employ techniques previously considered taboo or off-limits.

This pro-enhancement stance raises significant ethical dilemmas. For one, it risks fostering a “doping arms race,” where athletes feel pressured to take progressively higher doses of enhancements to remain competitive. Health advocates warn that this could endanger athletes, with long-term consequences yet to be fully understood. The Games claim to offset this risk through rigorous health screenings, ensuring athletes are monitored closely throughout training and competition. But critics argue that no amount of medical oversight can fully safeguard against the potential health risks associated with PEDs, especially when used over extended periods.

The Enhanced Games also bring into question the definition of “natural” athletic achievement. Opponents, like Lord Sebastian Coe of World Athletics, assert that PED use detracts from the authenticity and purity of sport, while supporters counter that the very notion of “natural” is arbitrary. Elite athletes already benefit from advanced nutrition, customized training programs, and specialized psychological coaching—all of which enhance performance, albeit through “acceptable” means. The Enhanced Games present a provocative alternative, proposing that all means of performance improvement be treated equally.

Financial and Structural Alternatives to the Olympics

With fewer sports (expected sports include track and field, swimming, weightlifting, gymnastics, MMA and boxing) Enhanced Games are envisioned as a streamlined alternative to the Olympic Games, which have faced criticism for massive infrastructural spending and uneven financial rewards for athletes. The Olympics are a global cultural institution, but the cost to host them has grown prohibitively expensive ($5 billion to over $40 billion), leading many cities to withdraw from bidding processes due to the long-term debt and environmental strain often incurred. The Enhanced Games, by contrast, would operate on a smaller, more sustainable scale, utilizing existing infrastructure, such as university campuses, to avoid costly stadium construction.

D’Souza’s for-profit model also promises direct financial compensation for participants. While the exact prize pool remains undisclosed, the Enhanced Games pledges to pay athletes a base salary along with performance-based earnings. Supporters argue this approach rectifies a major imbalance in the Olympic model, where athletes are often sidelined in favor of high-ranking officials, brands, and networks. By shifting financial focus back to athletes, the Enhanced Games purport to create a more equitable framework.

Broader Implications: Science, Society, and the Future of Sports

Beyond sports, the Enhanced Games point toward a larger societal shift around biotechnology and bodily autonomy. Enhanced Games advocates frame their mission as part of a broader movement in “performance medicine,” which they argue will push the limits of what humans can achieve both physically and mentally. D’Souza has described this as a pathway toward “eternal life,” where the pursuit of human excellence through scientific means benefits not only athletes but all of society.

Peter Thiel’s investment in the Games is emblematic of his interests in longevity research, including his work with organizations like the Methuselah Foundation, dedicated to life-extension science. Thiel and D’Souza hope that the Enhanced Games will serve as a public platform for breakthrough research, where sports act as a laboratory for techniques that might one day help extend human lifespans.

Critics, however, argue that the Enhanced Games risk normalizing enhancements in a way that prioritizes peak performance over holistic health and well-being. By celebrating PEDs and similar technologies, the Games might encourage younger athletes to experiment with enhancements prematurely, raising ethical and health concerns. The concern is that the line between enhancement and exploitation may blur, particularly for young athletes who might feel compelled to “enhance” simply to remain competitive. For all its promises, the Enhanced Games is inherently a high-stakes gamble that reimagines sport’s traditional values.

A New Chapter in Competitive Sports or a Dangerous Experiment?

As the Enhanced Games approach their inaugural event, the world watches closely. Proponents see an opportunity to embrace innovation and challenge outdated norms, while detractors warn of unintended consequences and lost values. In the coming years, as enhanced athletes take the stage, these Games may become a defining experiment, testing not just the limits of human performance, but the limits of what society deems acceptable in the pursuit of greatness.