Thammasat University students interested in sport, business, economics, allied health sciences, education, sociology, and related subjects may find it useful to participate in a 2 November Zoom webinar on Dope and Glory: The disruption and legitimation of the Enhanced Games.

The event, on Monday, 2 November 2026 at 7pm Bangkok time, is hosted by Loughborough University, the United Kingdom.

The Enhanced Games (TEG) is a multi-sport event.

Founded by Australian businessman, it allows athletes to use performance-enhancing substances without being subject to drug tests; organizers claim these substances must be United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved and used under medical supervision.

Reactions from the sporting world, scientific community, and media outlets have generally been negative, with commentators highlighting the safety risks of encouraging performance-enhancing drug use.

The first event took place on 24 May 2026 in Las Vegas, Nevada, and included competitions in swimming, athletics, and weightlifting.

The TU Library collection includes books about diverse aspects of drugs in sport.

Students are invited to register at this link.

The event website explains:

This public lecture traces the emergence of the Enhanced Games, a controversial multi-sport event that openly embraces the use of performance-enhancing drugs.

Drawing on our first-hand observations from attending the inaugural games in Las Vegas and our latest empirical research, we explore how this disruptive event is attempting to legitimise itself and normalise doping.

We conclude by considering the broader implications of the Enhanced Games for the future of sport.

Speakers:

Dr. Alex Thurston is a Lecturer in Sport Management in the School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences at Loughborough University, England.

Dr. Mathew Dowling joined the School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences in 2024. He is a senior lecturer in sport management.

Earlier this year, the British Medical Journal posted an article online:

Enhanced Games: Bold claims, weak evidence, and serious risks

The games amounted to a large scale, uncontrolled experiment in which athletes bore the risk of unpredictable health consequences, writes Ian Boardley

The Enhanced Games, held on 24 May, were presented as a radical re-imagining of elite sport, in which athletes openly use performance enhancing drugs under medical supervision.

Organisers claim that this model-combining health assessments, clinician prescribed regimens, and independent oversight-protects athletes while generating valuable clinical insights.

However, these assurances sit uneasily alongside substantial evidence of harm, particularly from androgenic anabolic steroids.

Widespread drug use was openly reported: 91% of athletes used testosterone or testosterone esters, 29% used other anabolic steroid agents, 62% used stimulants, and 41% used erythropoietin, alongside many other substances.

Rather than offering a controlled and safe environment, the games risked exposing athletes to substantial and poorly understood health risks.

The limited performance gains make it even harder to justify the risk: only swimmer Ben Proud exceeded a current world record, assisted by a swimsuit prohibited in World Aquatics competition.

To justify their approach, organisers argue that medically supervised enhancement could level the “genetic lottery” and create a transparent, regulated system for pushing the limits of human performance.

They also emphasise that drug use was lawful, restricted to substances approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and prescribed by licensed clinicians.

In the US, physicians can legally prescribe drugs off label for indications other than what they were approved for.

Athletes were enrolled in a scientific study enabling the supervised use of substances that would otherwise be prohibited.

These arrangements suggest the games rely on jurisdictional and regulatory workarounds.

Despite strong rhetoric around medical oversight and safety, organisers have provided limited detail on how risks were mitigated or whether safeguards were sufficiently robust.

They also suggested that the Games would generate meaningful “clinical data” to evaluate enhancement protocols.

However, the proposed methodology more closely resembled a non-randomised interventional-observational study than a clinical trial.

The absence of randomisation, lack of a true control group, and reliance on highly individualised multi-drug regimens substantially limit the ability to draw causal inferences about safety or efficacy.

As such, claims of advancing scientific knowledge were overstated and risk misleading both participants and the public about the nature, validity, and clinical value of the data generated.

Androgenic anabolic steroids were central to proposed enhancement protocols, despite extensive evidence they can cause multisystem harm.

The absence of robust, controlled human studies limits the possibility of developing evidence-based monitoring or screening strategies capable of protecting athletes.

Much of the available evidence on the effects of using multiple substances at beyond natural doses consists of observational studies in recreational bodybuilding contexts, often relying on self-reported drug use.

This constrains the quality and interpretability of the data, making it difficult to determine which specific compounds, combinations, or doses are responsible for observed adverse effects.

The health risks associated with high dose androgenic anabolic steroid use are substantial, with cardiovascular harms particularly well documented.

These risks may be further amplified in the older, former elite athletes the games appear to target.

In addition, androgenic anabolic steroid use is associated with hypogonadism, infertility, and long term endocrine disruption, as well as cognitive and neuropsychiatric harms that may persist beyond cessation.

Beyond anabolic steroids, the Enhanced Games permitted protocols incorporating several other substances on the World Anti-Doping Agency’s Prohibited List.

These include peptide hormones, growth factors, and related substances including human growth hormone and erythropoietin, hormone and metabolic modulators including clomiphene and insulin, diuretics and masking agents, and stimulants such as modafinil and Adderall.

Many of these agents carry their own risks of multisystem harm, which may be compounded when used in combination or at above therapeutic doses.

The potential for acute and long term harm underscores the limitations of the proposed safety model.

Acute risks-such as cardiac events triggered by high dose stimulant use immediately prior to competition-may occur too rapidly for effective intervention.

Longer term consequences, including cardiomyopathy, infertility, and neurocognitive decline, may not emerge until years after exposure.

These risks create a fundamental ethical tension for clinicians.

In this and future games they are expected to supervise the administration of substances they know can be harmful, challenging core ethical principles such as non-maleficence, valid consent, and professional integrity.

The Enhanced Games may also contribute to the normalisation of performance enhancing drug use among amateur athletes and recreational gym users, with broader public health implications.

Medical practitioners may increasingly face pressure to support performance optimisation in otherwise healthy people.

In such situations, doctors should clearly communicate the established risks of these substances and challenge false claims with evidence based responses.

Targeted public health messaging and education-particularly within gym and recreational sport settings-are also encouraged to reduce uptake.

The scientific, clinical, and ethical shortcomings of the Enhanced Games expose a fundamental contradiction.

Although presented as a platform for innovation and discovery, their model is not grounded in an evidence base sufficient to ensure safety, predictability, or meaningful scientific insight.

Rather than advancing knowledge, the Enhanced Games risk legitimising potentially harmful practices under the guise of regulation and progress.