Breaking Records or Breaking Rules? The Enhanced Games and the Law

21 May

In just two days, the Enhanced Games will debut in Las Vegas. Marketed as the ‘future of human performance’[1], the competition has been widely condemned by sporting integrity bodies globally.[2] Elite athletes are set to take part in swimming, weightlifting and track events while permitted to use performance-enhancing drugs (‘PEDs’) under medical supervision.

Founded by lawyer Aron D’Souza and backed by venture capitalists,[3] the Games promise financial rewards which far exceed those offered to ‘clean athletes’, which is often nothing at all.[4] Sport Integrity Australia and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) have criticised the Enhanced Games as a dangerous and irresponsible concept,[5] with major concerns extending beyond athlete welfare to the ethical foundations of sport itself.

The Existing Model

Enhancement in sport can be traced back to the ancient Olympic era.[6] As pharmaceutical developments took place, enhancement practices concurrently evolved, as well as an increased awareness of health risks derived from PED use.[7] The death of Danish cyclist Knud Enemark Jensen in the 1960 Olympic Games was a catalyst for institutional adjustment led by the International Olympic Committee, resulting in the prohibition-based framework that continues to dominate international sporting governance.

Anti-doping regulation is not merely to prevent athletes from cheating, but rather operates as a legal and regulatory mechanism to protect athlete welfare, sustain fair competition and maintain public perception of the ‘spirit of sport’.[8] The Enhanced Games’ founders argue that the framework, which is fundamentally punitive and abstinence-based, is insufficient in facilitating harm reduction.[9] They contend prohibition simply drives covert PED use, deterring athletes from seeking medical help and amplifying the very dangers that regulation aims to prevent.[10] Whether or not that argument is convincing, the Games provoke legal questions that extend beyond doping itself.

The Legal Predicament

The games are marketed as a model built upon individual autonomy and informed consent.[11] However, the proposition that athletes should freely determine what enters their bodies sits uneasily alongside the reality that elite sport has historically exercised significant control over athlete bodies and participation. The experience of South African middle-distance runner, Caster Semenya, illustrates the tension. World Athletics’ 2019 regulations required female athletes with differences of sexual development to medically lower naturally occurring testosterone levels in order to be able to compete, rules Semenya challenged, arguing they engaged issues of privacy, discrimination and procedural fairness.[12] The issue is not simply whether sporting bodies regulate athletes, but how and why such regulation occurs. Medical intervention is treated as necessary when framed as a safeguard of fair competition, yet as a threat when voluntarily pursued.[13] Whilst not a definitively preferred mode, the Enhanced Games forces the question: do our concerns lie with enhancement itself, or with the form it takes and the context it occurs in?

Legal responsibility shifts too. Traditional anti-doping frameworks largely operate on principles of individual responsibility making athletes accountable for substances entering their body, regardless of intention.[14] The Enhance Games inverts this by facilitating and overseeing administration through medical protocols, meaning organisers assume a role governing bodies have long avoided. Informed consent processes and liability waivers move from administrative formalities to key legal infrastructure.[15] Medical oversight necessarily expands organisers’ duty of care and if harm arises, the legal ramifications may extend beyond mere tribunals and sanctions.[16] Claims may even extend to organisers and medical practitioners through negligence, malpractice, personal injury and broader civil liability claims.[17]

Competition law concerns also emerge through attempts to restrict athlete participation in alternative competitions. Sporting bodies have traditionally exercised broad authority over eligibility, but when restrictions extend beyond doping sanctions to prevent athletes, coaches and staff from participating in independently operated competitions, the analysis becomes considerably more complex.[18] In June of 2025, World Aquatics adopted By-law 10, which threatened to ban from all events anyone who participates in, supports or even endorses events that allow prohibited substance use.[19] The Enhanced Games responded with a USD $800 million antitrust lawsuit alleging a coordinated boycott by World Aquatics, USA Swimming and WADA.[20] The claim was dismissed in November 2025, yet the underlying tension remains.[21] At what point does protecting sporting integrity begin to resemble restricting professional opportunity?[22] As alternative sporting models continue to emerge, questions of proportionality, restraint of trade and control over athlete participation will increasingly require a legal approach.[23]

Conclusion

Ultimately, whether the Enhanced Games will redefine sport remains to be seen, but it has already prompted a more nuanced conversation. From a legal standpoint, the question is not necessarily only about PED use, but how existing legal and regulatory frameworks will respond if enhancement is no longer concealed but commercially facilitated. Liability, duty of care, restraint of trade and the limits of institutional management over athlete participation can no longer be treated as peripheral concerns. They are core legal predicaments, and sports law will increasingly be called upon to engage with them.

References

[1] https://www.enhanced.com

[2] https://www.sportintegrity.gov.au/news/media-statements/2025-05/sport-integrity-australia-statement-enhanced-games

[3] https://www.enhanced.com/company

[4] https://www.sports.legal/2025/07/sport-on-steroids-walking-the-ethical-and-legal-tightrope-of-the-enhanced-games/; https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-25/cam-mcevoy-enhanced-games-50m-freestyle-world-record-prize-money/106490158

[5] https://www.wada-ama.org/en/news/wada-condemns-enhanced-games-dangerous-and-irresponsible

[6] https://www.sportintegrity.gov.au/history-of-anti-doping

[7] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1096637409000525

[8] https://content.olympics.com.au/public/2019-07/AOC%202015%20Anti-Doping%20By-Law.pdf

[9] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13088615/

[10] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12137306/

[11] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211266924000331; https://theconversation.com/the-enhanced-games-letting-athletes-use-drugs-could-lead-to-worse-problems-than-cheating-209349