Enhanced Games Denies Credential; Journalist Poses Tough Questions

The plan to fly to Las Vegas to cover what the Enhanced Games calls the next frontier of human performance ended with a short email sent at 7:02 p.m. Friday. “After careful consideration, we are unable to approve your media credential request for this year’s event,” it said. “Due to the high volume of applications and limited media capacity, we could not accommodate all requests … thank you again for your interest and understanding.”

The rejection did not come entirely out of the blue, unlike most sports organizations. The Enhanced Games had a pre-screening process that led to a public relations representative calling me days earlier. His opening gambit? To point out the Guardian’s negativity toward the event: “Grotesque” – Barney Ronay; “Showcasing so much of the wrongness of the age” – Marina Hyde; “Competitors run the risk of their libido being ‘killed off’, leading experts have warned” – Sean Ingle.

He then asked why we were not criticizing others in the longevity space. I replied, because they are not running an event dubbed the Steroid Olympics.

After that bumpy start, our conversation turned cordial. I explained the Guardian wanted to do a proper reporting job on the event on May 24, including speaking with athletes, billionaire backers, and scientists involved. The PR man said he would speak with the organizers. Then came the email.

Many in sport dismiss the entire idea of the Enhanced Games, which allows athletes to juice to the gills and offers huge cash incentives including six-figure salaries, £185,000 to win a race, and £740,000 to break a world record.

But a journalist’s instinct is to go where the action is — to hear athletes’ stories, to ask difficult questions. Most of all, I wanted to discover in person how much an organization that violates so many traditional sports values can be trusted.

The first question I would have asked: What about the basics — are the tracks legal, the timing devices reputable, the officials pulled off the streets? Will there be any funny business? In 2016, Justin Gatlin ran the 100 meters in 9.45 seconds on the Japanese TV show Kasupe, but nobody claimed he broke Usain Bolt’s world record because he was aided by a 20 mph tailwind from a giant fan.

Question two: You claim athletes are leaving the old system behind for a new era of honesty and science. But do you really believe steroids, human growth hormone, and EPO are safe? I spoke with Prof. Ian Broadley and his colleague Martin Chandler from the University of Birmingham, who specialize in performance-enhancing drug research. They told me claims that banned drugs can be made safer under medical supervision are “incorrect and misleading.”

They added: “We are also now starting to see some serious long-term effects from steroid use in the research. Things like reproductive function or libido just being killed off with no real clear understanding of why.”

Question three: Can athletes sue the Enhanced Games? In 2005, the Guardian reported that 190 former East German athletes launched a case against pharmaceutical company Jenapharm, alleging steroids caused infertility among women, embarrassing hair growth, breast cancer, heart problems, and testicular cancer. What is to stop the current crop from doing the same in 20 years?

Question four, to the athletes: Many of you have stressed the benefits of taking banned drugs. Have you experienced any side effects?

Question five: I spoke with a former international athlete who said you are a dangerous influence on children because they would attempt to follow in your footsteps. What is your response?

Question six, to Ben Proud: What were you thinking when the first needle went into your vein, and you went from clean athlete to pariah? And for Sam Quek, who won hockey gold for Team GB at Rio 2016 and is now an Enhanced Games commentator: Was the TV fee worth it?

Question seven: Will there be drug testing at the Enhanced Games? You say only FDA-approved substances are permitted, so what happens to those who cheat your rules?

Question eight: The Enhanced Games claims the future of the human body has arrived – faster, stronger, and enhanced. But your swimmers will wear banned supersuits that decrease drag and increase buoyancy, with studies suggesting performance improvement of 1.5% to 3.5%. How much is the body, and how much is the suit?

Question nine: You say your new model could change sport forever. But we have already seen what happens when an Enhanced Games athlete breaks a world record — nothing. Last year Kristian Gkolomeev swam the world’s fastest 50-meter freestyle time, aided by drugs and a supersuit, and no one batted an eyelid.

Finally, what next? Enhanced Games organizers have suggested the event could become like Formula One for the biotech industry, with drug companies pumping athletes full of their latest drugs. Do you really believe that?

Personally, I believe such talk is nonsense. But I do not dismiss the Enhanced Games out of hand. I spoke with one person in the health-tech space who has dealt with its founders, and he pointed out they are smart people and billionaires who tend to get what they want. While they will not change sport much, they will claim something of infinitely more value: a bigger chunk of the growing anti-aging market.

In the future, do not be surprised if you see advertisements for peptides with names that sound like distant planets: CJC-1295, Ipamorelin, Thymosin Alpha-1, TB-4, GHRP-2/6, Kisspeptin-10, Semax, and Selank. Because we now live in a world that is not just about faster, stronger, higher, but living longer too. And that is something the Enhanced Games knows better than most.

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.