91% of competitors used testosterone, 79% human growth hormone – but the promise of multiple world records failed to materialise. Here's what actually happened.
Las Vegas is known for its over-the-top spectacle. The heavyweight fights, the mega-concerts, the Formula 1.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
But Sunday night's Enhanced Games - featuring a purpose-built arena on the Strip, a cast of athletes on a cocktail of banned substances, and a promised bonanza of shattered world records - may have been the most audacious and controversial show the city has ever staged.
The event, backed by billionaire investors including Peter Thiel and Donald Trump Jr., billed itself as a new model for sport: one in which performance-enhancing drugs are permitted, regulated, and celebrated. An event to push the human body to its ultimate limit.
Athletes competed for $250,000 per event win and a $1 million bonus for breaking a world record.
“We have arrived in mainstream culture,” claimed the Enhanced Games’ CEO, Maximilian Martin. “We are here to stay. We have changed the world tonight.”
It was a bold statement for an event that, by its own metric, largely fell short. The records, for the most part, did not come.
What happened?
The evening covered swimming, weightlifting and track. The night's standout performance came from Greek swimmer Kristian Gkolomeev, who won the 50-metre freestyle in 20.81 seconds, just 0.07 quicker than the legal world record set by Australian Cameron McEvoy in March this year. Gkolomeev claimed the $1 million world-record bonus.
"This is going to change my life to the good, for sure," he said.
The record will not count officially - Gkolomeev was using WADA-banned substances and wearing a banned polyurethane skinsuit, both of which are believed to provide around a 2% performance boost.
It also attracted a more immediate challenge: online sleuths on Instagram claimed that Gkolomeev appeared to touch the wall after his time of 20.81 had already flashed up on screen, casting doubt on the accuracy of the timing.
The Enhanced Games dismissed the claims as "completely unfounded internet drivel", saying its timing had been operated by Primetime Timing, which it described as "a recognised, reputable, ISO certified system used in countless other international events and never questioned".
On the track, American sprinter Fred Kerley - who had publicly predicted Usain Bolt's world record of 9.58 would get "destroyed" - ran 9.97 seconds in the 100 metres. To put that in context: at the Paris Olympics two years ago, Kerley ran 9.81 and won bronze. A 9.97 would have placed him last in that final.
In fairness, the race was interrupted four times by false starts and an untied shoe. Kerley, who claimed he did not use performance enhancers, still collected $250,000 for finishing first. Not a bad evening's work for a 9.97.
Barbadian sprinter Tristan Evelyn, also competing as a drug-free athlete, won the women’s 100m in a relatively modest 11.25 seconds before saying: “This proves that winning takes more than chemistry.”
British swimmer and Olympic silver medallist Ben Proud, who did take multiple substances, won the 50m butterfly in 22.32 - just 0.05 seconds outside the world record. "We all know what we came for. And that's world records. And so to be that agonizingly close, it's frustrating," he said.
Given that three athletes who said they were competing drug-free went on to win events, the results raise questions about the Enhanced Games’ central premise: that pharmacological freedom has the ability to unlock superhuman performance.
What drugs were taken and how were they administered?
Organisers published a breakdown of the substances taken by competing athletes over an eight-week preparation period.
Among those who doped: 91% used testosterone or testosterone esters; 79% used human growth hormone; 62% used stimulants such as Adderall; and 41% used EPO, the endurance drug long associated with cycling doping scandals.
Organisers said all medications were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.
The Enhanced Games' parent company sells many of the same substances to the public, and argues that banning them stifles athletes' potential.
But the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and WADA have declared the results illegal. World Aquatics called the event a "circus, built on short-cuts".
What do health experts say?
The scientific community has been watching with a mixture of alarm and, in some quarters, reluctant curiosity.
Professor Rob Aughey, Head of Discipline for Exercise and Sport Science at Federation University Australia, called the event "a dangerous stunt with no place as a sporting event", warning that competitors faced risks of "high blood pressure, abnormal dangerous heart growth, kidney and liver damage and failure, muscle strain and ruptures" - as well as psychological harm including "addiction, psychosis, aggression, mood swings".
Dr Catherine Norton, an associate professor of Sport and Exercise Nutrition at the University of Limerick, highlighted the particular danger of layering multiple substances at high doses. "The concern is magnified when combinations of substances are used, often at doses far beyond therapeutic recommendations, and in environments where the pressure to continually push boundaries is built into the model itself."
Not everyone is calling simply for the games to be shut down, however. Associate professor Kagan Ducker, Head of Program for Exercise Science at Curtin University, noted an uncomfortable truth.
"The Enhanced Games are a unique opportunity to see how illegal methods and substances can impact sports performance. In reality, we don't truly know the effects of many of these illegal substances and methods on exercise performance because they typically have been banned from use in sport, and therefore, research interest and viability to study them are reduced."
However he did also highlight a clear ethical concern: "Offering athletes, many of whom have low incomes from sport, is akin to luring lower socio-economic groups to participate in research for money - it’s truly unethical by any standards."
Normalising the needle?
Perhaps the most significant question raised by Sunday night is what happens next? Not in Las Vegas, but in gyms, changing rooms, and social media feeds around the world.
Dr Norton identified the drift that should worry us most. "Social media and fitness culture already place enormous pressure on appearance and performance. If drug-assisted physiques and performances become increasingly normalised or commercialised, it may create unrealistic expectations for young people and recreational athletes."
He added: "We should be cautious about creating environments where health is secondary to aesthetics, virality, or short-term outcomes. There is a real risk that the pursuit of 'optimisation' begins to overshadow wellbeing."
