For decades, sports, in pursuit of “pure” competition, have implemented strict regulations to eradicate the use of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). Institutions like the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and Sports Integrity Australia have been formed solely to preserve ethics within sport, penalising athletes who resort to PEDs.  

The goal has always been to level the playing field and to celebrate human achievement unsullied by artificial means. While WADA reports that less than 2 percent of athletes dope, past research suggests otherwise. Another study from 2017 suggested a much higher prevalence during the 2011 World Athletics Championships.   

PEDs have always been a hot topic of debate. Many sport enthusiasts oppose the normalisation of these banned substances, arguing that it compromises the “spirit of sport”. However, this idea is no longer far-fetched. In fact, it is now becoming a reality. The Enhanced Games, founded by Australian businessman Aaron D’Souza, presents a competition where athletes are free to test their limits with PEDs in a regulated environment.  

Retired Australian swimmer James Magnussen has become the face of the venture, dubbed “Olympics on steroids”, and says he will happily “juice to the gills” for a chance to win $1.5 million. The controversial event has reportedly been pitched to top athletes, such as Australian swimmer Ariarne Titmus, American sprinter Noah Lyles and Kenyan marathon runner Eliud Kipchoge. However, aside from Magnussen, no other participants have been confirmed.  

But the debate around the Enhanced Games and PEDs does raise the question: What would the sports world look like if anti-doping regulations were abolished?  

Associate Professor James Connor, a sport sociologist at the University of New South Wales, says that if drugs were allowed in sport more broadly, a regulated system would need to be implemented. 

“You would have to monitor how athletes use them, and ensure they are using the appropriate substances in the appropriate ways,” he tells upstart.  

“That you check their functions of kidney, liver, etc., to make sure that nothing untoward was happening while they were still improving their performance.” 

Athletes could seek medical supervision without fear of being reported to WADA, reducing the risk associated with secretly self-administrating dangerous substances.  

Abolishing anti-doping regulations might also give athletes back their autonomy, says Assoc Prof Connor. His research on fairness in sport being undermined by doping suggests that the current model is evolving towards heightened surveillance and data tracking of athletes, further encroaching on their privacy. 

“Most people don’t understand how much privacy elite athletes give up to be part of the system,” he says.   

It would also lighten the financial burden for players who want to defend a doping case. Professor Jack Anderson, a sports law expert at Melbourne University, explains that athletes who test positive, even with a minute trace, face a difficult—and expensive—path if they want to defend their innocence.  

“Not everyone is Jannik Sinner, the world number one in tennis, who can afford top lawyers. Most athletes have very little money,” he tells upstart.  

“Most of them have to accept the ban … [but] if you challenge it, you’ll have to take the case, show the scientific evidence, and pay for that. It affects your reputation, and your mental health.”  

A common argument against doping is that it undermines fairness. While some athletes might eagerly embrace doping, others, who value the integrity of pure performance face a more complex dilemma. These athletes would grapple with the moral quandary of either upholding their values or using PEDs to stay competitive.  

While some question the “fairness” of allowing PEDs, Assoc Prof Connor argues that sport is inherently unfair. It is already influenced by economic, social and colonial factors. He notes that low-income countries struggle to compete in resource-intensive sports like swimming, due to the lack of access to proper infrastructure, funding and training opportunities. In fact, he suggests that PEDs might offer a low-cost solution to the systemic unfairness present in sport.  

“Drugs might make it fairer, because they are a cheaper intervention to improve performance than a psychologist, a nutritionist, [or] a strength and conditioning coach,” he says.  

“All these other things improve performance, and we allow them. Yet, you can’t afford those, whereas steroids, EPO [erythropoietin], they’re really cheap.”   

But in this hypothetical scenario, PEDs would raise other issues.   

Professor André La Gerche, a medical researcher at St Vincent’s Institute of Medical Research, says there are two types of risks involved when using PEDs, both direct and indirect.  

Drugs like anabolic steroids and EPO can pose significant health risks including cancer and cardiovascular diseases, due to their toxicity. But Prof La Gerche says these consequences are less concerning for athletes as low-dose drug-use limits the likelihood of such outcomes.   

“I’m not saying that because we should use drugs,” he tells upstart. “I’m just saying that in terms of trying to convince society and athletes why not to take drugs, we probably should do it with a rational debate rather than [those] big headlines.” 

If athletes were given no restrictions on how much they could enhance their performance, Prof La Gerche warns that it would increase the chances to “harm themselves”.   

“A lot of the heart rhythm problems we see with athletes are thought to be related to over-exercising … [because] once you introduce drugs, you can really just, if you like, over-rev the engine,” he says.  

“I think the human body is smarter than we are, and it’s designed to have limits. We take those limits away with drugs and we’re asking for trouble.”  

It could also raise ethical concerns about pressuring young athletes. Prof Anderson uses the hypothetical of an up and coming 16-year-old athlete who has international talent but realises they must take the now-legalised PEDs if they want to make it.   

“You’re almost coerced into taking them if you want to be competitive, and I think that’s unfair,” he says.  

This hypothetical situation recalls the very real case of 15-year-old Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva, who tested positive to a prohibited substance at the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics. It is no secret that Russia has been involved in a “doping crisis”, with evidence revealing a “years-long, state-sponsored doping scheme”.   

Athletes are strictly liable for any banned substance found in their system, regardless of how it got there or whether there was intent to cheat. However, in cases like Valieva’s, age offered her leniency as a “protected person”, which covers athletes under 16. Attention—and blame—were directed towards “athlete support personnel”, including coaches and team officials. This raises critical questions about accountability and the need to safeguard young athletes from undue pressure and exploitation in their pursuit of success. It also raises questions about agency when it comes to PEDs and young athletes. 

If and when the Enhanced Games occur, the hypothetical scenario experts have outlined here could become, at least, a temporary reality. But even if that is the case, Prof Anderson believes it is unlikely to be normalised.  

“I don’t think that kind of free-for-all system is one that has a future,” he says.   

“I think there will be interesting developments in the future with technology and how it can enhance [performance]. There’s always an interesting ethical line with what you can and cannot use. But I don’t think the Enhanced Games is where we go.”   

Article: Amelia Pozdzik is a second-year Bachelor of Media and Communication (Sports Media & Marketing) student at La Trobe University. You can follow her on Twitter @Amelia_Pozdzik