"Enhanced" Games at the Doorstep: How Did We Get Here?

Introduction

A million-dollar prize for a new swimming "world record." A bold challenge to the Olympic establishment. A one-night event scheduled for May 24, 2026, at Resorts World Las Vegas, with swimming, track, and weightlifting packaged as a new form of elite sport (Enhanced Games, 2026a, 2026b). The Enhanced Games have reached the doorstep of mainstream attention with a simple, radical premise: what if performance-enhancing substances and methods were not banned, but openly built into the competitive model?

On the surface, it is a spectacle of science and strength, promising to unlock the next level of human achievement while finally paying athletes what they are worth. Enhanced's own materials describe a model built around regulated performance enhancement, medical oversight, and substantial athlete compensation, including $25 million in total athlete compensation for the inaugural event (Enhanced Games, 2026a, 2026c).

But its arrival is not a random event. It is the result of several long-standing issues, a response to questions that traditional sport has struggled to answer. So, how did we get here? How did we arrive at a place where an idea so contrary to the established "spirit of sport" can present itself as a logical, even necessary, next step?

The answer is complex. It is connected to athlete financial vulnerability, contested ideas about autonomy and fairness, dissatisfaction with anti-doping systems, and a compelling marketing narrative that wraps an unconventional business venture in the language of progress and liberty. This post explores the arguments behind the Enhanced Games in order to understand the forces that brought this controversial spectacle to our doorstep.

Key idea: The Enhanced Games are powerful because they attach a real problem, athlete vulnerability, to a questionable solution: making enhancement itself the central attraction.

The Lure of a Livable Wage: A Solution or an Opportunity?

The most potent argument in the Enhanced Games platform is a financial one, and it is a powerful one. Supporters paint a grim picture of the traditional system, describing it as broken, slow to reform, and financially challenging for athletes. That criticism cannot simply be dismissed. A 2023 report on Australian elite athletes, for example, found widespread financial and mental-health pressure, including many athletes living below the poverty line or considering leaving sport (Healy, 2023). The narrative rightfully frames elite athletics as a profession that deserves fair compensation, questioning a system that can demand everything from an athlete while offering limited financial stability.

Into this reality, the Enhanced Games presents itself as a disruptive new force. Its official materials emphasize athlete payment, million-dollar record bonuses, and large total compensation for the inaugural event (Enhanced Games, 2025, 2026a). On the surface, who could argue with athletes being paid better?

The criticism of the existing system is not wrong. The promoters are leveraging a long-standing and difficult issue. Many elite athletes face economic precarity, unstable income, short earning windows, and uncertain career transitions. They are, in many ways, a vulnerable population.

However, where supporters see a righteous solution, a more critical lens reveals a calculated business strategy. The issue is not that the Enhanced Games identified this vulnerability; the issue is how they choose to engage with it. Instead of championing reform within existing sport, the model uses financial pressure as a powerful recruitment incentive into a new commercial ecosystem. Its early public story included retired athletes, returning athletes, and now a broader official roster across swimming, track, and weightlifting (Enhanced Games, 2026d). That is not automatically unethical, but it is a strategic pathway into the model.

This raises a crucial question about intent. If the promoters are smart and resourceful enough to identify the system's deep flaws, why not lead a charge for systemic change? One is left to wonder if the goal is to pursue genuine reform, which is often hard work, or to capitalize on the profitable opportunities that a flawed system creates.

This leads to the final, uncomfortable question of value. The "paid what they deserve" mantra resonates emotionally, but what value is being created? A record set inside a competition that allows performance enhancement primarily creates value for the Enhanced Games brand, its investors, its media product, and a small group of athletes. While athletes deserve fair compensation, it is worth asking whether an enhanced record carries the same social meaning as an achievement made under shared anti-doping rules.

So while the Enhanced Games rightly points to a significant challenge in sport, it appears less focused on systemic reform and more on a strategic business opportunity built upon that challenge.

Why it matters: Financial vulnerability is real. The ethical question is whether a model that pays athletes by normalizing enhancement solves that vulnerability, or turns it into leverage.

The Illusion of Choice: Freedom or Coercion?

When challenged on the ethics of an enhanced playing field, supporters pivot to a cornerstone of modern liberty: bodily autonomy. The argument is that athletes, like all individuals, have the right to make choices about their own bodies and to accept personal risks in the pursuit of great rewards. This principle is used to frame the use of enhancements not as cheating, but as a bold expression of personal freedom.

This ideal of individual choice is compelling. But in sport ethics, autonomy cannot be evaluated in isolation from incentives, dependency, coercive pressure, and athlete welfare.

In a system where performance-enhancing drugs are not only allowed but are the main draw, the choice to remain "clean" could be viewed as a choice to be uncompetitive. An athlete chasing a spot on the podium may no longer feel truly free to abstain from enhancement, because doing so means knowingly competing at a significant disadvantage. This very concern has been raised by the WADA Athlete Council, which argues that such a system would unfairly pressure clean athletes (WADA Athlete Council, 2025). Why would any top-tier athlete choose to enter a race they have little chance of winning?

The result can be an indirect but powerful reduction of autonomy. The freedom to compete at the highest level becomes conditional on the "choice" to use performance enhancements. This appears to be a central part of the model's design.

This dependency loop is connected to the business strategy. The Games are designed as a spectacle where record-breaking feats can generate public attention for enhancement products, supplements, and medicalized performance services (Enhanced Games, 2025, 2026a). For the business to succeed, there is a strong incentive for enhanced performances to look exciting, safe, and desirable. The athlete's performance and income become linked to the enhancement model, and the company's growth is linked to the athlete's success inside that model.

There are also governance consequences. World Aquatics has adopted a bylaw making people who support, endorse, or participate in events that embrace prohibited substances or methods ineligible for World Aquatics roles or activities, subject to case-by-case decisions (World Aquatics Communication Department, 2025). WADA has also warned that participation could create anti-doping-rule risks for athletes or support personnel who return to sport governed by the World Anti-Doping Code (World Anti-Doping Agency, 2025).

Ultimately, the "freedom" being offered appears to come with significant trade-offs. It is the freedom to opt into a system where competitive opportunity, financial reward, identity, and future eligibility may all become tied to enhancement.

A New Definition for the Spirit of Sport?

Supporters of the Enhanced Games make two key criticisms of traditional sport. First, they argue that the ideal of "clean sport" is unrealistic, claiming that doping is already common and that anti-doping efforts are largely ineffective. Second, they point to a perceived hypocrisy, questioning how organizations can ban performance enhancements on health grounds while accepting sponsorships from companies selling fast food, alcohol, and sugary drinks.

In its place, they propose a redefined "spirit of sport" that values "honesty" about enhancement over the pursuit of a "clean" competition. In this view, fairness is not about ensuring a level biological playing field, but about creating a transparent system where athletes are open about their methods and are financially rewarded for pushing the limits of human performance.

This proposal represents a significant departure from sporting tradition, and it is worth examining what gets lost in this redefinition.

First, this new framework appears to overlook a key reason why the "spirit of sport" matters in anti-doping policy. Even when a substance has legitimate medical uses, anti-doping prohibition is not only a narrow health-risk question. A substance or method may be added to the WADA Prohibited List if it meets two of three criteria: performance enhancement, actual or potential health risk, or violation of the spirit of sport (Athletics Integrity Unit, n.d.). The World Anti-Doping Code frames the spirit of sport around the human spirit, body, and mind, expressed through values such as ethics, fair play, honesty, and health (World Anti-Doping Agency, 2021). It is a tradition that celebrates what a human can achieve through effort, talent, preparation, discipline, and shared rules.

This focus on pure financial compensation also risks encouraging a transactional view of sport, where the conversation centers more on monetary returns than on gratitude for the experience. This perspective can overlook the immense non-financial benefits that a life in sport provides. For so many athletes, sport is the pathway to an education, often through scholarships, an opportunity for world travel, and a means to build profound resilience and discipline. It forges character, creates lifelong friendships, and offers the unique honor of representing one's community. A discussion of what athletes 'deserve' feels incomplete without acknowledging gratitude for these life-altering experiences.

Furthermore, the claim that enhancement is necessary to see "how fast we can go" raises a philosophical problem. The moment chemical enhancement becomes the defining variable, we stop measuring performance under a shared sporting rule set and start measuring performance under an enhancement protocol. The "human" element of the record becomes harder to interpret, a concern echoed in statements from the global anti-doping community (United States Anti-Doping Agency, 2025; World Anti-Doping Agency, 2025). There are still meaningful ways to improve performance without normalizing prohibited enhancement. These include expanding access to sport in new communities, improving biomechanics, and building individualized science-based training programs. They also include the responsible use of wearable technology, such as eos SwimBETTER, Polar Verity Sense, MySwimEdge, and Forms Smart Swim.

Ultimately, the debate exposes a fundamental choice about what we want sport to be. Is its primary purpose to be a celebration of the natural human spirit, or is it to become a showcase for what technology can build in a lab?

In short: The Enhanced Games do not merely challenge anti-doping rules; they challenge the meaning of records, fairness, and what sport is supposed to reward.

The Promise of Safety and the Reality of Unknowns

A central part of the Enhanced Games narrative is its position on health. Supporters describe their approach not as "doping," but as a safe, controlled, medically supervised process. Enhanced's current science page says it advocates for clinically supervised performance enhancement and lists medical and scientific commissions intended to support athlete screening, safety protocols, and research oversight (Enhanced Games, 2026c). The broader message is that enhanced athletes can recover faster, train harder, and compete for longer, healthier careers.

However, this narrative of safety is strongly contested by the global anti-doping community, which has described the venture as dangerous and irresponsible (Sport Integrity Australia, 2025; United States Anti-Doping Agency, 2025; World Anti-Doping Agency, 2025). Official bodies like Sport Integrity Australia warn that categories of performance-enhancing substances and methods can carry serious risks. These risks include liver damage, hormonal and fertility effects, cardiovascular strain, blood clotting, stroke, heart attack, dependence, and unknown effects for some experimental substances (Sport Integrity Australia, n.d., 2025). This does not mean every substance, dose, or person carries the same risk. It does mean the public claim of a predictably safe enhancement model deserves scrutiny.

Beyond physical harms lies a welfare question that is harder to measure: dependency on the effects. An athlete may become attached to the boosted feeling, the enhanced physique, the faster recovery, or the competitive edge, creating a cycle where self-worth and performance identity become tied to a protocol.

There is also no guarantee that enhancement will produce the desired performance outcome. The experience of James Magnussen is an important case study. Backed by an experienced coach and a medical team, his attempt to break the 50-meter freestyle world record was a public test of the model.

However, the attempt was unsuccessful, and the reported reasons reveal a complex set of unintended consequences. Reporting and athlete accounts describe a situation where faster muscular recovery encouraged a higher training load. At the same time, central nervous system fatigue and a large increase in muscle mass became performance problems rather than performance solutions (Abnormal Podcast, n.d.-b; Katwala, 2025). In swimming, more mass is not automatically better; buoyancy, drag, coordination, feel for the water, and neuromuscular freshness all matter.

Magnussen's journey highlights the core uncertainty of enhancement. Even with expert support, the body does not adapt as one simple system. Muscles, connective tissue, the nervous system, psychology, technique, and sport-specific physics do not necessarily move at the same pace. The promise of a safe, predictable journey to the top is more complex than it appears.

Why it matters: Medical oversight can reduce some risks, but it does not turn enhancement into a guaranteed, predictable, or ethically neutral route to performance.

Examining the Message: Marketing and Transparency

The narrative presented by the Enhanced Games is complex and carefully framed. It begins with a vision of scientific progress, framing the venture as a movement to accelerate enhancement medicine for all humanity. This progress, supporters argue, is being held back by traditional institutions like the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

However, the official materials make clear that the business is not only the Games themselves. Enhanced has also promoted performance and longevity products, including supplements and medically supervised therapies delivered through a telehealth-style consumer pathway (Enhanced Games, 2025, 2026a). The events therefore operate not just as competitions, but as a marketing stage for a wider enhancement business. Central to this strategy is a careful use of language: athletes are not described as "doping" or "cheating"; they are framed as competing "honestly," "legally," and "transparently."

As discussed earlier, the promise of fair compensation is the narrative's most effective hook for athletes already under financial strain.

Their argument for "fairness" also presents a significant departure from traditional views. They claim that since a high percentage of athletes in the current system may already be cheating, opening the door to drug use is a more honest way to level the playing field. This argument shifts the focus from penalizing cheating to accepting enhancement as a new norm, raising questions about whether this addresses the core issue of personal and institutional integrity.

This leads to the tactic of breaking established world records. While a powerful headline, this requires important context. The Enhanced Games is a separate business with its own rules. A record set inside its framework is an Enhanced Games record; it is not the same record ecosystem used by sports federations operating under WADA-aligned anti-doping rules (United States Anti-Doping Agency, 2025; World Aquatics Communication Department, 2025).

The argument that all drugs are "legally prescribed" invites a closer look at what, exactly, is being treated. Even if a substance is legally prescribed, its purpose in this context is enhancement, not necessarily treatment of disease or restoration of normal function. That raises an important question about the role of medicine in sport: is it to restore health, or to enable a competitive advantage? A medical pathway is not automatically an ethical endorsement within the value system of fair competition.

Finally, the claim of transparency has become a point of discussion. For an organization built on "honesty," not all athlete protocols have been publicly disclosed in detail. Reporting on Magnussen's attempt noted that Enhanced did not publicly provide the full protocol, while the organization has also argued that disclosure could encourage unsafe copying (Katwala, 2025). That may be a reasonable safety concern, but it still creates tension with the promise of full transparency.

When examined, the marketing reveals a carefully constructed narrative where ideals of progress, a new definition of fairness, and clear commercial objectives all play a significant role.

The Bigger Picture: Redefining Human Enhancement

Beyond the stadium and the syringe lies the true ambition of the Enhanced Games: a transhumanist future. Supporters dream of a new "age of human enhancement" where science is used to overcome our natural limitations. In this vision, aging becomes a treatable disease, and sport serves as the laboratory and public showcase to normalize enhancement technologies for all. The ethical debate is significantly reframed, asking not if we should enhance, but why we would choose to reject a longer, healthier, technologically-assisted life.

This vision of a perfected humanity is seductive. But it prompts a far more fundamental question: in our race to enhance the human "shell," what is happening to the human soul?

The use of performance-enhancing drugs can be seen as another form of self-care delegation. It is a shortcut that risks replacing healthy habits, personal responsibility, and long-term development with a purchased intervention. Why build cardiovascular endurance through training, recovery, nutrition, coaching, and patience if a drug can promise to move the needle faster?

This raises questions about our core values. When the focus shifts so heavily towards a capitalist, ends-justify-the-means approach, other values like empathy and ethics can be deprioritized. It leads us to question a culture that pours so many resources into enhancing our physical appearance while our cognitive, psychological, and spiritual dimensions—the actual essence of who we are—can be neglected. What is the benefit of a long-lasting, resilient shell if the person inside is left unattended?

When viewed against the backdrop of real-world problems, the entire endeavor raises concerns about societal priorities. In a world grappling with cancer, dementia, malaria, hunger, and a lack of clean water or quality education, devoting immense resources to see how fast a chemically-assisted human can swim can seem disconnected from wider humanitarian needs. It becomes an example of how capital can flow to spectacle rather than to need.

Of course, a single mother works two jobs; a student forgoes a social life to chase a scholarship; a refugee risks everything for a chance at safety. These are all leaps of faith born of necessity and hope.

But we must also remember the millions of others—doctors, tradespeople, paramedics, teachers, and nurses—who contribute immense value to society, often for modest pay, while striving to uphold their ethics every day. Their work enhances humanity in ways that truly matter.

Ultimately, the bigger picture reveals a choice. The Enhanced Games offer a future of technologically superior bodies. But in its pursuit, it champions a culture that can overlook the very values that make our lives worth living. Perhaps true human enhancement is not about breaking records or defying age. Perhaps it is about strengthening our compassion, our integrity, and our commitment to one another. That is a race we should all want to win.

The Real Gap: Nurturing Humans, Not Just Athletes

If the rise of the Enhanced Games highlights challenges within the current system, it is worth asking what a more complete solution might look like. The entire debate brings to light an important area for improvement in elite sport: the need to develop the athlete as a whole.

A clue can be found in the American collegiate system, which has a distinct advantage over many others by integrating academic development alongside athletic performance. This model, at its best, provides athletes with the knowledge and skills to build a life after their sporting careers end.

Yet, even this lauded model only addresses part of what a healthy, whole person needs. Academic and athletic development matter, but they do not automatically cover the broader conditions that shape a developing human: emotional support, social connection, financial stability, occupational pathways, personal meaning, and a safe environment beyond the pool or stadium. The broader sport literature supports this caution: sport can contribute to physical, lifestyle, affective, social, and cognitive development, but those benefits are potential rather than automatic and depend heavily on the quality of the environment (Bailey, 2006).

Viewed through this holistic lens, the solution offered by the Enhanced Games appears limited in scope. It primarily offers a financial incentive to solve a deeply complex, multi-dimensional problem. Its promise of "financial relief" and basic "health support" does not fully address the broader needs of an athlete. Its focus remains on optimizing the performance of the physical "shell," rather than on nurturing the emotional, social, or occupational well-being of its participants.

The real need is not for chemically "enhanced" athletes. It is for an enhanced system of support that sees athletes as more than bodies that can break records, a sentiment echoed by athlete-led councils and sports integrity bodies worldwide (Sport Integrity Australia, 2025; WADA Athlete Council, 2025). This means strengthening, not sidelining, initiatives that support career transition, education, safeguarding, personal development, and sport's broader contribution to society, including the IOC's Athlete365 and Olympism365 platforms (International Olympic Committee, n.d.-a, n.d.-b). True athlete development is not about building a better performance machine. It is about nurturing a resilient, balanced, and capable human being, ready for a full life long after competition ends.

Key idea: If the problem is athlete vulnerability, the answer should be stronger athlete support, not a system that makes vulnerability useful to an enhancement business.

A Better Way Forward: Building an Ethical Future for Sport

Instead of focusing on controversial models, what might a constructive and ethical path forward look like? Nurturing the whole athlete and preserving the spirit of sport requires more than just criticism; it demands innovative and sustainable systems of support. Here are two alternatives that aim to address the root causes of the challenges in sport today.

A Sustainable Financial Model: The Social Return Tax Credit (SRTC) To address the economic vulnerability that many athletes face, we could implement a national strategy to unlock private capital. The SRTC system would empower sport through tiered tax incentives, rewarding companies for investing in the nation's health and well-being. This is a Wise Racer policy idea, not a claim that such a system already exists. It builds on the established principle of Social Return on Investment (SROI), which recognizes that sport can provide social value beyond its direct economic impact. In specific Australian community-sport contexts, SROI studies have estimated at least $4.40 in social value for a community football club. Another study estimated more than $7 in economic and social benefit for organized sport in Western Australia (La Trobe University, 2016; SportWest, 2022).

The model is simple:

Level 1: Critical Needs: Contributions to inclusive access programs or remote communities receive the highest incentive (e.g., a $1.30 deduction for every $1 donated).

• Level 2: Growth Areas: Support for youth development, coaching, and facility upgrades receives a strong incentive (e.g., a $1.20 deduction per $1).

• Level 3: Supporting Programs: Investment in local clubs and school sports receives a base incentive (e.g., a $1.10 deduction per $1).

This strategy would engage businesses of all sizes to build a stable funding ecosystem from grassroots to high performance. It encourages long-term, shared investment in our communities and provides a constructive route toward athlete support without asking athletes to compromise their integrity.

A Healthier Sporting Culture: The "Swim for Life" Vision Beyond funding, we need a cultural shift. Using swimming as an example, the sport can be reframed as more than a narrow focus on elite competition. It can be promoted as a lifelong practice for physical health, mental well-being, skill development, and social connection. This "swim for life" approach fits the broader evidence that sport participation is most valuable when the environment supports enjoyment, competence, autonomy, belonging, and positive development. It also rejects the idea that athletes should be treated as medal-producing assets (Bailey, 2006; Crane & Temple, 2015; Nielsen et al., 2024). The goal is to nurture a passion that lasts well beyond the competitive years.

To make this vision a reality, we must:

• Lower barriers to entry by improving public access to facilities, lessons, and quality coaching.

• Balance investment to ensure grassroots participation is valued alongside elite pathways.

• Promote a "swim for life" culture that celebrates participation long after an athlete's peak competitive years, recognizing swimming's potential health, well-being, and social benefits while keeping water-safety guidance visible (Royal Life Saving Society - Australia, n.d.).

• Focus on personalized growth, autonomy support, and intrinsic motivation as keys to reducing dropout and fostering lifelong participation (Crane & Temple, 2015; Nielsen et al., 2024; Wise Racer, n.d.).

This cultural shift would grow sport's reach, deepen public engagement, and ultimately create a broader, more resilient support base. It would inspire not just the next generation of champions, but lifelong participants who understand and value the true spirit of sport.

Together, these financial and cultural strategies offer a powerful, ethical, and sustainable path forward. They support a world where we do not have to choose between an athlete's well-being and the integrity of competition. In that world, our heroes can inspire us through human excellence and through the resilient, community-supported system they represent.

Summary

The journey to understanding the Enhanced Games begins with a compelling and valid premise: that our traditional sporting systems have left many athletes financially vulnerable. This single truth is the key that unlocks their entire argument. From this point, they build a persuasive narrative of empowerment, fairness, and scientific progress.

But as we have seen, a closer look at this narrative raises significant questions. The proposed financial solution appears strategically built upon athlete vulnerability. The promise of "bodily autonomy" exists in tension with the competitive and financial pressures of the system. The promise of safe health outcomes is contested by anti-doping and sport-integrity bodies and complicated by real-world examples of unintended consequences. And the claims of transparency sit alongside the objectives of a commercial venture.

So, how did we get here? We arrived at the doorstep of the Enhanced Games not through a single leap, but through long-standing, unresolved issues: the financial instability of many athletes and persistent questions about the effectiveness of traditional anti-doping systems. These challenges created an opening for an unconventional business model with a powerful marketing message to present itself as a compelling solution.

The Enhanced Games are more than a competition; they are a mirror reflecting our current values and priorities. The question they force us to answer is not just about the future of sport, but about what we believe "enhancement" should truly mean for humanity.

Note: This article was originally written in English and translated into other languages using automated AI tools so we can share this information with more people. We do our best to keep translations accurate and easy to understand, and we welcome help from the community to improve them. If anything in a translated version is unclear, incorrect, or differs from the English version, the original English text should be considered the official version.

Sources

Abnormal Podcast. (n.d.-a). Are we entering the enhanced age? A vision for the future of humanity [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved July 3, 2025.

Abnormal Podcast. (n.d.-b). Sports on steroids: The explosive truth behind the Enhanced Games (ft. Brett Hawke) [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved July 3, 2025.

Athletics Integrity Unit. (n.d.). Understand the Prohibited List. Retrieved July 4, 2025.

Bailey, R. (2006). Physical education and sport in schools: A review of benefits and outcomes. Journal of School Health. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2006.00132.x

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport. (2025, May 23). CCES statement on the Enhanced Games.

Crane, J., & Temple, V. (2015). A systematic review of dropout from organized sport among children and youth. European Physical Education Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X14555294

Enhanced Games. (2025, May 21). Enhanced Games announce host city and dates - breaks swimming world record.

Enhanced Games. (2026a). Enhanced Games. Retrieved May 18, 2026.

Enhanced Games. (2026b, May 15). How to watch Enhanced Games 2026.

Enhanced Games. (2026c). Science. Retrieved May 18, 2026.

Enhanced Games. (2026d). Athletes. Retrieved May 18, 2026.

Enhanced Games. (n.d.). 50 meters to history | The first superhuman [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved July 3, 2025.

Gkolomeev, L. [@enhanced_games]. (2025, April). Letter from Lindsay Gkolomeev, wife of Kristian Gkolomeev [Tweet]. X.

Healy, J. (2023, August 30). Almost half of Australia's top athletes are living below the poverty line, report finds. ABC News.

International Olympic Committee. (n.d.-a). Olympism365. Retrieved July 8, 2025.

International Olympic Committee. (n.d.-b). Who we are (Athlete365). Retrieved July 8, 2025.

Joe Rogan Experience. (n.d.). #2166 – Enhanced Games [Audio/video podcast episode]. YouTube. Retrieved July 3, 2025.

Katwala, A. (2025, June 18). The definitive, insane, swimsuit-bursting story of the Steroid Olympics. WIRED.

La Trobe University. (2016). Value of a community football club (Research report). Centre for Sport and Social Impact.

Nielsen, G., Wikman, J. M., Appleton, P. R., Bentsen, P., & Elsborg, P. (2024). Predicting adolescents' continuation in club sports: A prospective cohort study of the importance of personal and contextual motivational factors in five sports in Denmark. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.14616

Nutt, D. J., King, L. A., & Phillips, L. D. (2010). Drug harms in the UK: A multicriteria decision analysis. The Lancet, 376(9752), 1558–1565.

Royal Life Saving Society – Australia. (n.d.). Health and wellbeing benefits of swimming. Retrieved May 6, 2026.

Sport Integrity Australia. (n.d.). The health effects of doping. Retrieved July 8, 2025.

Sport Integrity Australia. (2025, May). Sport Integrity Australia statement on the Enhanced Games.

SportWest. (2022). Social return on investment for community sport and active recreation in Western Australia.

UK Anti-Doping. (2025, May). UKAD statement on the Enhanced Games.

United States Anti-Doping Agency. (2025, May 16). What the sports community needs to know about the Enhanced Games.

Wise Racer. (n.d.). Personalised training and a focus on personal growth as keys to reducing drop-out and promoting lifelong sports participation. Retrieved July 8, 2025.

World Anti-Doping Agency. (2021). World Anti-Doping Code.

World Anti-Doping Agency. (2025, May 22). WADA condemns Enhanced Games as dangerous and irresponsible.

WADA Athlete Council. (2025, May 22). WADA Athlete Council strongly opposes the Enhanced Games. World Anti-Doping Agency.

World Aquatics Communication Department. (2025, June 3). World Aquatics acts to protect sport from enablers of doped sport. World Aquatics.