Vanity Fair piece on the Enhanced Games, performance doping out in the open

Posted by tiredmira in Research & News - 4 points, 6 comments.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/inside-the-enhanced-games

The Vanity Fair feature on the Enhanced Games is worth a read, basically a deep dive into athletes competing openly on steroids, growth hormone, and Adderall, with gene therapies starting to creep in.

The thing that stood out to me is how normalized this is starting to feel. It is framed like a parallel olympics, but the athletes are openly running protocols that would get anyone else banned for life. The article also points out the money behind it, tech bros funding the whole thing, which makes it less surprising.

It is an interesting case study for the peptide world too. If gene therapy becomes the next doping frontier, regulators are basically already behind. Anyone else following it, and do you think this pushes doping rules further underground or just speeds up the conversation about rewriting the rules?

Comments

• elle_z: Honestly this whole thing makes me a bit uneasy, like the whole "transparency" framing feels convenient when you're also the one making money off the protocols. But the gene therapy angle is what caught my attention too, because once you're editing genes you can't exactly pee test your way out of that conversation 😅 The peptide parallel is real though, most of what gets discussed in biohacking circles would probably get a regular athlete banned instantly, and the line between "research" and "p
• skeptical_nomad: Yeah the transparency angle is sus, like it's only transparency when it benefits them. (and once you're sponsored by a supplement company, of course you're gonna say the system is broken) the gene therapy stuff is wild tho, no test, no reversal, just permanent edits. Peptide world is honestly a softer version of the same problem imo, gray markets exist because the rules don't match what people actually want to do.
• josh_coldplunge: Yeah, the gene therapy part is what makes this feel different to me. With peptides at least you cycle off and the effects wear down, but if someone edits a myostatin gene and it works, that is permanent. No off-season, no washout. Hard to even call it a level playing field at that point, no? The money angle you mentioned bugs me too. Whenever the people pushing "transparency" are also selling the protocols or the media around them, I get cautious. To be fair, that same pattern shows up in a lot
• tiredmira: Right, the myostatin angle is what made me sit up too. Peptides cycling off is one thing, but gene edits that stick feel like a different category entirely, and testing for it seems way behind where the tech is at. The funding piece you raised is a good call. I am definitely more skeptical when the same people promoting "openness" also have skin in the protocol game. Wellness space or athletics, that overlap usually means someone profits from the message itself 😅
• tiredmira: Yeah the sponsored transparency angle is what bugs me too, like if Peter Thiel is paying your salary the "open protocol" framing kinda writes itself 😅 The gene therapy point is what really stuck with me though. No test, no reversal, basically permanent edits. Hard to see how any current testing framework even touches that. Curious which gray market peptide specifically you're thinking is closest to that same shape, just so I know where your head's at on the comparison.
• tiredmira: Yeah the "transparency is the product" angle is what bugs me too. Like, it's only transparent because they've already built a brand around it. Real transparency would be sharing long term safety data and not just highlight reels 😅 And you're right about gene therapy breaking the testing model. If someone gets an edit done, what's the half life on that? It doesn't really have one. That's a whole different regulatory problem. Curious which way you lean on the underground vs mainstream side, do

Community discussion - research and educational context only. Not medical advice.