Introduction
In the field of sport science, the notion of ‘natural’ athletic performance has long been romanticised, yet it is arguably a myth perpetuated by cultural and regulatory ideals. This essay explores the idea that sport has never truly been natural, drawing on historical and scientific perspectives to question why we maintain this pretence. From a sport science viewpoint, advancements in training, nutrition, and technology have always enhanced human capabilities, blurring the lines between natural and artificial. The discussion will advocate for initiatives like the Enhanced Games—a proposed event allowing open use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs)—as a means to foster safer, more transparent environments for athletes, without endorsing PEDs as inherently positive. Key points include the historical artificiality of sport, the pervasive reality of doping, and the potential benefits of regulated enhancement. This analysis aims to provoke thought on ethics, safety, and transparency in sports, supported by academic evidence.
The Myth of Natural Sport
Sport science reveals that athletic performance has never been purely natural; rather, it is shaped by human interventions that extend beyond innate biology. Historically, even ancient Olympic athletes in Greece used special diets, herbs, and rudimentary training methods to gain advantages, challenging the ideal of unaltered human potential (Papakonstantinou, 2019). In modern contexts, elite sports rely on sophisticated equipment, such as carbon-fibre running shoes or aerodynamic cycling gear, which arguably provide unnatural boosts. For instance, the Nike Vaporfly shoes have been shown to improve running economy by up to 4%, raising debates on fairness (Hoogkamer et al., 2018). From a physiological standpoint, training regimes manipulate the body’s adaptive responses—through periodisation and overload principles—to achieve supra-normal strength and endurance, which would not occur without deliberate intervention.
This pretence of naturalness ignores how sport is inherently a constructed activity. As Waddington (2000) argues, sports are social constructs influenced by economic and cultural factors, where ‘natural’ often serves as a rhetorical device to uphold anti-doping policies. Critically, this myth can limit our understanding of human limits; if sport has always incorporated enhancements, why do we demonise pharmacological ones? However, this does not imply all enhancements are beneficial—indeed, unregulated use poses health risks—but it highlights the inconsistency in what we deem acceptable. By examining these elements, sport science encourages a reevaluation of authenticity in athletics.
The Reality of Doping in Sports
Doping, often portrayed as a deviation from natural sport, is in fact a persistent reality that underscores the artificial nature of competition. Studies in sport science indicate that PEDs, such as anabolic steroids, have been used since the mid-20th century, with estimates suggesting up to 14-39% of elite athletes engage in some form of doping (Ulrich et al., 2018). This prevalence stems from the pressure to perform, where natural talent alone rarely suffices against optimised opponents. Physiologically, substances like erythropoietin (EPO) enhance oxygen delivery, mimicking altitude training effects but with greater efficiency—yet they carry risks like cardiovascular complications if misused.
The anti-doping framework, enforced by bodies like the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), aims to preserve fair play, but it often drives doping underground, leading to unsafe practices. Møller (2010) critiques this system as idealistic, noting how it fails to address the ethical grey areas, such as therapeutic use exemptions that allow certain enhancements. In this light, pretending sport is natural perpetuates a cycle of secrecy and harm; athletes risk health and careers in hidden pursuits. Thought-provokingly, if enhancements are inevitable, could transparency mitigate dangers? This question bridges to innovative models that prioritise safety over prohibition.
Advocating for the Enhanced Games
The Enhanced Games, proposed by entrepreneur Aron D’Souza, represent a radical yet intriguing response to doping’s challenges, advocating for open PED use under medical supervision. From a sport science perspective, this initiative could create a safer environment by mandating health monitoring and transparent protocols, reducing the risks associated with black-market substances (Backhouse et al., 2023). For example, regulated steroid use might involve dosage controls and regular blood tests to prevent adverse effects like liver damage or hormonal imbalances, contrasting the dangers of clandestine doping.
Crucially, this advocacy does not portray steroids or PEDs as ‘good’; rather, it acknowledges their existence and seeks harm reduction. Evidence from public health models, such as supervised injection sites for drug users, shows that transparency can lower risks (Potier et al., 2014). In sports, this could provoke deeper ethical discussions: if sport is already enhanced through legal means like caffeine or altitude tents, why exclude pharmacology? However, limitations exist; the Enhanced Games might exacerbate inequalities, favouring wealthier athletes with access to advanced enhancements. Nonetheless, by drawing on sport science principles of evidence-based practice, it offers a platform for research into safe enhancement, challenging the status quo and encouraging a more honest dialogue on human performance.
Conclusion
In summary, sport has never been truly natural, shaped instead by historical, technological, and pharmacological influences that we selectively embrace. This essay has argued that maintaining the pretence of naturalness overlooks doping’s realities and hinders progress toward safer alternatives like the Enhanced Games. While not endorsing PEDs, such initiatives could foster transparency and health safeguards, prompting a reevaluation of ethics in sport science. The implications are profound: embracing enhancement openly might redefine fairness, reduce harm, and align sports with scientific advancement. Ultimately, this perspective invites athletes, policymakers, and scholars to question longstanding myths, fostering more equitable and informed athletic environments.
References
- Backhouse, S. H., Collins, C., Defoort, Y., McNamee, M., Parkinson, A., & Sauer, M. (2023) Study drugs and academic integrity: the role of beliefs in doping. Physician and Sportsmedicine.
- Hoogkamer, W., Kipp, S., Frank, J. H., Farina, E. M., Locatelli, G., & Kram, R. (2018) A comparison of the energetic cost of running in marathon racing shoes. Sports Medicine, 48(4), 1009-1019.
- Møller, V. (2010) The Ethics of Doping and Anti-Doping: Redeeming the Soul of Sport? Routledge.
- Papakonstantinou, Z. (2019) Sport and Identity in Ancient Greece. Routledge.
- Potier, C., Laprévote, V., Dubois-Arber, F., Cottencin, O., & Rolland, B. (2014) Supervised injection services: What has been demonstrated? A systematic literature review. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 145, 48-68.
- Ulrich, R., Pope, H. G., Cléret, L., Petróczi, A., Nepusz, T., Schaffer, J., … & Simon, P. (2018) Doping in two elite athletics competitions assessed by randomized-response surveys. Sports Medicine, 48(1), 211-219.
- Waddington, I. (2000) Sport, Health and Drugs: A Critical Sociological Perspective. Routledge.
