The Enhanced Games: Prohibition, harm reduction & the future of sport

IF 2.9 Q2 HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM Performance enhancement and health Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.peh.2024.100295
Luke A. Turnock
{"title":"The Enhanced Games: Prohibition, harm reduction & the future of sport","authors":"Luke A. Turnock","doi":"10.1016/j.peh.2024.100295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The Enhanced Games (TEG) has generated significant discussion around doping in sport, with reference to notions of athlete harm, ‘fairness’, and the normalisation of IPED use. This commentary draws on Richardson (2024) in unpacking each of these elements in turn, to offer an overview of the potential positives TEG can offer our understanding of anti-doping in sport.</div><div>TEG frames itself around athlete health rather than prohibitionist policies. This commentary unpacks the limits to anti-doping as a form of prohibition, and explores how harm reduction policies may be beneficial to prioritise in the sporting realm if we are concerned with athlete health, reflecting developments in our understanding of drug policy in the non-sporting world.</div><div>The commentary then unpacks ideas of ‘fairness’ in sport, and critiques the notion of the ‘level playing field’. This is followed by discussion of therapeutic and medical use of IPEDs, and some of the inconsistencies and limitations relating to TUEs at present. A discussion of technological enhancement, centred around the polyurethane swimsuit controversy, equipped powerlifting and para athletes then points to further opportunities for TEG to explore.</div><div>Following this, the extent to which TEG might normalise IPED use in comparison to other factors such as social media and aesthetics culture is considered, with counter-evidence relating to the harms that stigmatising IPED use presents also developed.</div><div>To conclude, this commentary suggests that TEG offers a real opportunity for us to examine how doping and anti-doping policy operate and are conceptualised, and offers a positive appraisal of the potential for this controversial proposed Games.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":19886,"journal":{"name":"Performance enhancement and health","volume":"12 4","pages":"Article 100295"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Performance enhancement and health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221126692400032X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Enhanced Games (TEG) has generated significant discussion around doping in sport, with reference to notions of athlete harm, ‘fairness’, and the normalisation of IPED use. This commentary draws on Richardson (2024) in unpacking each of these elements in turn, to offer an overview of the potential positives TEG can offer our understanding of anti-doping in sport.
TEG frames itself around athlete health rather than prohibitionist policies. This commentary unpacks the limits to anti-doping as a form of prohibition, and explores how harm reduction policies may be beneficial to prioritise in the sporting realm if we are concerned with athlete health, reflecting developments in our understanding of drug policy in the non-sporting world.
The commentary then unpacks ideas of ‘fairness’ in sport, and critiques the notion of the ‘level playing field’. This is followed by discussion of therapeutic and medical use of IPEDs, and some of the inconsistencies and limitations relating to TUEs at present. A discussion of technological enhancement, centred around the polyurethane swimsuit controversy, equipped powerlifting and para athletes then points to further opportunities for TEG to explore.
Following this, the extent to which TEG might normalise IPED use in comparison to other factors such as social media and aesthetics culture is considered, with counter-evidence relating to the harms that stigmatising IPED use presents also developed.
To conclude, this commentary suggests that TEG offers a real opportunity for us to examine how doping and anti-doping policy operate and are conceptualised, and offers a positive appraisal of the potential for this controversial proposed Games.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
强化运动会:禁酒、减少伤害和体育的未来
加强型运动会(TEG)引发了关于在体育运动中使用兴奋剂的大量讨论,其中提到了对 运动员的伤害、"公平 "以及使用兴奋剂正常化等概念。本评论借鉴了 Richardson(2024 年)的观点,依次解读了其中的每一个要素,概述了 TEG 为我们理解体育运动中反兴奋剂问题提供的潜在积极意义。这篇评论阐明了反兴奋剂作为一种禁药形式的局限性,并探讨了如果我们关注运动员的健康,减少伤害的政策如何有利于在体育运动领域优先考虑,这反映了我们对非体育运动领域药物政策理解的发展。随后讨论了 IPED 的治疗和医疗用途,以及目前与治疗用药豁免有关的一些不一致和局限性。随后,围绕聚氨酯泳衣争议,讨论了技术改进问题,指出了技术教育组可探索的更多机会。随后,考虑了技术教育组与社交媒体和审美文化等其他因素相比,可在多大程度上使使用 IPED 正常化,并提出了与使用 IPED 带来的污名化危害有关的反证。最后,本评论认为,TEG 为我们提供了一个真正的机会,让我们审视兴奋剂和反兴奋剂政 策是如何运作和概念化的,并对这一有争议的拟议运动会的潜力给予了积极评价。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Performance enhancement and health
Performance enhancement and health Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
审稿时长
57 days
期刊最新文献
Pain management in elite sport: A doping problem, a public health ethics issue, or both? Validation of the Arabic version of the performance enhancement attitude scale (PEAS) Semaglutide, Testosterone and Sildenafil advertising on social media: The Normalisation of lifestyle enhancement drugs Navigating non-medical androgen use: Towards a harm reduction paradigm Influencers and ‘brain building’ smart drugs: A content analysis of services and market activities of nootropic influencers over social media
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1