Enhanced Games 落幕：当人类决定不再"公平"地比赛

Today we'll talk about

a news story the whole world is debating.

It happened

on May 24,

in Las Vegas, USA.

A competition named "Enhanced Games" —

in Chinese, "增强奥运会" —

was held for the first time.

This competition,

what makes it special?

It is special in that

it allows athletes to take drugs.

To be precise,

it allows athletes

to use drugs that make people faster

and stronger —

we call them "performance-enhancing drugs" (PEDs).

To follow this news,

we must first talk about

the Olympics'

single most important rule.

At the Olympics,

taking PEDs

is absolutely not allowed.

This rule

has existed for several decades.

Why?

Because everyone believes

the core of sports competition

is "fairness."

For you to win,

you must rely on your own effort —

practice,

talent,

will.

You can't rely on drugs.

So worldwide

there is an organization

specifically managing this.

It's called the "World Anti-Doping Agency,"

abbreviated WADA in English.

All major competitions

must follow its rules.

But in recent years

some people

have started to ask a question:

Why must doping be banned?

One of the people saying this

is named Aron D'Souza.

He's not an athlete;

he's an Australian lawyer

and businessman.

His logic goes like this:

"Since today's drugs

"are already widespread,

"why not let people use them openly?

"Using them under a doctor's supervision

"is actually safer.

"And besides,

"this way we can see

"where the real limits of humans truly lie.

His idea

attracted several

very rich investors.

Among the best known

there is one

named Christian Angermayer,

a German

biotech billionaire.

Just he alone

invested twenty million US dollars.

On top of that

there were some big investors from Silicon Valley.

And just like that,

the "Enhanced Games" was born.

On May 24,

the competition, in Las Vegas,

was held inside a resort hotel.

There were 23 events in total,

divided into three main categories:

athletics,

swimming,

weightlifting.

42 athletes,

from 24 countries.

The competition's prize money was also lavish.

Each event's winner

got 250,000 US dollars.

And if anyone broke

a real world record,

there was an extra

one-million-dollar bonus.

What everyone was talking about most

was swimming.

A Greek athlete named

Kristian Gkolomeev,

a Greek competitor,

in the 50-meter freestyle

swam 20.81 seconds.

The official world record

is 20.88 seconds.

So compared with

the current world record,

he was 0.07 seconds faster.

He took home

that one-million-dollar bonus.

But

this "record,"

the real international swimming federation,

will not recognize.

Why?

Two reasons.

First,

he used PEDs.

Second,

the high-tech swimsuit he wore

had in fact already been banned by World Aquatics.

That is to say,

this "world record"

and the world record we ordinarily mean

are not the same thing.

There were also some other results.

American sprint star

Fred Kerley

ran 9.97

to win the 100 meters.

But he did not

break Bolt's world record.

Iceland's "Mountain,"

Hafthór Björnsson,

won the deadlift event.

He and his Canadian opponent

both failed to lift 515 kg.

As soon as the news broke,

the whole world was debating it.

The opposition's

reasons are many.

First,

the health question.

Long-term use of PEDs,

especially testosterone

and growth hormone —

the effects on the body

have not been studied clearly enough.

The organizers say

all drug use

is doctor-supervised.

But medical experts say

their control group is too small

to prove "safety."

Second,

the spirit of sport.

Famous bioethicists say

the meaning of sport

is not only about who is the fastest.

There is also "within limits,

"striving to push past oneself,"

that layer of meaning.

Taking drugs

removes that layer

of meaning.

Third,

the impact on young people.

Many children

grow up watching athletes.

If what they see is

"breaking records

"by drugs,"

then they too may go and take them.

But

there are also supporters.

They say:

"Adults have the right

"to decide what they use.

"The Olympics themselves

"have plenty of problems —

"many people secretly dope,

"they just don't get caught.

"Doing it openly,

"under doctors' supervision,

"is actually safer.

"More importantly,

"this is a new way

"to see human limits.

The organizers have an even

bigger plan:

they'll merge with an investment firm,

list on the New York Stock Exchange,

at a company valuation

of $1.2 billion.

That is to say,

they want to turn "doping sport"

into a

truly big business.

At this point,

I want to share

a thought of my own.

This matter, really,

asks a question that is

quite deep:

when we watch sport,

what are we watching it for?

If it's just to watch

a faster

and stronger result,

then letting everyone use drugs

can certainly deliver that.

But if sport

also contains other things —

for instance,

watching people within limits,

how they strive;

watching how fairness

is defined;

watching how young people

are influenced —

then this matter

is not so simple.

Finally I want to ask you:

If there were a drug

that let you run faster than anyone else,

but you had to publicly admit

you had taken it,

would you take it?

Think about it.

Okay.

That's all for today.

Talk tomorrow.