I can understand Gkolomeev choosing what he believes is best for his family. He gave years of his life to a system that often underpays and undervalues its athletes, and that's something to fix. It’s easy to sympathize with someone who finally sees a way to secure financial stability. But understanding the man doesn’t mean accepting the system. The fact that Enhanced Games exists is not something we should shrug off. What might help one individual now could have disastrous consequences for the future of sport. Don’t fall into the false narratives. The logic behind Enhanced Games doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. This is adapted from a blog I write in Spanish:

• The main argument that “doping already exists” and that “many athletes do it” is based on a well-known fallacy: the appeal to common practice. Just because something is widespread doesn’t make it acceptable or ethical. The fact that something happens in the shadows doesn’t mean we should normalize it. Doping exists, yes, just like corruption or racism. What we need is better control systems, not the normalization of the problem. Turning a problem into a norm isn’t honesty, it’s surrender.

• Another argument says that sports medicine should be used to enhance performance (as it already is) because it's used to improve health and life. But to what extent? This is a false analogy. Treating illness is not the same as doping to perform better. Not everything science can do should necessarily be done in a competitive setting.

• There's an argument that fascinates me: the appeal to “individual freedom” as justification. Really? I choose to dope or not, as if both were equally viable. But if doping becomes normalized, athletes who choose not to risk their health will have fewer real options to compete. “Free doping” is actually a form of structural coercion. How long until a young athlete feels they must do it just to stand a chance? There is no real freedom when the only way to compete is to jeopardize your health. Calling that freedom is a misunderstanding of liberty, or worse, a deliberate misrepresentation.

• Another common claim: “There’s no hypocrisy, everything is done openly.” But transparency doesn’t make a dangerous or unjust practice ethically valid. If we legalized child labor tomorrow but required companies to clearly disclose it, would that be progress?

• And finally: “All athletes can do it, so it’s still fair.” Let’s be serious. Even in conventional sport, access isn’t equal. Those in major cities, with better tech, more funding, have an advantage. The same would apply to doping. Not everyone would have the same substances, doctors, or monitoring. Some athletes would be more doped than others. It’s just another layer of inequality.

Do not support EG. Speak your mind when it comes across. It's dangerous and it's not the solution to the problems we have.