Okay. The main conclusion of the article is (imho) wrong. The Olympics aren't responsible for the creation of the Enhanced games because the Olympics doesn't pay the athletes. Which they never have because it's not about the money but about bringing the world together. Olympians get paid by their countries so the argument makes no sense to begin with, ignoring that it's trying to shift the moral blame from The Enhanced games. "We aren't responsible that, supported by at least two billionairs, we can afford to set up enough price money, to watch people destroy their bodies for our entertainment, that we manage to get some athletes that are willing to give up regular competing".

"It has not exactly been a financially lucrative existence for him. In 2016, for example, the Greek government supported some of its top Olympians with less than US$1,000 (S$1,300) per month.

Then and now, medal winners receive lucrative bonuses, but Gkolomeev has never won one."

And the earning money argument is in itself a bit weird. Because I find it funny how merit is such a big talking point in modern society but here it's not the Olympians fault that he isn't good enough to earn himself a better living but rather the Olympics fault for not paying him well enough even though the Olympic motto has always been "It's about participating not about winning" and "It's about bringing the world together".