These are the questions I would ask the Enhanced Games … if they would let me
The Guardian
Overall Assessment
The article centers on the journalist's exclusion from the Enhanced Games, using that as a platform to raise critical ethical and medical questions. It adopts a skeptical, cautionary stance toward performance-enhancing drug use in sports, emphasizing health risks and lack of oversight. While it cites credible experts and historical cases, it lacks balance due to the absence of direct responses from event organizers or supporting scientists.
"Most of all, I wanted to discover in person how much an organisation that violates so many of the values of traditional sport can really be trusted."
Editorializing
Headline & Lead 55/100
The article is framed around the journalist's failed attempt to gain media access to the Enhanced Games, using that as a springboard to raise critical questions about the event’s legitimacy, safety, and ethics. It does not report on actual event proceedings but instead editorializes on concerns related to performance-enhancing drugs and athlete welfare. The tone is skeptical and cautionary, leaning into investigative commentary rather than neutral event coverage.
✕ Sensationalism: The headline uses a rhetorical and self-referential tone that frames the article more as opinion or commentary than straight news reporting, potentially misleading readers about the content.
"These are the questions I would ask the Enhanced Games … if they would let me"
✕ Framing By Emphasis: The lead emphasizes the author's personal rejection from media access, centering the narrative on the journalist rather than the event itself, which may distract from broader public interest.
"The plan to fly to Las Vegas to cover what the Enhanced Games claims is the “next frontier of human performance” ended with a short email sent at 7.02pm on Friday."
Language & Tone 50/100
The article maintains a consistently critical and cautionary tone, emphasizing risks and ethical concerns about the Enhanced Games. It uses emotionally charged language and moral framing, particularly around health consequences and athlete influence on youth. While this reflects legitimate journalistic skepticism, it edges into advocacy rather than neutral observation.
✕ Loaded Language: Terms like 'juice to the gills' carry strong negative connotations, framing steroid use in a derogatory and sensational manner rather than neutrally describing it.
"athletes to juice to the gills"
✕ Editorializing: The author inserts personal judgment about the event’s values and trustworthiness, which undermines objectivity expected in news reporting.
"Most of all, I wanted to discover in person how much an organisation that violates so many of the values of traditional sport can really be trusted."
✕ Appeal To Emotion: Phrases like 'libido being killed off' are used to evoke visceral reactions rather than clinically report on side effects.
"Competitors run the risk of their libido being ‘killed off’, leading experts have warned"
Balance 65/100
The article draws on expert medical opinion and historical precedent to support its concerns, with clear attribution. However, it lacks representation from proponents of the Enhanced Games beyond PR statements, limiting full perspective. The sourcing effort is strong, but the final balance leans heavily critical due to non-participation by key stakeholders.
✓ Proper Attribution: The article cites specific experts with institutional affiliations, enhancing credibility of medical claims.
"I spoke to Prof Ian Broadley and his colleague Martin Chandler, from the University of Birmingham, who specialise in performance-enhancing drug research."
✓ Comprehensive Sourcing: The author references past reporting (2005 case), current scientists, and attempts to contact event organizers and athletes, showing effort to gather diverse inputs.
"In 2005 the Guardian reported that 190 former East German athletes had launched a case against the German pharmaceutical company Jenapharm"
✕ Omission: Despite attempts, the article lacks direct responses from Enhanced Games organizers or competing scientists who might support the event’s safety claims, creating an imbalance.
Completeness 60/100
The article provides important context on health risks and historical precedents of state-sponsored doping. However, it omits the philosophical or scientific arguments in favor of regulated enhancement, limiting full understanding. The absence of the event itself due to media denial restricts on-the-ground reporting.
✕ Omission: The article does not explain the Enhanced Games’ stated rationale, scientific oversight claims, or athlete consent frameworks, which would provide context for their position.
✕ Cherry Picking: Focuses only on negative expert opinions and historical harms without engaging with arguments about regulated enhancement or athlete autonomy.
"They told me claims banned drugs can be made safer if taken under medical supervision are 'incorrect and misleading'."
✓ Comprehensive Sourcing: Includes reference to prior investigative reporting and current academic research, contributing to longitudinal context on steroid harms.
"In 2005 the Guardian reported that 190 former East German athletes had launched a case..."
Steroid use is framed as medically dangerous and threatening to athletes' long-term health
[loaded_language] and [appeal_to_emotion]: Emotive phrases like 'libido being killed off' and expert warnings are used to emphasize severe health risks.
"Competitors run the risk of their libido being ‘killed off’, leading experts have warned"
Media access is being framed as unfairly restricted by the event organizers
[framing_by_emphasis] and [omission]: The article centers on the journalist's personal rejection and inability to report firsthand, implying a cover-up or lack of transparency by the Enhanced Games.
"After careful consideration, we are unable to approve your media credential request for this year’s event"
The Enhanced Games are portrayed as violating core values of traditional sport and thus illegitimate
[editorializing]: The author explicitly questions the organization’s legitimacy by referencing violation of traditional sports values.
"how much an organisation that violates so many of the values of traditional sport can really be trusted"
Young people are framed as vulnerable and endangered by the influence of enhanced athletes
[appeal_to_emotion] and [cherry_picking]: The concern about kids following athletes' footsteps evokes moral panic without counterbalancing views on autonomy or education.
"you are a dangerous influence on kids because they would be attempting to follow in your footsteps"
Legal recourse for future harm is framed as a looming failure of the current system
[omission] and [comprehensive_sourcing]: Reference to past lawsuits implies future legal failures if no safeguards exist, though no legal experts are cited to assess likelihood.
"What is to stop the current crop doing the same in 20 years’ time?"
The article centers on the journalist's exclusion from the Enhanced Games, using that as a platform to raise critical ethical and medical questions. It adopts a skeptical, cautionary stance toward performance-enhancing drug use in sports, emphasizing health risks and lack of oversight. While it cites credible experts and historical cases, it lacks balance due to the absence of direct responses from event organizers or supporting scientists.
A Guardian reporter was denied media credentials for the upcoming Enhanced Games in Las Vegas, an event permitting performance-enhancing drug use. The article outlines concerns raised by medical experts about long-term health risks and references past litigation by East German athletes. No direct response from event organizers or participating athletes was obtained.
The Guardian — Sport - Other
Based on the last 60 days of articles
The Guardian
No related content