In its 21 May issue, Nature prints two columns back to back, “Can the ‘steroid Olympics’ show the sporting community how to support athletes better?” by April Henning and “The Enhanced Games miss the point: science can clean up sport“, by Kim Wolff. They are both about the so-called “Enhanced Games” that were to take place a few days later, on 24 May, in Las Vegas (where else?!), with competitions in swimming, athletics, and weightlifting, and no drug test. With only one World record unofficially broken at the event. (Fortunately no one died. So far.)
The first column argues that those games are exposing how many elite athletes are struggling with financial, physical and psychological issues. And how the current anti-doping system, built around the agency WADA (whose French branch is located in the town next to mine) is getting it wrong… The second one is warning about the impact of this deregulation on athletes’ welfare and integrity. Especially when the impact of most drugs on health is unknown, esp. in the long run (!). The author is thus calling for improved anti-doping protocols, rather than a return to the 1980’s GDR State-sanctioned doping. I find it terrible that Nature brings those two opposite points with no balancing towards the reasonable one, while no scientific argument in favour of live testing came out of the first column. Terrible.
Read part of another Hugo best novel contender, 
