The Enhanced Games wasn't selling athletic glory. It was selling pharmaceuticals | Media Watch

Key Concepts

• Enhanced Games: A controversial, privately funded sporting event that permits the use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs).
• Performance-Enhancing Drugs (PEDs): Substances used to improve athletic performance, including testosterone and various peptides.
• Conflict of Interest: Situations where media outlets or individuals fail to disclose financial or personal stakes in the subjects they report on.
• Right of Reply: The journalistic ethical standard of providing individuals the opportunity to respond to allegations before publication.
• Concussion Research: The scientific study of brain injuries in contact sports, currently subject to speculative media reporting.

---

1. The "Enhanced Games" and the Business of Doping

The "Enhanced Games" in Las Vegas is presented as a spectacle designed to redefine human potential through the use of performance-enhancing drugs.

• Key Details: Athletes, including Australian swimmer James Magnus, participated in a supervised doping program involving 37 different substances, such as amphetamines and five types of testosterone.
• Performance Outcomes: Despite the hype, the results were mixed. Magnus finished last in the 100m freestyle, while another athlete set a world record in the 50m freestyle, shaving off 0.07 seconds.
• Corporate Agenda: The report argues that the Enhanced Games is primarily a marketing vehicle for "Enhanced Group Incorporated," a company selling unapproved pharmaceuticals like copper peptides and tadalafil.
• Regulatory Concerns: Both Sports Integrity Australia and the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) have expressed concern, noting that the event effectively serves as an advertisement for substances not approved for human use in Australia.

2. Media Ethics and the Ben Robert Smith (BRS) Investigation

The report examines a feature story in The West Australian and The Nightly regarding Liberal MP Andrew Hastie and his alleged "blood feud" with convicted war criminal Ben Robert Smith.

• The Allegation: The article claimed Hastie’s role in the investigation against Smith was motivated by a personal grudge dating back to a 2010 SAS selection course where Smith was an instructor.
• Journalistic Failures:
  • Lack of Right of Reply: Hastie was not given a fair opportunity to respond to specific allegations made by former commando H. Russell.
  • Omission of Context: The publication failed to mention that H. Russell was not present at the 2010 selection course, rendering his claims hearsay.
  • Conflict of Interest: The report highlights that the media outlets involved are backed by billionaires Kerry Stokes and Gina Reinhardt, both of whom have publicly supported Ben Robert Smith, creating a potential bias in their coverage.
• Outcome: The report concludes that while investigating the history between two public figures is valid, the failure to provide Hastie a proper right of reply and the omission of key context constituted a "hit job" rather than balanced journalism.

3. Medical Reporting and the "Concussion Pill"

The final segment critiques a report by Nine Adelaide regarding a "miracle pill" for concussions.

• The Claim: The media report suggested a breakthrough medication could accelerate brain healing.
• Critical Omissions:
  • Financial Interest: The segment featured Keith Thomas, who owns "Spark Concussion" (the company running the trial), but failed to disclose this conflict of interest to the audience.
  • Scientific Skepticism: A researcher interviewed for the piece stated that his warning about the need for more research was edited out. Independent experts, such as Rowena Mobbs, confirmed there is currently no peer-reviewed literature supporting the efficacy of such a pill.
• Synthesis: The report characterizes this as an example of "context dying on the cutting room floor," where media outlets prioritize sensationalism over scientific rigor and transparency.

---

Synthesis and Conclusion

The overarching theme of the report is the erosion of journalistic integrity across three distinct areas: sports, politics, and medicine. In each case, the media outlets involved failed to disclose significant conflicts of interest, ignored the necessity of a "right of reply," and prioritized sensationalist narratives over factual, balanced reporting. Whether it is the promotion of unapproved drugs, the weaponization of media against political figures, or the misleading reporting of medical breakthroughs, the report emphasizes that the public is being served agendas rather than objective information.