Loading
What changed between revision 1 and revision 2, compared over the article's markdown source with its frontmatter — so a change to status, evidence or reversibility shows up as the edit it is.
Older · revision 1
Import· initial corpus import, not an edit
Initial import of content/gene-doping.md — the filesystem corpus, unchanged. Not an edit.
12.2 kB
Revision 1
Revision 2
lines 7–14 → 7–136 unchanged lines not shown
categories: ["enhancement", "genetics"]categories: ["enhancement", "genetics"]tags: ["sport", "enhancement", "gene therapy", "doping", "detection", "regulation"]tags: ["sport", "enhancement", "gene therapy", "doping", "detection", "regulation"]summary: "The non-therapeutic use of gene transfer or gene regulation to improve athletic performance, prohibited in sport since the early 2000s with no publicly confirmed case."summary: "The non-therapeutic use of gene transfer or gene regulation to improve athletic performance, prohibited in sport since the early 2000s with no publicly confirmed case."updated: "2026-07-27"updated: "2026-08-23"issues: ["The Enhanced Games section, including the 2025 swim claim, carries no citation."]------ ```infobox```infoboxlines 51–62 → 50–6136 unchanged lines not shown
Detection strategies fall into three families.Detection strategies fall into three families. - **Direct transgene detection.** A therapeutic construct is usually built from complementary DNA, which lacks the introns present in the genomic copy of the same gene. A polymerase chain reaction assay spanning an exon-exon junction distinguishes the two, and anti-doping laboratories have developed and validated such assays for the leading candidates. The method works well on blood, and less well if the vector was injected into a single muscle and never entered circulation in quantity.- **Direct transgene detection.** A therapeutic construct is usually built from complementary DNA, which lacks the introns present in the genomic copy of the same gene. A polymerase chain reaction assay spanning an exon-exon junction distinguishes the two. WADA approved the first gene doping test in 2021, and a method published two years later extended the approach to follistatin, growth hormone, growth-hormone-releasing hormone and IGF-1, reporting detection of five transgene copies against a twenty-five-thousand-fold excess of the corresponding native gene.[^baoutina2023] That validation used blood spiked with transgene rather than samples from athletes, and the approach works less well if a vector was injected into a single muscle and never entered circulation in quantity.- **Vector detection.** Residual viral capsid sequences and anti-capsid antibodies persist after administration, which turns [[aav-vectors|pre-existing vector immunity]] into a potential forensic signal.- **Vector detection.** Residual viral capsid sequences and anti-capsid antibodies persist after administration, which turns [[aav-vectors|pre-existing vector immunity]] into a potential forensic signal.- **Indirect signatures.** The Athlete Biological Passport tracks haematological and steroidal variables over time and flags deviations from an athlete's own baseline, regardless of cause. Transcriptomic and proteomic signatures of altered gene expression have been proposed as a complementary approach, though establishing the specificity needed for a sanction is difficult.- **Indirect signatures.** The Athlete Biological Passport tracks haematological and steroidal variables over time and flags deviations from an athlete's own baseline, regardless of cause. Transcriptomic and proteomic signatures of altered gene expression have been proposed as a complementary approach, though establishing the specificity needed for a sanction is difficult. > [!caution] Absence of evidence> [!caution] Absence of evidence> No publicly confirmed positive test for gene doping in an elite athlete exists as of 2026. Whether that reflects absence of the practice or the difficulty of catching it is unresolved; anti-doping scientists generally argue both contribute.> No positive test for gene doping in an elite athlete has been publicly reported — more than two decades after the prohibition, and several years after the first approved test entered the laboratory guidelines. Whether that reflects absence of the practice or the difficulty of catching it is unresolved; anti-doping scientists generally argue both contribute. ## Documented and alleged cases## Documented and alleged cases lines 80–88 → 79–8717 unchanged lines not shown
## The Enhanced Games and the open-doping argument## The Enhanced Games and the open-doping argument The Enhanced Games, announced in 2023 and backed by private investors, proposes competition without anti-doping rules, on the argument that supervised enhancement is safer than the clandestine kind and that records suppressed by prohibition would otherwise be achievable. In 2025 the organisers publicised a swim faster than a long-standing world-record mark, achieved outside sanctioned conditions; world federations rejected the comparison and several moved to bar participants from their events.The Enhanced Games, announced in 2023 and backed by private investors, proposes competition without anti-doping rules, on the argument that supervised enhancement is safer than the clandestine kind and that records suppressed by prohibition would otherwise be achievable. In 2025 the organisers publicised a swim faster than a long-standing world-record mark, achieved outside sanctioned conditions; world federations rejected the comparison and several moved to bar participants from their events. The first competition was held in Las Vegas in May 2026, across track, swimming and weightlifting, and produced one swim under the standing world-record mark, a result no federation accepts as a record.[^conversation2026] The venture's stated emphasis has been pharmacological, and its position on gene transfer has been less clearly articulated than its position on drugs. It nonetheless supplies the sharpest version of the argument in [[enhancement-arms-race]]: if a parallel competition removes the rule, the collective-action structure that makes prohibition stable in the first place weakens, and the question of who is protected by the ban becomes concrete. Critics reply that medical supervision does not make an unapproved AAV construct safe, and that the athletes bearing the risk are not the people capitalising the event. The venture is also the clearest current test of whether [[human-enhancement]] can be normalised by staging it in public rather than by arguing for it.The venture's stated emphasis has been pharmacological, and its position on gene transfer has been less clearly articulated than its position on drugs. It nonetheless supplies the sharpest version of the argument in [[enhancement-arms-race]]: if a parallel competition removes the rule, the collective-action structure that makes prohibition stable in the first place weakens, and the question of who is protected by the ban becomes concrete. Critics reply that medical supervision does not make an unapproved AAV construct safe, that little is established about the long-term effects of combining several enhancement drugs at once,[^conversation2026] and that the athletes bearing the risk are not the people capitalising the event. The venture is also the clearest current test of whether [[human-enhancement]] can be normalised by staging it in public rather than by arguing for it. ## Outlook## Outlook lines 108–111 → 107–11219 unchanged lines not shown
[^narkar2008]: `paper` Narkar, V. A. et al. "AMPK and PPARδ agonists are exercise mimetics." *Cell*, 2008. {The compounds were given to mice; GW1516 was never approved for any human use, and anti-doping authorities have since warned athletes about its toxicity in animal studies.}[^narkar2008]: `paper` Narkar, V. A. et al. "AMPK and PPARδ agonists are exercise mimetics." *Cell*, 2008. {The compounds were given to mice; GW1516 was never approved for any human use, and anti-doping authorities have since warned athletes about its toxicity in animal studies.}[^wada]: `regulator` World Anti-Doping Agency. *The Prohibited List*, section M3: Gene and Cell Doping. Published annually. {The list is reissued each January, so the class wording cited here is the current text rather than the original from the early 2000s.}[^wada]: `regulator` World Anti-Doping Agency. *The Prohibited List*, section M3: Gene and Cell Doping. Published annually. {The list is reissued each January, so the class wording cited here is the current text rather than the original from the early 2000s.}[^gao2004]: `paper` Gao, G. et al. "Erythropoietin gene therapy leads to autoimmune anemia in macaques." *Blood*, 2004.[^gao2004]: `paper` Gao, G. et al. "Erythropoietin gene therapy leads to autoimmune anemia in macaques." *Blood*, 2004.[^baoutina2023]: `paper` Baoutina, A., Bhat, S., Li, D.K. and Emslie, K.R. "Towards a robust test to detect gene doping for anabolic enhancement in human athletes." *Drug Testing and Analysis*, 2023. {Validated on blood from eight donors spiked with transgene, not on samples from athletes; it reports what the assay can detect, not that anything was detected.}[^conversation2026]: `news` Thurston, A. and Dowling, M. "We watched the first Enhanced Games live in Las Vegas – this is what we learned." *The Conversation*, 4 June 2026. {A first-hand account of the event by two sport-management academics; it reports what took place and the athletes' own statements, and measures nothing.} removed, struck through added, underlinedLine numbers count the serialised markdown of each revision, frontmatter included.
105 lines are the same in both revisions, and 78 of them are not shown. Neither revision here is necessarily the current article — read Gene doping for the text this wiki stands behind today.