I'm assuming this market is inspired by Aron D’Souzas plan to create "Enhanced Games"? I don't believe that a concept like that could be successful enough to attract athletes from 70+ nations.

But I'm wondering how you mean this. The term doping, according to the definitions I know, implies illegality. What's legal or not is defined by sporting orgs like the IOC and WADA.

So what we're specifically betting on here, is a parallel sporting event, similar to the Olympic Games, with athletes from 70+ nations, that has significantly more liberal guidelines regarding performance enhancing medical measures, compared to the official IOC/WADA guidelines of the time. Both events and both rulebooks have to exist at the same time.

If the Olympic Games are no longer held, or if merely the rules for the Olympic Games are made more liberal with regard to performance-enhancing measures, this cannot be sufficient for a YES resolution. Because if something's legal, it's not doping. My point is, you need two different rule books to compare, one of which should be the official IOC/WADA one.

Do you agree? I may have gotten lost in semantics here. 😂

I'd be curious to know the reasoning behind betting on YES here.

How many different sports?

What if it's not allowed to use the name "Olympics"?

Ah, yeah i think my thought at the time wasn't that it should be organised by whatever official olympics org is. Just that it be a comparable event (see constraint: >70 countires).

Also see title is "Doping-Allowed Olympics" rather than "Doping-Allowed" Olympics. Think this implies doesn't have to be official olympics, though could be clearer. Thanks for asking.

@GeorgeVii yes. It's just a major resolution risk because people may complain it meets the performance requirements but has another name so they'll argue for NO