competition

After 10 days of crazed moviegoing at the Cannes Film Festival, Times film critic Amy Nicholson and Times film editor Joshua Rothkopf are all but spent. They leave with 10 recommendations (listed below in alphabetical order), including several titles you’ll be hearing about during awards season, but also, admittedly, more reservations than usual.

Amy Nicholson: There are worse ways to spend your life than watching four movies a day in the south of France. For a week and half, we ran in and out of the dark theaters, blinking at the shock of the sun and bickering about what we just saw with the highest concentration of film lovers anywhere — most of us jacked up on espresso or rosé. Yet, we’re flying home miffed that the movies themselves were mediocre. Cannes is meant to launch ambitious, prickly works by grandmasters and next-generation talents. This year, the programming looked like a party with an impressive invite list — Nicolas Winding Refn, Asghar Farhadi, Hirokazu Kore-eda — but upon arrival, all the guests felt like old acquaintances tapped out of anything interesting to say.

I’m being harsh. Cannes had good movies, too. But I needed this year’s Cannes to be great. Audiences trickling back into theaters deserve to see something fantastic. Instead, too many filmmakers took the crowd’s attention span for granted; even the strongest films in competition could delete a half-hour of dead air. Fittingly, the majority of my favorites came from Cannes’ kookier programming sections, Directors’ Fortnight and Un Certain Regard — and I suspect many of yours did, too, oui?

Joshua Rothkopf: I did find a handful of films from the main competition that impressed me, but point taken: Nobody is served if we can’t admit that this year’s edition was weaker than others. We could blame screenwriting or pacing (though paradoxically I was impressed by both the longest and the shortest movies in competition). Maybe it’s an overall lack of boldness. When a restored version of Ken Russell’s salacious 55-year-old “The Devils” eclipses virtually everything else shown at the festival, a certain timidity is hard to deny. There were too many “nice” films: perfectly respectable but not what I want Cannes to be.

Fortunately, we saw enough to sharpen up a list of favorites. Here’s what stirred us.

‘All of a Sudden’

I’m not convinced that the utopian vision of end-of-life care presented in Ryusuke Hamaguchi’s drama has a fighting chance in America, but we deserve the opportunity to grapple with its compassionate turns and have that discussion. The director of “Drive My Car” continues his process-centric exploration of workplace relationships in this quietly revelatory movie, one with a centerpiece conversation that merits comparison to the long walks of Richard Linklater’s “Before” movies. Virginie Efira and Tao Okamoto let a day’s stroll linger into profundity, the twilight dimming and human connection brewing in all its possibilities. Is it too late for them? It doesn’t need to be. — Joshua Rothkopf

‘The Beloved’

Esteban (Javier Bardem), a renowned bad boy Spanish filmmaker, returns to his homeland from New York to shoot a period picture in the desert. Off-screen, he’s gifted one of the four leading roles to his estranged daughter (Victoria Luengo), an aspiring actor who hasn’t seen her father in 13 years. Esteban failed as Emilia’s dad. Can he succeed as her director, especially when her big break packs this much pressure? Not likely, especially as Emilia has inherited his disastrous boozing habits. “The Beloved’s” actual director, Rodrigo Sorogoyen, unleashes his leads to become a tag team of destruction, each blaming the other for what’s going wrong on set. They’re both mired in clashing narratives of their relationship. Sorogoyen shows us the truth, as well as the visible frustrations of the film-within-a-film’s cast and crew that risk shutting down this too-passionate passion project. — Amy Nicholson

‘Bitter Christmas’

(Iglesias Mas / Sony Pictures Classics)

Pedro Almodóvar’s self-flagellating film about his artistic process has a Charlie Kaufman-lite structure that I’d rather let audiences discover on their own. In brief: Almodovar’s avatar, a filmmaker named Raúl (Leonardo Sbaraglia), gets dragged over the artistic coals by the dramatic female characters he’s been writing for decades, one of whom dares him to simply coast on his legacy. Too many veteran filmmakers in his year’s Cannes competition seem to have accepted that bargain, so when Raúl got to the end of a new script and decided it wasn’t up to his standards, I nearly shouted “Bravo!” Navel-gazing cinema about the creative process isn’t usually my bag, but Almodóvar doesn’t take his own misery that seriously, even inserting a manic pixie dream hunk, a male stripper-slash-firefighter played by Patrick Criado, for a little bump and grind. — Amy Nicholson

‘Clarissa’

It’s been 101 years since Virginia Woolf first published “Mrs Dalloway,” a novel about persnickety party hostess Clarissa Dalloway colliding with her former lovers, one male and one female. The plot seems simple, but every glare and sigh tells a whole story about modernization, capitulation, cynicism and violence. Twin brothers Arie and Chuko Esiri have transplanted the tale to present-day Nigeria and stacked the cast with Sophie Okonedo, Ayo Edebiri, Nikki Amuka-Bird, David Oyelowo and the staggeringly talented India Amarteifio as the diva in her captivating youth before she married a tedious oilman and started bullying the help. “Clarissa” makes several smart adjustments, swapping in a traumatized Boko Haram soldier for a shell-shocked veteran of the Great War, and cocking an eyebrow at the shiny new yoga studios and coffee shops littering Lagos’ once-lush waterfront. Better still, it’s sexy as heck — the flashbacks are one swimsuit party after another. — Amy Nicholson

‘Club Kid’

The one-sentence pitch of Jordan Firstman’s debut dramedy — a gay nightclub promoter sobers up when he discovers he has a 10-year-old boy — sounded as fun as snorting a line of aspartame. I stand corrected. “Club Kid” is a blast: a spicy, surprising and irreverent comedy that rarely peddles the audience anything artificially sweet. Firstman stars as Peter, a debauched millennial aging out of a New York scene that never cared about him as a person in the first place. His business partner Sophie (Cara Delevingne) is a horror; his selfish squatter-roommate Nicky (Eldar Isgandarov) is even worse and so hilarious I’d watch a spin-off sequel just about him. Peter’s shock son Arlo (Reggie Absolom) has a casual charm that pickpockets your heart, but it’s the script’s sour quips that will have you urging people to get past the treacly set-up and go see “Club Kid” themselves. — Amy Nicholson

‘The Diary of a Chambermaid’

Art punk Radu Jude’s latest satire is about a Romanian immigrant with a burlesque double life. By day, Gianina (Ana Dumitrașcu, fantastic) is the live-in housemaid of a daft Parisian family; by night, she’s an actress in a turn-of-the-20th century slapstick farce about a housemaid whose master suckles her patent leather boots. In neither world can she openly say what she thinks (although in her native tongue, she curses her employers and their young son plenty). Fast, crisp and snide, “The Diary of a Chambermaid” gives equal weight to the monotony and the absurdity of Gianina’s grind. And Jude isn’t above including a mocking slow-motion shot of a spoiled French boy totally whiffing a soccer kick. — Amy Nicholson

‘Fatherland’

The tension at the heart of Paweł Pawlikowski’s period piece, set in a ravaged, fallen Germany after the end of World War II, is one that goes unresolved. All that’s left are defensive denials, evasions of Nazi collaboration and the faint hope that something higher has survived. I could watch this kind of guilt-ridden post-apocalyptic movie for hours; instead, this lasts a scant 82 minutes. The conclusion, a wordless moment between father and daughter set to the strains of Bach played on a broken pipe organ, was the most devastating passage of the entire festival. “Fatherland” shows off Pawlikowski’s exquisite way with black-and-white evocations of European tragedy, but he’s never summed them up as poetically. — Joshua Rothkopf

‘Fjord’

People at the festival called this one complex; I found myself disagreeing. It’s actually a fairly straightforward story about a religious but mostly level-headed family flung into conflict with an overly sensitive branch of child protection services — and maybe with the whole of agnostic Norwegian progressivism. As reactionary as that sounds, I was totally rapt. Partly that’s due to a beautifully plotted courtroom scenario and the immersive performances of Sebastian Stan and Renate Reinsve, reuniting after “A Different Man,” as parents increasingly out of their depths. But mainly, I credit Romanian director Cristian Mungiu, who knows a good story when he sees one, crystallizing its potency with every camera choice. — Joshua Rothkopf

‘Minotaur’

The ice-chilled return of Russian filmmaker Andrey Zvyagintsev (after a multiyear battle with long COVID) is worth the wait: a condensation of everything he does well into something so purely distilled, it should come with a proof warning. The movie kicks off as a casual portrait of the vacant nouveau riche lifestyles of the mini-oligarchs: fancy dinners, divorces, bathroom gossip. Then it becomes an erotic thriller (it’s based on Claude Chabrol’s 1969 “The Unfaithful Wife,” as was Diane Lane’s “Unfaithful”). But the best comes last, as the situation gets fixed in broad daylight with breathtaking brutality. The war in Ukraine? Someone else’s problem. “Minotaur” takes on the whole of Putin’s dissociative society and puts its winners above the blackened clouds, looking down at the rest of us. — Joshua Rothkopf

‘Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma’

I am growing to love Jane Schoenbrun’s exfoliation of ’80s horror obsessions, especially for the movie’s nonjudgmental embrace: Let these movies be free in all their “problematic” badness and let them work on you. The fact that “Teenage Sex” sometimes plays like a bottle episode of “Hacks” doesn’t hurt. Hannah Einbinder brings vulnerability to a project that needs her brand of self-excoriating fearlessness. Points, too, for not turning this into yet another celebration of some forgotten male director reclaimed as a genius. Rather, the opposite: It’s about an abused scream queen (Gillian Anderson, gamely campy), a liminal, wintry campground and the exhilaration of running in the woods in your pajamas. — Joshua Rothkopf

THE hot contender to win Eurovision has a steamy past, having posed topless for Playboy and appeared on Baywatch.

Glamorous violinist Linda Lampenius is the bookies’ favourite to win next week’s contest with singer Peter Parkkonen, representing Finland with their song Liekinheitin.

But she is no stranger to fame, as she has an illustrious career as one of the nation’s sexiest musicians.

Linda, now 56, posed on the cover of US magazine Playboy in 1998 and appeared topless while holding her instrument in photos inside the mag.

She was compared to Pamela Anderson because of her stunning figure and blonde hair, which led to an appearance on Baywatch.

Linda, who has also used the name Linda Brava, appeared in an episode playing a violinist named Ariana, but she later claimed to have refused to shoot certain scenes with David Hasselhoff, who played lifeguard Mitch Buchannon.

ON A ROLL

Moment Rolling Stones ‘fanboy’ Leonardo DiCaprio films band at album launch

GEN Z FACTOR

Simon Cowell reveals he may reboot The X Factor 8 years after the show ended

She said the script included the pair giving each other massages before they “find themselves in a steam room sharing a hot kiss.”

But Linda recalled: “I said that I refused to do the scene and that Hasselhoff was also ‘too old’ for me.”

She also appeared on an episode of the British late-night show Eurotrash in the Nineties, where she was referred to as a “supermodel” and “the hottest thing to come out of Finland since the sauna.”

Reflecting on the TV show appearance and her previous work in 2018, Linda said it was a small part of her life which she still laughs about.

She wrote on Instagram: “These fashion shows and photo shoots were something I did for less than 20 days of my life!! (I’m just laughing about the fact that they called me ‘supermodel’).

“If you get stuck in a box and never dare to do anything funny and different, life will become boring. Eurotrash was a humorous TV show, like a comedy show.

“I come from a theatre family and all quirky stuff is normal. It doesn’t make me less of a classical violinist/artist.”

Linda and Pete will compete in the first Eurovision semi-final at 8pm on Tuesday on BBC One, with hopes of progressing to the 70th annual grand final on Saturday May 16.

The latest odds from William Hill give Finland odds of 5/4 to win the entire contest, just in front of Denmark and Greece which are both at 11/2.

If Linda does win, she will be the oldest person to ever do so.

Estonia’s Dave Benton currently holds the record after winning aged 50 for Estonia in 2001.

Meanwhile, the UK act Look Mum No Computer is 17th in the betting with odds of 80/1 to win with his song Eins, Zwei, Drei.

A collaboration between relative military newcomer Saildrone and defense contracting giants Lockheed Martin and Fincantieri has resulted in Spectre, a 170-foot drone boat capable of traveling nearly 35 miles per hour and optimized for anti-submarine warfare.

Spectre can also come loaded for bear for a multitude of missions, with space for an optional payload of two Lockheed Mk 70 vertical launching system (VLS) containers. These are capable of slinging everything from Tomahawk cruise missiles to long-range SM-6s air defense and surface strike missiles. Other potential payloads, according to Saildrone, include twin-line towed sonar arrays like the TB-29 and Lockheed’s Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) Quad Launcher (JQL, pronounced jackal), which is in the process of being integrated on Saildrone’s smaller Surveyor platform. Total payload is two 40-foot containers, five 20-foot containers, or a configurable mixture of both.

Saildrone Spectre: A new class of unmanned surface vessel

The Navy’s work with far smaller Saildrone platforms dates to 2021. In the Middle East, the 33-foot Voyager, specializing in persistent surveillance, has been at the heart of testing and experimentation by the service’s Task Group 59, focused on unmanned capabilities and teaming.

In the U.S. 4th Fleet area of responsibility, which includes the Caribbean and Central and South America, solar-powered Voyagers have been the USV of choice for Operation Windward Stack. This is an effort to integrate uncrewed systems into the work of apprehending drug trafficking and illegal fishing.

The Spectre design, which was unveiled Monday at the Sea-Air-Space Exposition near Washington, D.C., at which TWZ was in attendance, is the result of two years of work. It precedes the Navy’s current competition for a family of Medium Unmanned Surface Vessels, which formally launched last month. However, company executives said they now plan to enter Spectre.

“We didn’t fit to that. We didn’t change our course,” Saildrone founder and CEO Richard Jenkins said. “Now it’s changed, MUSV … it actually fits perfectly. We meet 100% of all the specs.”

Spectre comes in two variants. One is the Silent Endurance variant with the trademark sail, or “wing.” The other is the Stealth Strike variant that relies totally on its more powerful internal propulsion. While the sail-equipped variant is more focused on anti-submarine warfare and surveillance, it too can be equipped with modular VLS cells or other “concealed payloads.” The Stealth Strike variant possesses “higher-speed” and is capable of “low observable missions,” according to the company.

Powered by a 5,000-horsepower Caterpillar diesel engine, the Stealth Strike variant is designed to cruise at around 25 knots, or just under 29 miles per hour. The 30 knot, or around 35-mile-per-hour, speed that the company cites as the maximum for Spectre is likely reserved for brief “sprints” that the Stealth Strike variant may execute during operations.

The Silent Endurance variant is optimized for “infinite endurance,” Jenkins said, with an electric engine that can maintain speeds of 12 knots, or about 14 miles per hour, or the signature wing, a 43-meter composite structure made by yacht racing team American Magic Services that can harness the wind for propulsion “without any engine at all.”

Tony Lengerich, vice president of Naval Programs at the United Kingdom-based Thales Defense and Security, which made the active sonar for Spectre, described the drones as a forward lookout presence for conventional Navy ships. 

“We’re looking forward to bringing that capability in active sonar … to the Navy fleet, particularly in the theater ASW context, where you really need a vessel that can take a sensor far out ahead of the battle group, if you will, loiter there, deploy the sensor and then move again,” he said. “That’s exactly what Saildrone brings to the table, and it’s exactly what we think the Navy needs.”

Paul Lemmo, vice president and general manager for sensors, effectors & mission systems (SEMS) at Lockheed Martin, called the drones a cost-effective way of “putting more players on the field.”

“The Chief of Naval Operations [Navy Adm. Daryl Caudle] has said it’s an important thing, so you’ve got more shooters on a fairly inexpensive platform instead of a multi-billion dollar destroyer,” he said.

From an ASW perspective, Lengerich said, the platform works for clearing and assessing “broad ocean areas” before moving a manned battle force in.  

“This provides that capability to take an active sonar source forward – ping, if you will, and then your shooters … pick up the ping and identify where you have an adversary in an area that you eventually want to move the force to. So we think of this as a theater asset, one that means far ahead of the force, both in time and space, and then advances the ability for the battle force to move in and be certain of what’s waiting for them.”

The unit price of Spectre is around $40 million, Jenkins said. That’s compared to about $7.5 million for the unarmed, much smaller 20-foot Surveyor.

The Navy has struggled to get its arms around what it wants out of its drone ships and how exactly they will integrate with the manned fleet. One of its earliest unmanned surface vessel test articles, Sea Hunter, was christened a decade ago. Navy officials announced earlier this year that Sea Hunter, a medium-sized USV, and its sister ship, Seahawk, would finally leave experimental status in 2026. One of these vessels, reportedly Seahawk, is expected to deploy this year with a carrier strike group. 

Last year, the Navy unveiled plans for a family of uncrewed Modular Surface Attack Craft (MASC), emphasizing containerized missile launchers and highly configurable payloads. The service replaced this strategy last month, however, with what it called a “marketplace” for MUSVs, giving would-be competitors a matter of weeks to submit proposals for mature vessels that could be fielded in Fiscal Year 2027. Core requirements were laid out for seakeeping, long range and endurance, and cargo capabilities, as you can read more about here. The need to be able to carry two forty-foot equivalent unit (FEU) containerized payloads is a key demand, though the Navy has not yet specified publicly what might go in them.

“Honestly, inside you could have a sensor, you could have repair equipment for ships,” Rebecca Gassler, the Navy’s Portfolio Acquisition Executive for Robotic and Autonomous Systems (PAE RAS), told TWZ and other outlets during a press call in March. “You could have any number of payloads inside those, and you basically are able to just swap them on.”

Navy officials have said they want 11 operational MUSVs by next year, and have projected that half the surface fleet will be uncrewed by 2045.

Saildrone has plans to demonstrate the ability of Surveyor to carry a JAGM launcher at the joint Rim of the Pacific exercise in July. Lemmo said the team plans to demonstrate the same capability on Spectre soon. The company says construction on Spectre is about to begin shortly, with sea trials for the first vessel set for early next year.

Contact the editor: Tyler@twz.com

Democrats on Wednesday celebrated an election win in Virginia that could put them slightly ahead in the national redistricting competition that President Trump triggered in an attempt to preserve his party’s House majority in this year’s midterms, but it will not be the final round.

Now that it’s been approved by voters, the new Virginia map will have to clear additional legal hurdles. On Wednesday, the state attorney general’s office said it would immediately appeal a ruling earlier in the day from a judge in rural southern Virginia who ordered that the results of Tuesday’s vote not be certified.

Ultimately, the Virginia Supreme Court will decide whether Democratic lawmakers violated procedural rules when they referred a constitutional amendment to the ballot authorizing the new U.S. House districts that could help Democrats win as many as four additional seats in the state. If so, that could invalidate the map voters narrowly approved Tuesday.

What happens next in Florida also will matter.

The state’s Republican-controlled Legislature is to meet in a special session next week that GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis called in part to draw a new map to expand the party’s congressional majority there. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to issue an opinion by the end of June in a Louisiana case that could overturn a key provision of the Voting Rights Act and lead to redrawn political maps across the South, though almost all of those could not happen until 2028.

After voters passed the Virginia amendment, Democrats could tentatively claim that they netted 10 seats nationally from the mid-decade redistricting, compared with the nine that Republicans claim. Even if things swing again in the GOP’s favor, the net result of Trump’s campaign would be at best an incremental increase in the number of GOP-leaning House seats at a time when his approval rating is dropping and Republican anxiety over losing control of Congress in November is rising.

“We have successfully blunted Trump’s attempt to completely hijack the midterms,” said John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.

Many Republicans agreed.

“The GOP will now lose net seats across the country. If you’re going to pick a fight, at least win it,” Ari Fleischer, who was a spokesman for President George W. Bush, posted on the social media site X after the Virginia vote. “All this was foreseeable and avoidable. We should not have started this fight.”

Adam Kincaid, executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, argued that it is too soon to declare one party a victor.

“It’s an ongoing process with many legal challenges pending, and it’s far too early for sweeping statements on the final outcome,” he said.

Trump on Wednesday tried to undermine the Virginia result by leveling groundless accusations of fraud similar to ones he made after losing the 2020 presidential election. He called the Virginia vote “RIGGED” and “Crooked” in a post on his social media site and added, “Let’s see if the Courts will fix this travesty of ‘Justice.’”

Redistricting spread from Texas to other states

Redistricting is typically done every 10 years after each census, unless ordered by a court. But last summer, Trump pushed a redrawing in Texas, prodding the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature to add up to five winnable House seats for his party. Trump then began pressuring other Republican-run states to follow. Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio have since created more GOP-leaning seats in addition to Texas.

Democrats began to fight back, even though they were more constrained because several Democratic-controlled states had maps drawn by independent commissions rather than lawmakers and governors.

To counter Texas, California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, pushed the Democratic-controlled Legislature to place a redistricting initiative on last fall’s ballot. After voters overwhelmingly approved it, the measure will replace a commission-approved map with one that could gain Democrats five seats.

Democrats reclaimed the Legislature and governor’s office in November in Virginia and swiftly moved to replicate California’s move with an even more aggressive redistricting plan. It replaces a congressional map imposed by a court after the last census that had resulted in a 6-5 edge for Democrats with one that could allow Democrats to win as many as 10 seats.

“We are not going to let anyone tilt the system without a response,” state Senate President L. Louise Lucas said at a news conference Wednesday.

Courts could still have a say on redistricting

In Washington, U.S. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York warned Florida Republicans, who have been openly nervous about redrawing their district boundaries and potentially spreading their core voters too thin before an election that appears to be trending against them.

“Our message to Florida Republicans right now is, ‘F around and find out,’” Jeffries said.

House Majority Forward, the nonprofit arm of the super political action committee aligned with House Democrats, has spent nearly $60 million to push back against Republicans’ redistricting efforts. Some $40 million of that was on the Virginia campaign.

Another obstacle in Florida is an anti-gerrymandering constitutional amendment that was approved by state voters in 2010. It is likely that any new Florida map would trigger significant litigation, although six of the state Supreme Court’s seven justices were appointed by Republicans.

Nicholas Stephanopolous, a Harvard law professor, said a challenge for DeSantis is that the Florida amendment forbids drawing lines for purely partisan purposes, so he has to find some other excuse for revising the map. “Even with that sort of acquiescent state supreme court, I don’t think it’s a done deal,” Stephanopolous said.

The Virginia move comes with its own legal issues. Republicans have challenged the process that Democrats used to place the measure on the ballot and the state Supreme Court opted to wait for the vote before even scheduling arguments in the case. It is unclear when a ruling could come.

Wednesday’s ruling stopping certification came from a separate case that Republicans filed with the same lower court judge, whose initial ruling against the initiative was put on hold by the state supreme court.

“The ballot box was never the final word here,” Terry Kilgore, the Virginia House Republican leader, said in a statement after Tuesday’s vote. “Serious legal questions remain about both the wording of this referendum and the process used to put it before voters.”

The biggest legal wild card is held by the U.S. Supreme Court. Its conservative majority could throw out a requirement under the Voting Rights Act that in areas with a large minority population, mapmakers draw districts that are more favorable to the election of minority candidates.

That provision has led to the creation of several majority-minority congressional seats, especially in the South. Without it, Republicans in conservative states could shrink the number of U.S. House seats winnable by Democrats even further.

But it’s unlikely that any state other than Louisiana, which brought the lawsuit the high court will rule on, would be able to adjust its congressional lines in time for November even if the court eliminates that provision, known as Section Two. That’s because the November election is already officially underway in most states and candidate filing deadlines — and, in some cases, primary elections — have already passed.

Riccardi and Lieb write for the Associated Press. AP writers Lisa Mascaro and Leah Askarinam in Washington contributed to this report.

It felt like the Olympics. Crowds cheering. The American flag standing tall above the bleachers. Trainers jumping with anticipation. A swimmer staring in disbelief at the clock after his final stroke. The Jumbotron announced: Kristian Gkolomeev — 20.89 seconds. A new world record in the 50-meter freestyle.

Well, kind of.

I’ve left out some details. There was only one swimmer. The crowd? Just doctors, trainers and filmmakers. This was not in an Olympic city nor an Olympic year, but in Greensboro, N.C., in 2025. And there were no iconic rings on the banners, just “Enhanced Games.”

Yes, Gkolomeev swam faster than César Cielo, the official record holder at the time (20.91 seconds). But he did it “enhanced” — a polite way to say that he used performance-enhancing drugs. At the Enhanced Games, doping isn’t punished. It’s required.

The concept, as described by the organization: “to create the definitive scientific, cultural and sporting movement that safely evolves mankind into a new superhumanity.”

Backed by investors such as Peter Thiel and Donald Trump Jr.’s 1789 Capital, the Enhanced Games embodies a techno-utopian ideal: athletes as canvases for chemical optimization, testing the limits of human health for a lot of money. Gkolomeev earned $1 million for his record.

So far, the competition has happened at one-off pop-up events. But in May, Las Vegas will host the first full-scale Enhanced Games, a four-day meet in swimming, track and field, and weightlifting. The group advertises a “potential prize purse of $7.5 million for just a single day of competition,” plus appearance fees.

Does it need to be said? Apparently yes: The Enhanced Games glorifies the risky use of enhancement drugs.

Steroids can harden arteries, elevate stroke risk, damage the liver and permanently alter hormone systems. They are not electrolyte tablets or a little preworkout creatine. If Lance Armstrong had been rewarded — rather than sanctioned — for doping, what would have happened to competitive cycling?

Fans — and especially kids — mimic their idols. As risky as the drugs are for athletes at the Enhanced Games, with its “medical commission” to give the illusion of safety, the substances are even more dangerous when used by people without medical supervision.

The games also expose the economic neglect that drives athletes toward such competition. As Benjamin Proud, the British silver medalist who recently joined the Enhanced Games, put it: “It would have taken me 13 years of winning a World Championship title in order to win what I could win in one race at these games.”

Indeed, the Enhanced Games might look like an easy way out. Only nine swimmers worldwide received prize money and performance bonuses above $75,000 in 2025, according to World Aquatics.

Investors clearly hope to make money off the games as well. The organization is moving closer to becoming a publicly traded company. The economics are not mysterious.

But the Enhanced Games are not just another sporting event. They are an arena for biomedical experimentation and should be regulated as such. The games should face limits similar to those imposed on other high-risk industries, including age restrictions and strict advertising rules.

We already know how to govern legal, profitable activities that carry serious health risks.

In the United States, that means oversight from the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission — bodies that regulate drug protocols and police misleading commercial claims. A steroid-based competition should not be treated as a sport but as a medical experiment and a marketing stunt.

Regulations on pharmaceutical advertising offer a useful model for the Enhanced Games. Prescription drugs are advertised every night on television, but only under strict rules. They require fair balance (content must present benefits and risks with comparable prominence, readability and duration) and a “major statement” of risks (most serious risks must be spoken aloud and not obscured by visuals or music).

Right now, when you play Gkolomeev’s “world-record” video on YouTube, a medical-risk warning appears for barely five seconds — then vanishes. If a cholesterol drug must audibly warn viewers of stroke risk, why shouldn’t a steroid-based competition do the same?

Enhanced Games content should be accompanied by clear warnings of the risks of performance-enhancing drugs and be clearly labeled, age-gated and distributed as high-risk content more akin to pornography than to a boxing match.

Prohibition is not the answer. Trying to shut down these games only fuels a controversy-driven brand. Just recently, the Enhanced Games sued organizations such as World Aquatics and the World Anti-Doping Agency, alleging antitrust violations and that blocking athletes from participating at the Enhanced Games is illegal. As those organizations fight back, they will be seeking to protect the integrity of mainstream sports, but they will also inadvertently be promoting the Enhanced Games.

If we want kids to admire clean athletes rather than those using banned drugs, the Las Vegas launch must not reach the world as a Super Bowl would. The Enhanced Games should not be televised or allowed to stream online to minors. Otherwise, Las Vegas, in May, risks becoming an unregulated public-health experiment mislabeled as a sporting event.

Fabricio Ramos dos Santos is a lawyer, entrepreneur and sports investor.