A swimmer breaks a world record that nobody will recognise — and every report of that night tells a different story.
Need an easier version? Read this lesson at A2/B1 level →
Work through the four short activities. Each word is shown in a situation that gives its meaning away — no need to know the story yet. Say your answer out loud first, then reveal.
Read each part, try the quick check from memory, then discuss. Pay attention to who is saying each thing — you'll need it later.
For decades, elite sport has had one rule that nobody was allowed to argue with: no performance-enhancing drugs. Athletes are tested, banned and shamed. Then, in 2023, an Australian entrepreneur named Aron D'Souza launched something unprecedented — the Enhanced Games, a sports event where adult athletes could take drugs that every major competition bans.
The organisers said this was about freedom and honesty: if athletes are going to enhance themselves anyway, why not do it openly, with doctors involved? They said the medicines would be approved ones, and that taking drugs would not be compulsory. They also offered a million-dollar bonus to anyone who broke a world record. Famous names began to join, among them the Olympic medallist Fred Kerley, who said he wanted to chase Usain Bolt's 100m record.
The sporting establishment was horrified. Governing bodies and anti-doping agencies denounced the idea, calling it dangerous and a stunt. Health experts warned that some of the substances could cause serious, even fatal, harm. The organisers dismissed the criticism and carried on.
1. Who started the Enhanced Games, and what makes them different from normal sport?
2. What did the sporting establishment and health experts say about the idea?
1. The Australian entrepreneur Aron D'Souza launched them in 2023. Adult athletes can take drugs that other competitions ban, openly, with doctors involved.
2. Governing bodies and anti-doping agencies denounced it as dangerous and a stunt; health experts warned that some substances could cause serious harm.
On 24 May 2026, at a resort in Las Vegas, the Games finally began. Forty-two athletes from 24 countries competed in three sports — athletics, swimming and weightlifting. The world watched to see whether drugs would produce the superhuman performances the organisers had promised.
On the track, they did not. Fred Kerley won the men's 100m in 9.97 seconds — a fine time, but nowhere near Bolt's world record of 9.58. Other early results also fell short of existing world marks, and the headlines began to write themselves.
Then came the last event. Greek swimmer Kristian Gkolomeev won the 50m freestyle in 20.81 seconds — seven hundredths of a second faster than the existing world record of 20.88, set by Australia's Cameron McEvoy. He earned the million-dollar bonus. But he was wearing a "supersuit" of a type banned from major competitions for years, and the swim was recorded at an event that the sport's authorities had refused to recognise.
1. How many athletes competed, in which three sports, and what happened in the 100m?
2. What did Gkolomeev achieve, and why is it complicated?
1. 42 athletes from 24 countries, in athletics, swimming and weightlifting. Kerley won the 100m in 9.97 seconds, well short of Bolt's 9.58 world record.
2. He swam the 50m freestyle in 20.81 seconds, 0.07 faster than the existing world record, and won the million-dollar bonus — but he wore a banned type of supersuit at an event the authorities do not recognise.
The reaction came quickly, and it was mostly hostile. Athletics governing bodies said they would not recognise any record set at the event. World Aquatics went further: it announced that athletes, coaches and officials who took part would be banned from its events. Anti-doping and Olympic authorities denounced the Games, and health experts repeated their warnings about the substances involved.
The organisers, meanwhile, claimed success. They said athletes had set 21 personal bests between them — thirteen athletes in all — and argued that records set in Las Vegas would simply be the first benchmarks of a separate category of sport. Several winners, however, said they had not taken banned drugs at all, which critics seized on as proof that the whole idea had failed its own sales pitch.
So what really happened that night? It depends on who you ask — and, above all, on which report you read.
1. What did the governing bodies and World Aquatics say and do?
2. What did the organisers claim, and what did critics say about the winners?
1. The athletics bodies said they would not recognise any record; World Aquatics said anyone who took part would be banned from its events.
2. The organisers claimed 21 personal bests by 13 athletes and called the records first benchmarks of a new category; critics pointed out that several winners said they had not taken banned drugs.
A good reporter can't always be sure. English has a set of structures that let you pass information on without promising it is true: you name the source, or you show that you are only repeating what people say. These are the structures behind every careful headline.
Complete each sentence with the passive reporting verb and the correct form of the second verb.
1. The new suit swimmers faster. (believe / make)
2. Some of the drugs heart problems. (think / cause)
3. The founder a separate category for enhanced sport. (say / want)
1. is believed to make
2. are thought to cause
3. is said to want
Now the event is in the past. Use to have + past participle after the reporting verb.
1. The Games as an idea in 2023. (say / begin)
2. Only one record that night. (report / fall)
3. Several winners banned drugs. (say / avoid)
1. are said to have begun
2. is reported to have fallen
3. are said to have avoided
Read the situation and choose the sentence a careful reporter would write. Say your reason aloud.
Carry these into the next two tabs — you will need them to spot where a reporter slips in an opinion, and to tell the story fairly yourself.
The same facts can be told in very different ways. A report can slip its own opinion in through a single word. Your job: find the words where the reporter stops reporting and starts judging.
Some strong words are coming up in the reports below. Before you meet them, say aloud: is the word praising or criticising? Then reveal.
Click every word you think is the reporter's own opinion sneaking in, then check. After checking, each loaded word is explained underneath.
Say which one each sentence is, then reveal.
Each sentence has the reporter's opinion built in. Rewrite it aloud so that it only reports what is known or attributes what is claimed. Then reveal one possible model.
This is the heart of the lesson — do it all out loud. The timer keeps you going; fill the time with detail.
You are a news reporter. Tell the story of the Enhanced Games to someone who has never heard of it — fairly. Move through the arc: the idea and who is behind it → the night in Las Vegas and the swim → the reaction of the governing bodies, health experts and organisers.
Work in at least five key words (stunt, unprecedented, backlash, scrutiny, denounce, verify, endorse, dismiss, credibility, bias) and at least three reporting structures ("is said to have…", "is reported to…", "reportedly", "according to…"). Keep every claim attached to its owner, and keep your own opinion out.
Second go: now say it again in 90 seconds. Make it tighter, and fix one thing you noticed — a missing source, a loaded word, a structure you skipped.
Choose a side and argue it for one minute. Then switch sides and argue the opposite for one minute. Use the arguments below, or bring your own — and try to answer the strongest reply before you reveal it.
Think about how a story you care about is reported. Pick a recent news story, or a rumour, an announcement or a review, and explain how two sources told it differently. Which words made the difference? Who is credible, and who shows bias?
Stuck for an idea? Pick one of these and run with it: