The formation of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in 1999 was spurred by the 1998 revelation of widespread use in professional cycling of erythropoietin (EPO). The drug was supposedly a real danger. The long-term consequences were unknown, but rumor said it made athletes’ blood thick as jam with clots and other circulatory fatalities likely consequences. Today the fear of EPO has dampened. However, new scientific avenues such as ‘neuro-doping’ have replaced EPO as emergent and imagined threats to athletes and to the integrity of sport. In this paper, we analyze the alleged threat from ‘neuro-doping’ in the following steps: First, we outline an understanding of ‘neuro-doping’ in a narrow sense, which we then put into context by looking at the phenomenon in a broader sense. Second, we highlight examples of societal perceptions of sport and science in order to shed light on where the concern for ‘neuro-doping’ comes from. Third, we address the more general fear of technology as a root for this concern. Fourth, we examine the evidence for the performance enhancing capacities of ‘neuro-doping’, where after we look at the obstacles for a ban on this technology. We conclude the analysis by stating that at present ‘neuro-doping’ cannot be considered a threat to the integrity of sport. Finally, however, we put this conclusion into perspective by examining what the most reasonable response would be if in the future neuro-stimulation techniques becomes an effective performance-enhancing mean in sport.

1998年的启示显示，促红细胞生成素（EPO）在专业自行车运动中得到广泛使用，促使世界反兴奋剂机构（WADA）于1999年成立。据称该药是真正的危险。长期后果尚不得而知，但有传言称，这会加重运动员的血液，因为血块堵塞和其他循环死亡可能会造成后果。如今，人们对EPO的恐惧已经减弱。但是，诸如“神经兴奋剂”之类的新科学途径已经取代了EPO，成为对运动员和运动完整性的新兴和可想象的威胁。在本文中，我们通过以下步骤分析了所谓的“神经掺杂”威胁：首先，我们从狭义上概述了对“神经掺杂”的理解，然后我们通过观察这种现象将其置于上下文中。更广泛的意义。第二，我们重点介绍了社会对体育和科学的看法，以阐明“神经兴奋剂”的关注来自何处。第三，我们解决了人们普遍担心的技术根源。第四，我们研究了“神经掺杂”的性能增强能力的证据，在此之后，我们研究了禁止使用该技术的障碍。我们通过指出目前不能将“神经兴奋剂”视为对运动完整性的威胁来结束分析。但是，最后，我们通过检查最合理的应对措施是什么，将这一结论视为现实。我们研究了“神经掺杂”的性能增强能力的证据，在此之后，我们研究了禁止使用该技术的障碍。我们通过指出目前不能将“神经兴奋剂”视为对运动完整性的威胁来结束分析。但是，最后，我们通过检查最合理的应对措施是什么，将这一结论视为现实。我们研究了“神经掺杂”的性能增强能力的证据，在此之后，我们研究了禁止使用该技术的障碍。我们通过指出目前不能将“神经兴奋剂”视为对运动完整性的威胁来结束分析。但是，最后，我们通过检查最合理的应对措施是什么，将这一结论视为现实。如果在未来的神经刺激技术成为运动有效增强性能的平均值。