e-Doping in Virtual Sports Competitions

Introduction:

E-sports includes “e-doping,” which is the manipulation of the game outcome in violation of fair play regulations to boost a player’s chances of winning.

Over the last few years, E-sports (Competitive Video Gaming) has become one of the fastest-growing industries, and it is rapidly receiving public attention. Esports, like any other sector, has grown into a multibillion-dollar industry that has propelled athletes to notoriety and helped them amass vast sums of money. This luxury, however, is not without its drawbacks. Players compete fiercely, and small advantages might mean the difference between winning and losing. As a result, cheating is a strong temptation for many gamers. Integrity issues, such as doping, have been a problem in both traditional sports and e-sports. In reality, because e-sports is a decentralized and heterogeneous business with no central governing body, the odds of it remaining undetected are higher than in traditional sports.

Esports is one of the fastest-growing industries, with revenues estimated to reach 1.8 billion dollars by 2022. The notion that esports laws are on par with those for traditional sports of physical activity is a point of contention for the business and hence questionable. In the year 2015, the Oxford Dictionary formally incorporated its definition.

Prize money for esports competitions is in the millions of dollars. The competition among players is fierce, and small advances can be the difference between winning and losing. It’s the ideal setting for cheating. E-doping, which is using hackers and cheat software to gain an advantage over an opponent, is one such strategy used by esports players. For example, a cheat may grant one player the capacity to see through walls or fog, as well as allow an auto-aim function to assist with tough shots and eliminate the need to reload. Cheaters like to slow their opponents’ systems through remote cyber-attacks.

Types of e-Doping

In e-sports, doping may be classified into two types:

1. Traditional doping is defined as the “use of performance-enhancing chemicals or forbidden processes/methods” to improve athletic performance and outcomes. In e-sports, the most often utilized ‘performance-enhancing chemicals’ are Adderall, Ritalin, and Selegiline, which aid players in improving focus, relaxing nerves, lowering tiredness, and speeding up reaction times and are crucial in gaining a competitive advantage over their peers.
2. Mechanical doping is defined as a player’s employment of software cheats, programs, or server assaults to obtain a competitive advantage in a game. These cheats generally work in one of four ways: they allow the computer to automate actions (automatic aiming or triggering of actions), they allow a player to see through objects (walls or smoke), they allow a player to gain additional powers (the ability to fly or gain strength), or, in the case of online qualifiers, they attack the opposing team’s server host, causing them to lag heavily and be unable to play the game.

Indian Perspective

In terms of age demographics, India is one of the youngest countries. Although the entire globe is aging, India will have one of the greatest young populations under the age of 30. There is currently 54 percent of youngsters under the age of 25 in the country. These figures must be balanced against the reality that esports consistently and primarily appeal to the youth population. Given the decreasing cost of electronic goods around the world and the lack of penetration of esports in the Indian market, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the market and scope of esports in India are still in their infancy and have not exploded in comparison to other Western and East-Asian countries (such as the Korean E-gaming fraternity). E-doping has become a big worry for the business, given the rise in the field of esports, the lack of a comprehensive rule that discourages/punishes e-doping activities, and the possibility of including E-sports as a showcase sport in the 2024 Olympic cycle in Paris.

Esports worries in India are similar to those that the business faces on the other side of the Atlantic. Industry experts have long sensed the need for a more effective and coordinated esports regulatory organization than the Esports Federation of India (“ESFI”), which is already in place. The ESFI has been chastised for its lack of comprehensive player protection mechanisms and support for e-sports ethics.

Despite these concerns, there is no doubting that players who are discovered using performance-enhancing illegal drugs face consequences. If competitors test positive for any banned drugs, they may be disqualified from the event and may be barred from competing for the same title in the future. These consequences may serve as an effective deterrent for participants when they apply for a different event or game. However, even when competitions are performed physically, a big issue with esports is the cash required to do sufficient testing for each player.

This difficulty is exacerbated at events like COVID, where the majority of the tournaments are played remotely throughout the majority of the competition. As a result, testing for doping may be extremely costly for tournament organizers; as a result, the function of rules becomes critical.

Issue

When an electronic athlete is accused of e-doping, it appears like there is nothing that they can do. For example, any occurrence of doping may be reported to the International E-sports Federation (“IeSF”) (a signatory to the World Anti-Doping CodeDoping )’s Hearing Panel under Article 8 of the Anti-Doping Rules, 2014. The case will then be heard, and if the result is unsatisfactory or requires further thought, the Court of Arbitration for Sports can be contacted for further assistance (CAS). It’s worth noting that there’s no mention of e-sport arbitrators anywhere on the website. As a result, e-doping situations are in a very hazardous position. This raises the question of whether there is some form of worldwide acceptance of E-sport, and if so, whether such acceptance places esports inside the scope of traditional athletic and governing bodies’ definition of sport. As a result, it has long been thought that affirmative action is required within the scope of esports to achieve consistent acceptability and a redress mechanism for esports.

In any case, especially given the legal snag in India, such flaws in the esports governance and regulation system might represent a substantial risk to athletes. If the athlete fails to resolve the disagreement at the IeSD hearing panel, and especially if they lack the finances to take it to the IeSD, there is a danger (CAS). These athletes are then obliged to take their issues to the Indian government. Due to a lack of precedents and a defective judicial system, the athlete suffers further devaluation while the issue takes many years to settle. Furthermore, following the legal wrangling, it becomes extremely difficult for athletes to restart their careers. Overall, athletes miss out on the prime of their careers and experience significant setbacks in their professional development.

If esports are to be regarded as real sports, they must pass the same tests as any traditional sport. As a result, esports athletes risk falling into the same pit of despair as their traditional counterparts. Furthermore, esports participants demand a strict regulatory body that monitors and corrects any rule violations through suitable punishments. Furthermore, such a body should ensure that people who participate in esports are protected by taking rigorous action against situations that have the potential to taint the sport’s legitimacy.

Conclusion

Ian Smith, a member of the Esports Integrity Commission, has stated that Esports, like any other sport, should be allowed to develop, fail, and learn from their errors. To some extent, this is a valid point to make. However, doping concerns that call into question the integrity of esports must be addressed as soon as possible. In esports, any unjust techniques of decision-making should not be promoted and should instead be dealt with swiftly. As a result, it makes sense that doping in esports be examined more thoroughly and thoroughly before it is placed under a single set of regulating standards designed for traditional sports.

Though there have been serious attempts by regulatory authorities around the world to regulate the area of esports and e-doping, they have largely been ineffective and insufficient to deal with the ocean of problems that have already arisen and are rapidly emerging as a result of the rapid growth of electronic media.

Because cyberspace continues to be a major grey area in terms of the depths to which it can go, esports developers and country regulatory authorities must formulate laws to prevent its misuse and strict implementation, as well as appropriate penalties for offenders, to ensure that esports can continue to grow with all of its benefits in a healthy competitive environment while maintaining a high standard.