The possibilities for using human gene therapy are regarded as morally questionable, amongst other reasons, for their likely yielding to a more frivolous use of such technology for genetic enhancement. Questioning the fictionality of, so-called, designer genes seems increasingly redundant with the proliferation of new technologies and new possibilities. Yet, such prospects of enhancement raises the question of what kinds of enhancements are worthwhile to pursue. Furthermore, it must be asked to what degree genetic enhancement does actually impact upon human lives and whether it is so great that resources should be spent on developing such technologies. Within competitive sport, the advantage of being able to genetically enhance oneself are obvious. To put oneself at an advantage is regarded as fundamental to the activity, providing it is within the permissible means of the sport. However, to utilise such technology admits that ­ within sport ­ it is the result that matters. This overwhelming principle does seem reflective of current practice and is, undoubtedly, cloaked in the commercialisation of sport. Yet, the paramounce of results in sport has not always been so clear. Within even some non-western sport, the emphasis on winning is secondary to the ritual and spectacle of the event. Furthermore, not earning one’s advantage within sport ­ as would be the case for the engineered athlete ­ is contrary to current sports ethics, the doping issue most notable. As such, the use of genetics to promote a more capable athlete can be argued as missing the more important values of competition, the mutual quest, and the striving for excellence. Perhaps more reprehensible is that, to engineer a child with a particular characteristic can be argued as enacting a form of eugenics. Whilst such eugenics might be deemed morally sound since they are about a personal choice rather than a social programme of engineering, such choice does compromise the re-evaluation of sport as a performance. If we use genetics to enhance our babies, we will no longer have the option to return to a more humanitarian philosophy whereby the performance might be deemed less important to, say, the mutual endeavour. By considering the effect of genetically enhancing persons for sport, one can also recognise that engineered persons must fit within environments where genes do matter. In specific contexts of human enterprise, our genes play a greater and lesser role in our achievements. This does not render one committed to genetic essentialism or, for that matter, populist hysteria about what genetic engineering can do ­ perfect people, designer genes, superman and wonderwoman and so on. The elite athlete is a composition of training, genetics, and many other factors, and without either of these characteristics, the athlete would not be elite. Rather, it is to acknowledge that the motivation for enhancing one’s child is entirely rational and, providing such technologies are safe, would contribute to the flourishing of an individual without any necessary threat to one’s identity. Thus, the significant question becomes, not whether we are our genes, but whether our genes are at all influential in determining our lived experience. Within elite sport, this is most certainly the case. .