21 September 2025 - Written By
The question of banning people with CIP (congenital insensitivity to pain) or some degree of immunity to the effects of capsaicin is a very difficult subject, because there is no real way to prove it. How could you possibly check every competitor before a contest? There are no blood tests or scientific investigations that can realistically be carried out at an event to determine CIP or immunity. And even if such tests did exist, how would you then measure or determine the exact level or degree of immunity a contestant may possess – and where would you draw the cut-off point?
Most people who genuinely believe they have some form of immunity should not want to compete against those who don’t, because where is the pride in that victory? It would be like winning a 100m sprint against someone with only one leg – the achievement would feel hollow. Ultimately, this comes down to the individual competitor and their own integrity: they must decide for themselves whether it is a true victory to win against people who feel pain when they themselves do not.
We strongly believe that banning people without justified reasoning or provable facts beyond any doubt is, in itself, discrimination. It is simply not right to ban someone unless there is clear, 100% irrefutable, and conclusive evidence of actual cheating.
Otherwise, where does it stop? Next, competitors who lose might complain that larger people should not be allowed to enter the same contest, because they may have a bigger stomach capacity and therefore an advantage in eating larger volumes of peppers. Or perhaps people might argue that those of Indian or Mexican background should be banned, simply because they grew up eating hot chillies and therefore may have built a tolerance that consequently may give them an advantage. Then women might say they don’t want to compete against men for obvious reasons. People who compete who also grow their own superhots could be said to have an advantage because they eat superhots daily, while some other competitors may only ever eat them during contests as they may not have ready access to superhots. Is it fair then to say growers should be banned too? Where do we draw the line? The list of supposed “unfair” advantages could go on forever; the list of possible complaints is endless – and if we try to ban everyone to keep everyone happy, it will never end. It’s a slippery slope. Eventually, there would be no competition left for anyone in which to partake.
There is also another problem: people can pretend. Someone who actually has CIP or immunity could act as though they are in pain, fooling everyone. On the other hand, some competitors simply like to act tough and show no reaction, even when they are feeling pain – because stoicism is seen as admirable and earns respect as a mark of toughness. But then those competitors could be accused of having immunity or CIP when they do not. What happens then? How would they prove they don’t have immunity? Unless an individual openly comes forward and explicitly declares that they have CIP or immunity, there is no fair or workable way to police this.
If someone wins while showing no reaction or possessing other perceived ‘advantageous points’ over people who lose, and the people who lose turn on the organisers, the hosts, the festivals, or the sport itself – are we supposed to strip the belt off the winner? That would make a complete mockery of both the competition and of good sportsmanship.
The important thing to remember is this: people around the world who have been discovered to exhibit some form of unusual resistance and immunity to the effects of chilli have, in fact, been defeated by competitors who do not possess such immunity. This is sport, and advantages come in many different forms – not just CIP or immunity.
That is why we must focus on fairness where it can truly be measured – by ensuring nobody is cheating – not by banning people based on speculation, perception, or complaints. We cannot allow an open-ended environment where anyone can discriminate against anyone else based on their own personal views of what is a “fair” contest. Remember: everyone we have discovered with perceived immunity so far has been defeated in the past by people who do feel the pain, through their sheer determination and practice. At the end of the day, any sportsperson must rely on their own strengths and do the best they can.
The LOF matches are not just about winning – they are also very much about the enjoyment of participating, the experience of travelling to different festivals all over the world, meeting new people, engaging with diverse chilli communities, forging friendships, and so much more. It is important to remember all of this, rather than start a revolt against LOF and attempt to bring it down, when all LOF is trying to do is bring people together and provide them with a platform to be the best version of themselves as sportspeople, and to gain recognition whether they win or not.
