Hearing post race interviews with an athlete wearing a GB vest and talking in an American accent for example, when there is no justification other than money, is just wrong. Does anyone know what the rules are?
If you mean Shana Cox (400m) although she was born and raised in the US, both her parents are British so she would always have been eligible. You might speculate she 'changed allegiance' because she wasn't good enough for the US team, but I don't think money had much to do with it. The rules do seem rather more flexible than, say, soccer, though, where once the choice is made, it's made - although even then you can play junior and senior international football for different countries; a fair few have played junior for England but selected somewhere else (usually Wales or Ireland) at senior level.
It's not really an abuse if people qualify for the passport on grounds of parentage, IMHO.
No that is not who I was writing about specifically. If an athlete has a blood tie to a country then I have abolutely no problem with that at all. The reason I asked if anyone knew the rule was that:
1. A few years ago there was a Kenyan competing for Denmark
2. There are a few Africans competing for Bahrain this time around
3. We have a triple jumper born in Cuba, who has represented Cuba, Sudan and now
GB at the Olympics. She has recently married a Scotsman, but that does not make her British - passport or not.
I am afraid this might become to political. So I just ask you to ponder on this. Please do not become to upset with me.
We live in a time where many people flee from their home countries and try to make a new life in a new country. Many move to another country to get a brighter future. Most Americans have ancestors who did this.
Should those who move to new countries never be able to compete for their new country? Even if they have become citizen in their new country? They might not be able to compete for the country they were born in because they would be considered traitors and such.
Recently Sweden has received more than 1 million immigrants (out of a 9.5 million population). Should they not be eligible to compete for Sweden? Ever?
I've seen many athletes who has moved to Sweden and are proud to compete for their new home country. And as I understand it most of them has not been bought (none?). We could not afford to buy their services anyway.
As a side note I want to mention that more than 1 million Swedes has immigrated to US. I am sure they are all proud Americans. Some might even fondly remember their Swedish heritage.
Orm, what I am against is "rent an athlete" not the circumstances you describe - which, for the avoidance of doubt, I have no problem with. The triple jumper competing for three countries being a prime example of the rules being too lax and open to abuse.
At the moment it seems East Africans make the best distance runners and peeps from
the Carribean, the best sprinters. I am concerned that countries will be tempted to "buy" success by dishing out passports for cash incentives if the rules are insufficiently tight.
< Message edited by warspite1 -- 8/12/2012 1:57:25 PM >
England expects that every man will do his duty.
Horatio Nelson - October 1805