If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I'll use Wilson Kipketer as my first example, even though there were several others who came earlier who could be used.
He moves from Kenya to Denmark, and immediately CRUSHES the Danish record for the 800. (And other distances?? The 1000??)
He crushes the record in about every country except for GB. Wasn't he married to a Dane and living there? It actually points out that each cases is a case (of its own) and there are often unique circumstances; so one size does not fit all.
Kipketer is married to a Dane, and used to live in Denmark. But according to Wiki, they now live in Monaco.
BTW, the current rule waives the waiting period for those who are already living in their "new" country for three years. Thus Aregawi can compete for Sweden this year, after competing for Ethiopia last year. If (and when) Sally Kipyego becomes a US citizen, she will be immediately eligible to compete for Team USA.
Kipketer is married to a Dane, and used to live in Denmark. But according to Wiki, they now live in Monaco.
Kipketer is a bad example. Why could he not compete in the 1996 Olympics?
Because he was a few months short of having lived in Denmark for the 7 years it took to become a citizen. The Danes refused to make an exceptions and he lost an almost certain gold medal.
He originally went to Denmark to get an education.
he lives in Monaco, as does numerous other Scandinavian top athletes and ex-athletes.
That's a strong signing class! Can't wait to see how this group develops by the time they graduate...oh, wait...
so funny ! regardless in soccer FIFA does not allow players to change nationality once they have represented one country in an "official game". in international basketball FIBA allows only ONE player on a national team to be a "naturalized" citizen. the only rule the IAAF have is the three year restriction but the new country can pay off the old country and get a waiver.
FEW THINGS IN OUR SPORT SICKEN ME MORE THAN THIS CONCEPT.
The fact it is allowed may be one of them though.
It actually doesn't go far enough. Athletes should be able to compete immediately for their new countries (even if they've participated as seniors) with no waiver needed from previous national federation. To have waiting periods for athletes is to have an outside organization create second-class citizenships for your nationals. Why aren't more countries up in arms that IOC, FIFA and IAAF haven't removed this sickening clause that stops athletes from competing for their nation?
I don't think most of us have a problem with people competing for "their nation," but I'm guessing that in the case of this trio, they're just pure mercenaries, through and through who have zero allegiance towards their flag of convenience. And once their money-making days are over, one suspects they'll simply return to Kenya and live like rich men.
I think it should be a requirement that you should be able to recite the national anthem of the country you represent in one of its official languages.
I don't think most of us have a problem with people competing for "their nation," but I'm guessing that in the case of this trio, they're just pure mercenaries, through and through who have zero allegiance towards their flag of convenience. And once their money-making days are over, one suspects they'll simply return to Kenya and live like rich men.
Well, if someone in Bahrain is willing to invest $$$ in athletes, I wouldn't be too quick to slow him down
I think it should be a requirement that you should be able to recite the national anthem of the country you represent in one of its official languages.
Not sure how that would work for Spain though.
Then many of the USA-born, bred athletes will be left home. A LOT of Americans do not know all the words to the National Anthem and I suspect that it's the same for a lot of other countries.
A rich country with an egregiously poor human rights record and an unacceptably high poverty rate should not be spending money to bring in world class athletes.
A rich country with an egregiously poor human rights record and an unacceptably high poverty rate should not be spending money to bring in world class athletes.
That's an argument for the citizens of that country not outsiders. Plus, "rich country", "poor human rights..." "high poverty rate" could describe the USA. The entire global sporting movement would have to disband if those types of criteria were used for entry.
Comment