Originally Posted by danielf (Post 35460364)

This is getting silly:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/19152117

He didn't want to compete in the 800m so he could focus on the 1500m. Algeria failed to withdraw him, so he was forced to take part, and then thrown out of the games for not trying hard enough. Seems to me that someone needs to consider the fact that the athletes aren't there for the crowds. They are there for themselves, and should (within reason) be able to do what they think is best for their medal chances.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35460365)

I could have sworn they were supposed to represent their country first and foremost..

Originally Posted by danielf (Post 35460366)

No. In fact, they can take part as Independent Olympic Athletes.
if they don't want to or can't represent their country.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35460371)

I read that as can't not won't..and it's more to do with countries that no longer exist and are not represented by the IOC,,if I'm reading it right.

I'm sorry for him.I think he's the victim of Sports politics.

Originally Posted by danielf (Post 35460366)

No. In fact, they can take part as Independent Olympic Athletes.
if they don't want to or can't represent their country.

Originally Posted by danielf (Post 35460376)

Yeah, it's a bit of an odd case that. However, there are two athletes that could compete for The Netherlands (as Churandy Martina did in the 100m Athletics), but who chose not to.

Either way, at the end of the day, it should be about the athletes, not their countries, not the crowds, and not other people who decide how athletes should conduct their sport. The athletes are the ones who put in all the effort to get there, and they should be able to perform in the way they see best.

Originally Posted by gba93 (Post 35460378)

Don't think that's quite right - it's if their country doesn't have an National Olympic Committee (i.e. Netherlands Antilles {committee disbanded by IOC} & South Sudan {new country} at London 2012) - it's not what the athlete chooses.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35460379)

Then they would just represent the corporations that support them instead..and frankly it's practically the McDonald's and Coca-Cola Olympics as it is..If that happens I wouldn't support it.:(

But this is a discussion for the 'other' thread.

Originally Posted by danielf (Post 35460380)

As I said above, Athletes from the Antilles can compete for The Netherlands, like the chap who finished sixth in the final of the 100 meters, so they do have a choice. But I'll admit, it's a strange case.

Originally Posted by gba93 (Post 35460384)

In the case of the Netherlands Antilles they did have a choice because they have Dutch Nationality - this wouldn't necessarily be the case in other instances.

Originally Posted by danielf (Post 35460385)

That's what I said? :confused:

Originally Posted by danielf (Post 35460380)

As I said above, Athletes from the Antilles can compete for The Netherlands, like the chap who finished sixth in the final of the 100 meters, so they do have a choice. But I'll admit, it's a strange case.

---------- Post added at 15:48 ---------- Previous post was at 15:44 ----------



Feel free to move it...

I'm a little surprised why athletes would represent corporations. I'm not suggesting that athletes shouldn't represent their countries. I'm just saying that they are there for themselves first and foremost, and the public don't have a right to tell them how they should behave based on their own perception of 'The Olympic Spirit'.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35460379)

...and frankly it's practically the McDonald's and Coca-Cola Olympics as it is..

Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35460402)

First medal in 60 years. Nicely done.

---------- Post added at 17:09 ---------- Previous post was at 17:06 ----------


Not sure how you come to that conclusion as I have yet to see or hear any mention of them on-screen :confused: