Blair says don't tour

[R W S]

Whould Blair's policy change if it was the Rugby or Football team?

[Rich Greenfield]

Originally Posted by R W S

Whould Blair's policy change if it was the Rugby or Football team?

is the pope catholic?

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by R W S

Whould Blair's policy change if it was the Rugby or Football team?

R W S

Of course it would,more so if it was the soccer team.

Ernest

[Whips_off_the_bails]

If it were the soccer team, there would be no need for Blair to say anything. UEFA have got their act together, and have banned about 20 countries since 2000 for political interference in sport. We use the phrase "it's not cricket", implying that the game has some innate moral qualities, that it holds to values such as fairness and decency. And yet it is football that is occupying the moral high ground here.

[sostenurter]

Originally Posted by Whips_off_the_bails

If it were the soccer team, there would be no need for Blair to say anything. UEFA have got their act together, and have banned about 20 countries since 2000 for political interference in sport. We use the phrase "it's not cricket", implying that the game has some innate moral qualities, that it holds to values such as fairness and decency. And yet it is football that is occupying the moral high ground here.

It's a fair point, though I think it's FIFA who've banned them not UEFA? I may be wrong.

A couple of weeks ago, I asked which sporting body was more corrupt, stupid, pig-headed and generally the worst at protecting its sport's integrity - the IOC, the ICC or FIFA. All three have a good claim to the title, but after much thought, I think that the IOC are the worst and FIFA are the best (I use the term advisedly). The ICC are in the middle, but declining all the time the Zim sage is dragged out.

There seems to be something in the nature of most sporting organsiations that invites corruption, etc. The organisations I've mentioned have more money and more power than some nation-states, yet very little responsibility and accountability.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Whips_off_the_bails

If it were the soccer team, there would be no need for Blair to say anything. UEFA have got their act together, and have banned about 20 countries since 2000 for political interference in sport. We use the phrase "it's not cricket", implying that the game has some innate moral qualities, that it holds to values such as fairness and decency. And yet it is football that is occupying the moral high ground here.

W O T B

"If it were a soccer team"implies that a soccer team would be involved in a wrangle akin to the Zimbabwe situation.

if as you say UEFA has got their act together ,then it would be England banned for taking,a moral political stance against the abuse of human rights in Zimbawe,for the sake of argument Zimbabwe is soccer team.

Then by your reckoning England would be banned for taking the high moral stance against a country that does not even give its own citizans the most basic of human rights.

And you say football holds the high moral ground,mind you it would sting Mr Blair into action!!!

[R W S]

Originally Posted by sostenurter

It's a fair point, though I think it's FIFA who've banned them not UEFA? I may be wrong.

A couple of weeks ago, I asked which sporting body was more corrupt, stupid, pig-headed and generally the worst at protecting its sport's integrity - the IOC, the ICC or FIFA. All three have a good claim to the title, but after much thought, I think that the IOC are the worst and FIFA are the best (I use the term advisedly). The ICC are in the middle, but declining all the time the Zim sage is dragged out.

There seems to be something in the nature of most sporting organsiations that invites corruption, etc. The organisations I've mentioned have more money and more power than some nation-states, yet very little responsibility and accountability.

Juan Antonio Samaranch

[Whips_off_the_bails]

Originally Posted by sostenurter

It's a fair point, though I think it's FIFA who've banned them not UEFA? I may be wrong.

Yes, you're right, of course: sorry, I was in a hurry when I made that post.

[Whips_off_the_bails]

Originally Posted by ernest

Then by your reckoning England would be banned for taking the high moral stance against a country that does not even give its own citizans the most basic of human rights.

No, Zimbabwe would be banned for political interference in the selection process,; FIFA have banned Uzbekistan for similar reasons.

[Glamorgan Wanderer]

Originally Posted by ernest

W O T B

"If it were a soccer team"implies that a soccer team would be involved in a wrangle akin to the Zimbabwe situation.

if as you say UEFA has got their act together ,then it would be England banned for taking,a moral political stance against the abuse of human rights in Zimbawe,for the sake of argument Zimbabwe is soccer team.

Then by your reckoning England would be banned for taking the high moral stance against a country that does not even give its own citizans the most basic of human rights.

And you say football holds the high moral ground,mind you it would sting Mr Blair into action!!!

In the footballing analogy there would not be the need for anyone to take action against England because FIFA/UEFA would have already suspended Zimbabwe from international competition due to the interference of its government in the running of the sport and the question of whether or not to go there to play would not therefore arise.