Jump to content

Citius Altius Fortius

Moderators
  • Posts

    13,466
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    38

Posts posted by Citius Altius Fortius

  1. 1 hour ago, Bezzi said:

    People in the hotels are used to speak english. They can give you all info you need.

    Welcome and enjoy your stay!


    I rented an apartment in Ipanema - the owner speaks English - but that is of course not comparable with a hotel, so I have to get along alone with a portuguese phrase book/language guide...

  2. 3 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

    No. I disagree, CAF.  I think SI makes its predictions from an international POV.  It just so happens that the US athletes do end up winning most of the events -- but that's not SI's fault.  

    I believe SI predictions are based on result lists of major international events and national events in the different sports first, but in a second step on the popularity of the athletes - therefore I believe that SI will always esteem the US-athletes higher than an athlete (since they know much more US-athletes than athlete from other countries) - except the results of the other athlete is sooooo obvious better than the results of the US-athlete...

  3. 2 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

     

    I take it the IAAF ban is still in force? At least Isabayeva won't be there. I used to like her, but since her homophobic comments during Sochi, her ongoing role as a Putin poster girl and her more recent petulant remark, I've really come to despise her.

    Yes, of course!

    The IOC delegated the decision to the IF's - so every international sports federation can join the IAAF to ban Russia

  4. 2 minutes ago, StefanMUC said:

    Oh and I just read that Stepanova, the whistleblower, is not allowed to participate because of her previous doping ban ("does not meet ethical requirements") - IAAF would've let her in as independent.

     

    Ridiculous beyond words.

    That pisses me off also - the IOC denies her participation, due it decided that all Russian athletes are banned, who used drugs in the past - she took drugs in the past - therefore she is banned also...

  5. 5 minutes ago, StefanMUC said:

    You seriously think they care if Bach gets into a very serious situation? That situation is already here - my guess is there will be some poisoned IOC meetings ahead.

    Bach can't take such decision alone himself...

    You are right that the IOC is already in serious situation, but it decided to bear it at the moment - the situation will become worse when there is one single positive drug test of a Russian athlete in Rio...

    • Like 1
  6. 3 minutes ago, nykfan845 said:

     

    Well, we shall see. I have a funny feeling that a large number of Russian athletes won't even be able to meet the IOC testing rules . . .

    ... that is exactly what I meant with "ban through the back door" - Russia will be very careful to send athletes to Rio now, due when there is one positive drug test, Putin's friend Bach will get into a very serious situation...

  7. 1 minute ago, Rob. said:

    That isn't a ban through the back door. It's a loophole which even dirty athletes who were doped up out of competition will be able to get around. Back obviously cares more about his friendship with Putin than anything else. I guess it'll be up to individual federations now to determine which sports are worth watching in Rio.

    Newspapers say something different here - all Russian athletes, who were involved in drug scandals are not allowed to go to Rio...

    It was predictable that the decision if Russian athletes are allowed to come to Rio or not has to be taken by the individual federations - since a complete ban would have been 'only' a precaution - not based on an actual drug abuse...

    The question will be how the Russian athletes are able to prove that they didn't use drugs individually


    Personally I think that it is a wrong decision by the IOC - it would have been better if the whole country would have been banned...

     

     

  8. It was predictable that the IOC wouldn't ban a whole country due doping completely - but it is a ban through the back door, since every participating Russian athlete will have to prove that he/she wasn't tested by the Russian Drug Agency ( I wonder how many Russian athletes were suddenly tested by the Belorussian or Azerbaijan drug agency?)

     

  9. 1 hour ago, StefanMUC said:

    Now I'm curious to see which tricks Bach will play to avoid a complete ban. The IFs still in favour of Russian participation (eg Judo, Table Tennis...) apparently don't mind having their Rio results stained from the start.

    I can imagine that Bach will say that the single Sport IF's have the power to decide themselves - I just wonder which IF's have a Russian president....

  10. We have to keep in mind that many Russian officials are members in the boards of the different sport federations - the IOC is in a dilemma it has to ban Russia due it "zero tolerance" politics toward doping, but at the same time it can't affront Russia at the same time... Therefore the delay of the decision about a ban after the CAS verdict about the IAAF ban of Russian athletes...

     

  11. Does it matter how far back your German ancestry is so long as you can prove a German ancestor? Ireland, for instance, will not accept anyone further back than a grandparent (I am currently exploring the process of applying for Irish citizenship because my maternal grandfather was Irish).

    Yes - when one of your parents owned the German citizenship at your birth you are automatically German citizens - wherever you were born.

    When no one of your parents owned the German citizenship at your birth then you have to prove that one of your parents was an ethnic German, which becomes more and more difficult the longer the citizenship of your ancestors is ago... And there should have been ties with being German - e.g. the Transylvanian Saxons in Romania have a rich German culture...

    • Like 1
  12. "Immigration":
    Well, Germany doesn't esteem itself as a country with immigration - I wonder why, since there is immigration, but we don't have an immigration law like e.g. Canada (which is often used as positive example of a country with an immigration law in Germany). There are several reasons of this immigration - one is our definition of German citizenship - Germany has an ius sanguinis approach, which means, when one of your ancestors owned the German citizenship you can get the German citizenship wherever you were born. This approach caused immigration from e.g. Kazakhstan, Russia or Romania after the end of the cold war, since these countries have huge German ethnic groups ("Volga Germans", "Transylvanian Saxons") - 5.613 immigrated from Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan in 2014. These people are not seen as immigrants by our law, since they own the German citizenship anyway - in German you use another phrase for these immigrants: "late repatriates". You can be very sure that these people don't want to be called "immigrants", since they esteem themselves as Germans and they are Germans by definition...

    Since they need homes some towns built new houses for them or old houses were refurbished - you can imagine that this caused envy and and resentments by people, who can't afford to live in new houses or old housed, which were refurbished. You can hear xenophobic rants sometimes like "you just need to own a German shepherd dog and you can get a German citizenship" by xenophobic Germans about these late repatriates... When the late repatriates are not able to find a job these residential areas are changing into kind of social hotspots (there are surveys that the right wing party AfD is the leading party in these social hotspots, which is strange since that is the same no matter if late repatriates or "normal Germans" are living in these social hotspots - in one social hotspot the AfD is elected because of envy toward these Volga Germans/Transylvanian Saxons in the other one because of the envy toward refugees).

    Isn't the debate about immigration "just" a debate about social justice and a kind of distribution conflict? We open a box of pandora when you put people into a special corner ala "you receive the German citizenship only, since you own a German sheperd dog" - that hurts people personally and it makes a solution of the problem much more difficult. So isn't it more important to talk about the distribution conflict and if we have the monetary means...

    In regard of the EU - when you want to have a free democratic "East Europe" or "South Europe" then you shouldn't treat people from there in a bad way - our wealth is based on stable circumstances in Europe and it would be an immense loss when East Europe gets lost again...

    By the way East Europe is not against refugees, but they fear that they get less of the money they get now - it is a distribution conflict also.

    It is all about money - which gets fewer and fewer and we have to decide very fast how we can solve this conflict. I recommend not to put it onto the level of immigration "yes" or "no", but "how" and how we can keep social peace and justice, which isn't less important!

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...