Plastic Brits

As the Games get closer and closer, the selection processes for each competition is just about complete, to decide who will march into the Olympic Stadium, behind the Union Flag on 27 July.

When I watched the World Indoor Athletics Championships earlier this year I became quite concerned at the number of athletes who were qualifying to perform at the Games in a British vest, but whose claims to do so seemed spurious to say the least.

The British Olympic Team (or "Team GB".... ugh..!!) has now given places to people such as Tiffany Porter. For those who have never heard of her, she is an American, who was born in America, has lived almost all her life in America, and previously won a silver medal for the USA at a previous World Junior Indoor Championships. However, when she found out that she would not be selected to compete at the games for the USA, suddenly remembered that one of her parents is British and that this gave her - well, waddya know - an entitlement to a British passport which will make her eligible to run for Britain at the Games.

Although not in the top five or six of American athletes in her event, the women's 100m hurdles, she is by far and away better than any British athlete. She is not alone in using the rules to switch teams. Around 50 athletes of various nationalities and backgrounds will be performing for Great Britain this summer. But I ask the question, why..?

For a start, if an athlete has been rejected by her country of birth as being not good enough to make their team, why should he /she be good enough to participate for us..?

This is, of course, nothing new. In 1984, the Daily Mail spearheaded a high profile campaign to get South African born Zola Budd, whose claim to "Britishness" was one grandparent who had left Britain some 60 years before..!! At that time, South Africa was still in sporting isolation due to Apartheid, so running for Britain was her only opportunity to go to the Games. It was understandable that she should grasp at the offered straw, but still, it was a tasteless affair made more so by the indecent speed with which her British passport was approved. It was a tacky, unseemly business that was to explode on the track, through none of her own fault, it is true, but all the same, having her in the team was always tempting fate.

I don't like the Games being exploited in this way. In my opinion it should be all about "Our best versus your best". And if our best isn't up to scratch, then that should tell us to do something about it. Sadly, it now seems to be all about fulfilling some arbitrary medal target laid down by sports administrators, which must be achieved regardless of who does it.

I'm sure Tiffany Porter is a wonderful person and a decent human being. I'm sure she trains hard and there is no evidence to suggest that she is anything other than a "clean" athlete. But do we really want her to win medals for Britain..? Shouldn't it be a British born athlete who is competing for us..?

This raises the next question: What happens to the top British born athlete..? Tiffany Porter, for all her attributes is taking the place of one of our own. I do not know who that athlete is, but somewhere is a broken hearted girl who also trained her heart out, and worked as hard as anybody could to qualify for the Games. She has taken part in the qualifying races and proven herself to be the best in the land, but now she has been told that her place.... her vest... will be worn by an American cuckoo whose motives are purely selfish.

Ditto this for all the British born participants who will be dropped in favour of "Plastic Brits", wherever they come from.

I agree that some athletes of foreign birth come here at an early age and are genuinely naturalised. They have come up through the British athletic rankings, have trained and lived and worked here. They are a product of our system. A number of young Asians, Africans, and others ran in the national cross country championships a few months ago. They were taking part in a fair race and if, in years to come, they represent Britain, then well done them. They will have earned their vest by beating their contemporaries. That's fair.

I strongly suspect that Tiffany Porter, and all the other Plastic Brits will compete in their events and by the end of August will have all jumped back onto a plane and flown back to Ypsilanti, Michigan or wherever else they came from. They'll go back to being American, or Kenyan, or Indian or whatever. Their British passport will go into a desk drawer at home, never to see the light of day again, until required for another high-profile event where they can deprive another home athlete of their due.

This is not what the Olympic Games are meant to be all about.

We know we're not the best in the world. British athletes know their own limitations, and the limitations of our system. But at the end of the day, they're OUR athletes and we want to be cheering on their efforts. We know they will give of their best and should any medals come of it, then we'll cheer them to the rafters. And rightly so.

But right now, my sympathies go to all the genuine British athletes who won't get that chance. Who won't be able to have the honourable title of "Olympian" in their list of sporting achievements, simply because somebody, somewhere, had a granny who gave them a loophole to exploit.

I have no gripe against Tiffany Porter as a person, but I would find it very difficult to cheer any medal she, or any of the other Plastic Brits, may win.

Call me old fashioned if you will... call me naive. Call me anything you like, but I still believe this...... It's not about the winning. It's about the taking part.

Plastic Brits deprive our own of the chance to do that.

Tiffany Porter is not taking the place of any other 'brit'. Only her and Jess have the required times. The others are a long way behind.

Not sure who amongst the other so called plastic brits is quite like Tiffany. Maybe Michael Bingham and Shana Cox, neither of whom are guaranteed places in the team, but I'm hard pressed to think of many others who have switched allegiance the way she has.

I think this is another 'storm in a teacup' from some of the tabloids who like to sensationalise everything they write about. The truth for them they estimate is too booring for their readers.

BTW she could end up beating all the regular US team in the Olympics. There's only really Sally Pearson who can regularly beat her.

I am a traditionalist. I believe the Olympics should be returned to its traditional values involving naked men grappling each other and naked men tossing various weighted objects.

ps Welcome to the board and a very well written and thoughtful article, although not everyone may agree with its sentiments.

Nore Staat wrote:ps Welcome to the board and a very well written and thoughtful article, although not everyone may agree with its sentiments.

Thanks for the welcome. I don't expect people to agree with me.... all opinions are valid.

I stand by my comments though, although in the light of teassoc's remarks, I would suggest he / she doesn't seem to have taken into account the disincentive that Plastic Brits set in the minds of young athletes attempting to improve their performances.

Some may become disenchanted if they feel that, no matter what they do, they could be replaced by a foreigner who uses Britain as a vest of convenience for their own purposes.

We need to encourage young British athletes to improve and that is best served by showing confidence in them and not by chasing the narrow, short termism of giving out team places to anyone who might (note: "might") win a medal today and then return to their native country, giving nothing back to British athletics for the future.

Tiffany Porter sure as heck isn't going to hang around to coach or give inspiration to young British athletes, is she..? She'd take her medal and get into the first cab for Heathrow that she can find.

In the meantime, Team GB boss Andy Hunt emphatically stated "There are no Plastic Brits in the squad". When asked about Ukrainian born wrestler Olga Butkevytch being given a British passport in time for the games he altered his statement to: "Everyone who will compete for Team GB has a British passport and has fulfilled all the eligibility criteria and I'm totally satisfied around that."

So, that's nice and clear. All proper and above board. Everything has the right rubber stamps. That makes it alright, then.


.

This disincentive that you're talking about would only happen if the team was dominated by 'plastic Brits' rather than the odd one or two as there is now.

As for your decision as to what Tiffany Porter is going to do as soon as she's won a medal, I'm not sure how you would know that. But that's irrelevant anyway, it's not like all of our medal winners from the past have hung around to coach or give inspiration to young British athletes have they?

Or does her place of birth means she is obliged to?

The whole 'plastic Brits' thing is stupid anyway, you pick the best eligible athletes. It's not up to UKA to discriminate because of someone's background. If you are suggesting they should be allowed to discriminate, how far should the discrimination go?

Should we get rid of Porter? Aldama? Procter? Farah even?

Jennifer1984 wrote: ... We need to encourage young British athletes to improve and that is best served by showing confidence in them and not by chasing the narrow, short termism of giving out team places to anyone who might (note: "might") win a medal today and then return to their native country, giving nothing back to British athletics for the future. ...

It's more complicated than just showing "confidence" in them ... factors that need to be considered are a) the sporting culture b) the educational culture c) training facilities d) quality of the coaches e) family and community support f) finances g) career prospects ...

We could broaden the subject into defining what it is to be "British" ... the government pretty much says that we are all consumers in a globalised neo-capitalistic world ... most of everything that is British has been sold off, most of the wealth is residing in off-shore accounts ...

djlovesyou wrote:This disincentive that you're talking about would only happen if the team was dominated by 'plastic Brits' rather than the odd one or two as there is now.

As for your decision as to what Tiffany Porter is going to do as soon as she's won a medal, I'm not sure how you would know that. But that's irrelevant anyway, it's not like all of our medal winners from the past have hung around to coach or give inspiration to young British athletes have they?

Or does her place of birth means she is obliged to?

The whole 'plastic Brits' thing is stupid anyway, you pick the best eligible athletes. It's not up to UKA to discriminate because of someone's background. If you are suggesting they should be allowed to discriminate, how far should the discrimination go?

Should we get rid of Porter? Aldama? Procter? Farah even?

Mo Farah came to live in Britain aged 8. He's a product of the British athletics system and considering he's lived here for all but 8 years of his life, I kinda figure he's pretty well naturalised by now. He married a British girl and has a British born step child. He is committed to this country in a way Tiffany Porter never will be. He has never represented, or attempted to represent, any other country. Please don't attempt to introduce bogus elements into the discussion.

Can I assume from your answer that you consider all options up for grabs..? That the entire concept of entering participants of one nationality to compete on behalf of their own country is null and void..?

From what you say, it appears that you believe any person should be able to compete for any country they like. In my opinion, that mentality, if adopted, would inevitably lead to a football style transfer system with countries competing for the signatures of the best athletes. It would suck in agents touting their "artists" to the highest bidder before every Games.

Whilst I am aware that the Games are not about national interest as such, it is an inescapable fact that people mostly watch to see how well their own nation's athletes are performing. Fair enough, that's just human nature. But to turn participation for any given nation into a free for all, would not only devalue the pride a nation's people can take in the achievements of their own athletes, it would cheapen the very medals themselves.

You are quite right to ask if I know what Tiffany Porter will do after the games. Simply put, I don't know if she will leave Britain after August. But by the same token, you don't know that she won't. Let's allow time to tell, shall we..? I'll come back to you on this one.... probably some time in September. (diary noted)

I refer back to the fiasco of the Zola Budd affair. Had she won in Los Angeles, do you think she would have gone back to Blomfontein and said "I did this for Great Britain"...? Do you think the South African apartheid regime wouldn't have used it for propaganda purposes..?

This is the sort of risk you run when you allow any old Tom, Dick or Zola to use your country as a vest of convenience.

To have rules in place to impose eligibility criteria on athletes to represent countries is NOT discrimination. It is to prevent the sort of exploitation of the games that I detailed above. For instance; Do you think the USA wouldn't offer Usain Bolt riches beyond his wildest dreams if it meant they could get him to run in a USA vest this summer..? You bet your boots they would..!! That is the sort of thing the rules are there to prevent.

Sadly, the flexibility that is built into those rules for people who have genuine reasons (those who marry a person of a different nationality, etc) are exploited by the Tiffany Porter's of this world.... Opportunists serving their own interests only.

For those British athletes deprived of the chance to represent their country, the Olympic ethic must ring quite hollow. You know... the one that goes: "It's not about the winning, it's about the taking part". If you don't believe in that..... if you think that the winning of medals is the be all and end all, then frankly, in my opinion, you know nothing about the meaning of sport.

I will never wear a British vest in any sport, so I have no personal axe to grind. But when I see the Union Flag running up the pole, and hear my national anthem being played, I'd like to think that there's a Briton standing on the podium.

A real Briton, that is.


.

Nore Staat wrote:

Jennifer1984 wrote: ... We need to encourage young British athletes to improve and that is best served by showing confidence in them and not by chasing the narrow, short termism of giving out team places to anyone who might (note: "might") win a medal today and then return to their native country, giving nothing back to British athletics for the future. ...

It's more complicated than just showing "confidence" in them ... factors that need to be considered are a) the sporting culture b) the educational culture c) training facilities d) quality of the coaches e) family and community support f) finances g) career prospects ...

We could broaden the subject into defining what it is to be "British" ... the government pretty much says that we are all consumers in a globalised neo-capitalistic world ... most of everything that is British has been sold off, most of the wealth is residing in off-shore accounts ...

I agree, Nore. We do need to factor all the considerations you listed into the equation. We need to improve all those elements of our sporting culture so that we produce great athletes in the future. This is the route we should be taking, not simply importing somebody because they've got a better track time than any of our own and can squeeze in via a convenient loophole.

What we need to do is to look at those athletes who didn't make it this time because they didn't come up to scratch, and improve our standards so that next time, they DO..!!

I disagree where you veer off into a political argument. This has nothing to do with any definition of Britishness as an ethnic identity in the political sense. I don't care if a British athlete has West Indian or Asian origins. If he or she was born here... grew up here... worked their way up through our athletic system... then I don't see an Asian or a West Indian, I see a Briton who wants to compete for Britain as THEIR country. The place they love. The place they grew up in. The place that means something to them.

Surely if a young athlete from Birmingham, or London or Newcastle is prepared to give his or her best to make the British people proud of him, shouldn't we be standing up for his right to compete at the Games, ahead of some opportunistic American who doesn't give a damn..?

.

How are you going to decide on who is competing for Britain to do you proud and who is an opportunistic dirty foreigner who couldn't care less?

Are you going to devise a quiz to decide?

You don't seem to accept that Tiffany Porter is British by parentage, and like it or not, eligible to compete for GB at the Olympics. It's certainly not a case of 'buying athletes in'.

Jennifer1984 wrote: I disagree where you veer off into a political argument. ... I see a Briton who wants to compete for Britain as THEIR country. The place they love. The place they grew up in. The place that means something to them.

Surely if a young athlete from Birmingham, or London or Newcastle is prepared to give his or her best to make the British people proud of him, shouldn't we be standing up for his right to compete at the Games, ahead of some opportunistic American who doesn't give a damn..?

I think you might be oversimplifying - for example what do you think of Charles van Commenee, a dutchman, as being head of UK athletics? I think you might also be rating sport too highly, that is to say, should Britains take pride of being British for reasons other than sport? Sport is merely a diversion, a play thing, that in moderation is good for health, but I feel it has nothing substantive to do with being "British".

There is another aspect to this.

The Olympics were not originally devised as a nationalistic show. OK it didn't take long for the flags and anthems to rather take over - and with the organization and costs involved it had to end up as a competition dominated by national teams . But one of the important things that has been lost is that the contest between individuals has become (almost) secondary to the public...

Obviously there are good reasons for restricting entries from any one country in an event : 13 Kenyans contesting the 3000SC might be a great race , but it would lose some broad appeal. But spare a thought for the fourth or fifth best in a country who has the ability to perhaps make a final but can't get a shirt...

So if someone in the above position (like Ms Porter) has dual nationality , I for one absolutely don't blame her taking advantage of it.

And provided you don't get down to countries actively bribing people with no real connection to switch nationalities ( and yes , I am aware some have done so) I can't see any harm in it. Some people will have different views , which I respect , but I really don't think it is anything to get unduly excited about.