ultragirl wrote:NO MEDALS FROM THE PLASTIC BRITS = waste of money and lost places for our athletes and another failiure of CVCs.
ultragirl wrote:NO MEDALS FROM THE PLASTIC BRITS = waste of money and lost places for our athletes and another failiure of CVCs.
yorkshire_best wrote:It cannot be argued that this tactic was an unsuccessful one..
bevone wrote:My surprise about the so called plastic Brits - most of them living overseas with foreign coaches (if they have a Brit passport then they have very right to compete, but hardly should be used a UKA success stories) - is that they ended up being as brittle as many of our own homegrown athletes whose confidence levels were fragile as some of ours and under performed.
Procter and Aldama should have medalled as should had porter after her indoor season and early season form and had Cox been in better form - could have got a relay medal so those 4 medals would make much better reading.
Tuckin wrote:Not to mention the word "medalled" with the two words "won medals"!
Or perhaps it's just me who hates that new verb, as many posters on here seem to have embraced it...
jeremy1 wrote:Proctor 's situation is different again and I imagine she will be competing for her country,Anguilla, next year in Moscow.
fangio wrote:Trickstat, Anguilla is registered with the IAAF she can comepte for them at the WC, but not at the Olympics. She doesn't need another passport for this, her British one for Anguilla will do.
iain wrote:Dutch Antilles was a special case, Benn I don't follow. What I don't get is why Shara Proctor seems to have made a permanent move to compete for GB whereas Delano Williams seems to be able to flick between GB and TCI as he pleases.
iain wrote:Too confusing :-S Why did the IOC make that rule anyway?
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests