There has been a lot of discussion since Athens about foreign swimmers training in the United States. Most of them attend U.S. Universities, receive athletic scholarships, and compete at NCAA's. Some notable examples include Duje Draganja (Cal), Fred Bousquet and Kirsty Coventry (Auburn), Markus Rogan (Stanford), and the South African sprinters (Arizona). Some train in the U.S., but don't compete for a university (Inge de Bruijn). All of these athletes benefit from U.S. coaching, from training with U.S. swimmers, and in some cases, from financial support provided by U.S. entities (athletic scholarships). They all turn around and then win medals for other countries.
A couple questions: 1) What do you think about this arrangement generally? 2) Is it of benefit or detriment to U.S. swimming to have these foreign athletes training and competing here? 3) Should we be giving athletic scholarships, which are a scarce resource in swimming, to foreign athletes who will represent their own countries internationally instead of U.S.-born swimmers who will represent us internationally?
I'm sure there are other issues, but these come directly to mind.
Parents
Former Member
Tall Paul,
Until your post, this had been, in my view, a pretty spirited and intelligent exchange of ideas. If you think that calling people who disagree with you "idiots" is the way to sway opinion, I might suggest you re-think that tact.
Beyond that, the discussion of diversity on college campuses is intrinsic to the debate. To narrow the parameters to "swimming and scholarships" without putting the issue into the broad context . . . . without permitting discussions of the ramifications that flow from policy discussions, does not promote a healthy and intelligent exchange of ideas.
Moreover, to assert that "political" discussion has no place here would fundamentally eliminate the ability to engage in this debate which is, in fact, rooted in politics. If the only issue was swimming and scholarship, then citizenship would have nothing to do with the discussion. Money would go to the fastest, period.
The premise of this discussion focuses on the notion of citizenship and drawing lines based thereon. Accordingly, politics, civics and cultural issues are part and parcel of the premise that started this discussion.
So my suggestion would be to back off of the insults and engage in intelligent debate or sit back and watch until you can do so.
carl botterud
Tall Paul,
Until your post, this had been, in my view, a pretty spirited and intelligent exchange of ideas. If you think that calling people who disagree with you "idiots" is the way to sway opinion, I might suggest you re-think that tact.
Beyond that, the discussion of diversity on college campuses is intrinsic to the debate. To narrow the parameters to "swimming and scholarships" without putting the issue into the broad context . . . . without permitting discussions of the ramifications that flow from policy discussions, does not promote a healthy and intelligent exchange of ideas.
Moreover, to assert that "political" discussion has no place here would fundamentally eliminate the ability to engage in this debate which is, in fact, rooted in politics. If the only issue was swimming and scholarship, then citizenship would have nothing to do with the discussion. Money would go to the fastest, period.
The premise of this discussion focuses on the notion of citizenship and drawing lines based thereon. Accordingly, politics, civics and cultural issues are part and parcel of the premise that started this discussion.
So my suggestion would be to back off of the insults and engage in intelligent debate or sit back and watch until you can do so.
carl botterud
