91Èȱ¬

"Although there was clear unease among the competing teams, ultimately
the sport put commercial interests first and insisted that unless there was a clear threat to the security of the event then it would go ahead."

Correct me if I'm wrong but the race went ahead for sporting reasons. Yes the commercial interests of f1 played a part, as they should because without keeping the sponsors happy international sport will not prosper, but in the end the FIA decided to have a race, which went off relatively incident free, with the obvious exception, and was in my opinion the best sporting spectacle in f1 so far this season.

And David I am truely sorry for bringing the issue of sport into your blogs on politics.

Sport and Politics is like oil and water. They don't mix. Yet there are always oil spills.

The problem with Sport and politics is that we always complain about our politicians sticking their ore in and having their say on issues such as the Bahrain Grand Prix. Yet we forget that the politicians of those countries have already waded in and actually dictating what a sport in their country should be run. Or even interfering with the team selection of other countries that might tour their country.

For example New Zealand Rugby union toured South Africa in 1976 and 1983. There is no SPORTING reason why they left their non-white players behind. The only reason they left them out was at the request of their hosts. Clear government interference.

If the Bahrain Grand prix wasn't being run directly by members of their Royal family (who also happen to be their government) then there would've been less fuss.

Of course the notion that politics and sport don't mix died years ago, have you not seen Rocky IV?!

This is a face saving exercise from the government. I'm pretty sure they can't ban anyone (or anything) that is designated part of the 'Olympic Family'.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

How many people did Hague and Cameron blow up in Libya?

Should Prince William be banned from traveling because of the British government's involvement in the Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan atrocities?? Insane. Singling out Sh. Nasser who is an avid sports fan and athlete himself is a low-blow scare tactic by Hague. I'd love to see the backlash if that happens.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#1: "Correct me if I'm wrong but the race went ahead for sporting reasons."

Given F1's recent criteria for awarding races to countries, I feel it is more accurate to say it went ahead because Bernie didn't want to lose another £20m as was the case last season. If sporting reasons were truly the criteria for races going ahead or not, I would ask you to explain why Bahrain was called off last year despite similar assurances by the authorities, or why tracks such as Spa and Montreal disappeared off the calendar, however briefly, despite their appeal from a sporting perspective.

Anyway, I feel that William Hague's comment on being sensitive to world affairs is spot-on - however much we may want sport and politics to remain utterly separate, they have been part and parcel certainly since the rebirth of the Olympics and arguably as far back as the original Olympics in ancient Greece. The city states took quite a lot of interest in proceedings in those days as well, in attempts to get one over their rivals. As has been remarked elsewhere, sport is akin to war without the killing and in that context attempts to draw a line between sport and politics are in my view artificial and mostly doomed to failure. The best we can do is acknowledge the situation for what it is and try to limit the mixture as much as possible, as per #2's analogy with oil spills.

Sport and politics has always been intertwined. To say otherwise is to talk nonsense. The England team, at the govts 'request' gave the NAZI salute when the two sides met in Berlin in 1938 - despite the players themselves admitting to deep misgivings. All the Western European sides boycotted the European Cup winners cup in protest at the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1969, the Americans did tit for tat boycotts of the 80s' Olympics and so it goes on.

The only difference between the above and Hagues threats are, they were significant in their import, and impact. It's typical of the current govt to make paper gestures like this rather than do something concrete, I mean money might be lost otherwise.............

If Britain boycotted nations with serious human rights issues, we would have to set up our own Olympics and World Cup, etc. The dictators of Ukraine, Syria and Bahrain are the poster-boys, but human rights are routinely ignored in the third world, which is most of the world.
BTW Britain fought and is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to better the lives and hopes of the local people. I haven't seen the lives of, say, ordinary people in Somalia improved greatly by the activities of ant-war protesters, nor would their approach helped us against the nazis.

11 please stick to facts - At no time was it stated that the purpose for the US invasion of soveriegn states Iraq & Afghanistan was to better the lives of the poeple.
You may also wish to count up the number of dead, injured, & tortured since they invaded and before they invaded, before making spurious statements.

Back to the blog - Is Hague now saying iBritain should not have set up teh Middle East and Emirates with as many petty dictators as they could find, except Israel where they got kicked out by a terrorist gang.; and now find everywhere objectionable - except where the terrorists took over. Funny game politics.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I find myself in the unusual position of quite liking the position of Hague. No interference with the sport, just ban the undesirable freeloaders (who have no sporting connection except that their governments interfere in their own country's sporting governance). There would be no problem if the IOC and similar bodies such as FIFA took action to prevent political appointments and nepotism in their 'families'. Imagine the furore if we appointed Theresa May as our IOC delegate or put a general in charge of the athletics team,

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

12. Are you kidding? The stated reason for the intervention in Afghanistan (not an invasion) was to support the government there in keeping the Taliban out and improving the security and better the lives of the people there. By all means be against the war in Iraq, but the fight in afghanistan is against terrorists pure and simple! Sometimes you have to fight for what is right.

Now what about Argentina ? The Argentines are intentionally ramping up pressure over the Falklands. Maybe the Brits should retaliate by making all Argentine officials personae non gratae. Given the involvement of a member of the Argentine Olympic team in that recent disgraceful piece of propaganda, perhaps the entire Argentine team should be banned. If that happens the Argentines will announce a boycott of the games and call upon the whole of the Cono Sur to do likewise - be interesting to see how much support they get.

El Salvador and Honduras went to war in 1969 over the result of a football match (yes, a very simplified version of events I know, in the same way that the First World War wasn't entirely down to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand) so the notion that international sport and politics don't go hand in hand will never stand up to scrutiny, it is the nature of the beast, in the same way that the tribal rivalry that is opposing football fans is politics of sorts. The use of the Argentine hockey player for a political advert, although totally and completely disgraceful and a matter that makes my blood run cold, is hardly a massive surprise to be honest

It's impossible for the English diplomacy of the 21st century to understand that the Olympic Games are all about peace. The redistribution of the world's resources have priority.

Third time lucky? The reason why Prince Nasser will probably be allowed is the same reason why the moderator keep sdeleting my comments. Because you cant prove the allegations against Prince Nasser, awful though they are. So just go along and let him have a happy time because thats what sport is all about. (Silly me, I used to think that being decent and fair was part of what sports tried to teach you too)