Re: Clijsters out of Olympics

> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve
> Jaros) wrote:
>
> > LOL - there's no 'we' either. Kim seems willing to participate, as long
> > as
> > she doesn't have to be economically exploited by an organization that
> > she
> > has no desire to see benefit from her participation. A very reasonable
> > stance to take.
>
> Do you have *no* idea that the national OCs send sponsorship money into
> the sports that make up the Olympics? The training Kim had as a junior,
> which enabled her to make the money she does now, will have received
> funding from these sources.

Can you say that this alleged money had anything but a trivial impact on
Kim's success?

Are you  saying Andy Roddick owes part of his success to the companies that
sponsor the US Olympic team? Seems like quite a reach to me..

In any event, that's still beside the point: Kim doesn't want to be
economically exploited by Adidas. I'm struggling to find anything wrong with
that position. Everyone has the right - legal and moral - to decide who they
want to be economically affiliated with.

The only thing i find morally stinky in all this is the BOIC's willingness
to use the patriotic affiliation (you can't play for the Belgian team even
though you are qualified...)  as a lever to compel economic affiliation
(...unless you wear the clothes of our sugar daddy sponsor)...

-- 
"if federal judges have the final word over its meaning,
the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands
of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form
they please".

- Thomas Jefferson