I would put the UK and Australia about level when in comes to this practice - both as bad as each other. UK has been known to bend the rules - as has Australia

TeamGB in the 2012 Olympics, The Wallabies, Athletics Australia, Engand Cricket etc

Employing foreign coaches for the Olympics is one thing, but seeking out and enticing foreign competitors for the sole purpose of representing that country in the Olympics is a whole new level. Even the ECB do not actually actively encourage this. All they are doing is convincing existing visa holders to compete for them

TeamGB had non-UK people competing for them - look at the 'German' cyclist who cheated

England rugby another prime example

English cricket has always had non-British guys playing for them throughout their history

Many countries do this but UK and Australia more than most

I've said this many times on here - you are what you want to be. End of

You're not getting what I was saying. I have no problem with competitors leaving their country of birth and going to live in another country and subsequently representing that adopted country. That happens everywhere.

Where I don't think it is right, is when countries go seeking, or poaching foreign competitors offering a wad of cash to entice them to compete for a country they have zero connection or claim to. All those examples you used are where those foreign born competitors had claims to British residency. So many Saffas or other nationalities represent GB or England simply because so many of them go to England seeking a better life for themselves and end up staying long enough to gain nationality (Oliveira, KP, Trott, Tuilagi, Grieg). Farwad Ahmed is a good example of this for Aus and I do not reproach them for taking him on as he was an asylum seeker.

I would imagine that the UK and Australia do both - entice O/S sportsmen with offers of cash and citizenship, as well as being open to players approaching them

Both countries have a long history of this and are as bad as each other

ok, name a British example. I know there has been numerous examples of this with the Aus Olympic team over the last two Olympics

You're splitting hairs in some attempt to try and take the (UK's) moral high ground over Australia

Both as bad as one another

A quick Google search threw up this gem:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/18335642

...again, a US born athlete who has held a British passport since birth due to her mother. Not nearly the same as this is it?

http://www.news.com.au/sport/how-aus...-1226424181373

Now that you mention it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamile_Aldama

As bad as one another. No different

HOW? She was eligible for citizenship through marriage and time lived in the country. She sought out Britain, not the other way around.

Aus went scouting for talent overseas to represent them at the Olympics. They did so by offering cash incentives and a better lifestyle in a foreign country.

This woman wanted to represent GB due to her situation through marrying a British national. She was knocked back by British authorities on fast tracking her citizenship so she looked elsewhere. After time served she then became eligible for citizenship which she duly took at the grand old age of 39! If you want to claim that is the same thing, don't you think Team GB would be looking for someone younger and more able to do better than fifth?

Come on Zulu, you are so hell bent on knocking good old Blighty, but you can't find a like for like comparison, despite your claims!

Zola Budd?

"The Daily Mail, a British tabloid newspaper, persuaded Budd's father to encourage her to apply for British citizenship, on the grounds that her grandfather was British, to circumvent the international sporting boycott of South Africa so that she could compete in the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. With a strong push from the Daily Mail, British citizenship was granted in short order

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/oly...wrestlers.html

Easy there Hoss! As I've said many times, you are whatever you want to be.

No UK (Blighty? This ain't the '50's dude!) bashing from me. The point I am trying to make is that Australia and the UK are as bad as one another in regards to this - no different. You're trying to make out that the UK has some kind of moral superiority in this - and they don't

The point is BS is trying to put a slant on it to suit his argument ..... it's a despicable practice done by many countries (don't forget NZ in this, German/Turkish footballers, etc). England and it's cricket team just have a high record of it. Simple.

The sportsmen and women who participate in the practice should also be answerable. One can understand why an Afgani cricketer wants to play for Australia - he is never going to ever get the chance to play at such a high level for his own nation, but the likes of Kevin Peterson should really be ashamed of themselves. He wasn't too far from cracking the SA team, a bit of politics and a couple of better cricketers ahead of him.

Honorable mention too for the likes of Basil D'Olivera who move because they were not allowed to play for country of birth for political reasons; Mo Farah because he moved to escape poverty and war. Do a search on Jurgen Grobler and see how many GB Olympic golds are down to a(n allegedly) drug cheat former East German rowing coach.

There are different types of foreigners who play for another country - those whose parents moved to another country when they were very young (Andrew Strauss, Michael Clarke, Julia Gillard!), those who move because they can't 'get a game' for their own country and those who wish to ply their trade in another country (more difficult to be a full time cricketer outside of England and India) or are induced by the officials in that sport and the authorities are complicit in fast tracking their citizenship application.

It goes on everywhere and whether it's right or wrong is highly debatable and easy to argue either way. I don't deny Australia has engaged in these practices in some sports but not in cricket (7 only foreign born and most in the moved there early category).

Fact remains (admittedly not quite so much with Strauss retired and Pietersen injured) as far as cricket goes, England have recently been almost South Africa 2nd X1 and have a record of 10% of caps since 1st ever test going to foreigners. I only pointed this out because of BS's endless comments about 'dicks in CA', Aussie supporters comparative lack of wit and staying power, supposed superiority of the BA banter etc, etc.

Britain too has a long record of fast tracking citizenship for those with stacks of money. Have a look at the Times top 10 on the rich list for evidence.