If Lagat breaks Scott's American record should it be marked with an asterisk?

Runningart2004 wrote:

"I think you should only be awarded the AR if you have lived in the country since you were 18 "

He is 27 and he has been here for 10 years.....I hope you can do the math....

Question wrote:

But he has spent more than a 1/3 of it living on american soil.

More like 2/5ths right?

Asterix wrote:

Speeve wrote:

I'm not really sure about all the rules, but how long does it take to become an American citizen?

USAnian citizenship is like a McDonalds drive-through. Just pull up to the microphone, place your order and pick up your passport at the window. Plan well and you can pick up your Canadian citizenship across the border later in the afternoon.

Geeze! Don't you guys know anything about your own system before you go posting about it on a message board?

Actually Jackass, It can often take up to 4 years. and post 9/11 it is taking even longer.

>>>>WOW!!!!!!! Everyone in this thread is an idiot.>>>I'm sorry no matter how I feel, what rules are there are gonna be enacted.>>>Quit making yourselves sound like blippin morons and move on with your life and talk about something worth talking about.>>>NCAA's are right around the corner along with the U.S. championships, lets focus on the Pre meet with a PHENOMENAL race in the 2 mile about to be dualed out. No one's gonna be happy with the final outcome, but its gonna happen and your gonna have to live with it.>>How many people posting here actually have a shot at an AR anyways?>>> no one has been out training, b/c they've been sitting on their butts trying to find new ways to bash Lagat>>>Grow up and get a life and lets move on<<<<

Move on where? To DyeStat?

No Offense wrote:

Question wrote:

But he has spent more than a 1/3 of it living on american soil.

More like 2/5ths right?

Yes. You are right. Poor rounding on my part.

Where did BA go??? I just want to go back to his orgnial arguement, "Its not about race, its about country"

By his own arguement Lagat should be allowed to have the record because he a citizen of this country. I'm not sure where your arguement against this premise is coming from, but give it one more shot, I'm sure nobody will shoot it down.

chuck d wrote:

no there isn't. again, as i stated before, it would be quite unlawful for usatf to deny lagat - or any naturalized citizen - the same rights and benefits of other citizens. that's why, while an interesting academic discussion, this is a rather stupid thread. nothing can possibly come from it.

With all due respect you are incorrect. He cannot be President or VP of the USA, which to those like the Calif gov. is no small thing.

As for the "stupid thread" quip, what does it matter if anything has to "come from it"?

The IAAF and Kenya certainly aren't taking it lightly.

you're right on that; because you were arguing that usatf could impose some sort of waiting period for him, i thought you were referring to something more. lagat ain't exactly likely to be running for prez, just records.

i said it's an academic exercise, slightly interesting. the reason it's become stupid: well, read the last few pages of this thread. and the iaaf and kenya are worrying about another matter - competing for the US internationlly - not whether he can hold US records, of which there is absolutely no doubt. if he breaks the record, it's his.

Question wrote:

Actually Jackass, It can often take up to 4 years. and post 9/11 it is taking even longer.

Thanks to the batteries running out on your sarcasm meter, you've explained to the previous poster why Lagat's citizenship is just as valid as any others. He obviously isn't a fly-by-night Qatari.

Now you are creating rules for when I can post? Man you are just full of yourself. First YOU get to make rules on who gets to hold YOUR American Record. Now YOU get to create rules on when I get to post? Funny.

You ask what's wrong with your 51% rule? Well it's discriminitory. To allow some Americans to hold the records and some can't, that's called discrimination. I bet if you were a Naturalized citizen you would change your tune. Not everyone gets the opportunity to be born in the greatest country in the world (US). Some migrate here. He jumped through all the hoops to become a citizen and now we don't want to give him all his rights? Just doesn't seem fair to me.

yeah it is discriminatory. not racist. bottom line.

vosh wrote:

With all due respect you are incorrect. He cannot be President or VP of the USA, which to those like the Calif gov. is no small thing.

Hahahahaha. Yes, this thread has become stupid, and posts like this are contributing to that.

No, he cannot become PRESIDENT OF THE USA, for a number of reasons. Of course, he wasn't born in the USA. Also, and of course you ignore this, he is LESS THAN THIRTY-FIVE YEARS OLD!

Do you really want to apply the standards of presidential candidacy to American track records? I hope not. If so, break out the master's books!

You stupid goddamn hypocrite.

BA wrote:

yeah it is discriminatory. not racist. bottom line.

From dictionary.com

discrimination

n 1: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice.

i would think going through the citizenship process - which, from watching people go through it, can be a real pain in the ass - would be enough to show a committment to this country. if you want these people to jump through more hoops - even more than those imposed after 9/11 - i encourage you to call your elected representatives.

and, i'm curious, why did your family come to the united states? could it be that - god forbid - they wanted to make more money? or escape from an idiotic, arbitrary regime? i realize there's a difference from, say, irish immigrants who came here because there was no opportunity to make money with which to survive or political refugees but it seems a bit disingenuous to lambast lagat for wanting to make a bigger buck or get out of kenya's idiotic system (if indeed that was his only motive, which i rather doubt; i don't think there are many people who live here for an extended period who would NOT want to become citizens so they could live here forever). our country is the home of capitalism and i rather doubt any of us would want to compete under the arbitrary kenyan system. we constantly hear about how we have such a great country but we also constantly want to deny others the benefits we enjoy because we live here.

steve scott's record the greatest? crap, i think that record is the greatest monument to our ineptitude on the world level. it was a good record when it was set but it's rather pathetic today; this is no poor reflection on scott - records are meant to be broken - but a poor reflection on milers who came after him.

and i don't think it's an unfair position to hold in your mind - or post on a webpage - a list of "true" american records entailing whatever criteria you want. i'm sure someone will do this if the naturalization of track athletes reaches an epidemic level (which i doubt will happen). it's pretty easy to look at the descending order list and figure out who was an immigrant and who was not. it just seems kind of silly to me to want the usatf to impose some other criteria for american records. you're a citizen and that's it.

BA wrote:

yeah it is discriminatory. not racist. bottom line.

unlike No Offense, i think this is a distinction that is fine. discrimination does not necessarily mean what he says it does, that's just one definition. we "discriminate" a whole lot of things; it simply means we differentiate or make a distinction amongst a large group. it doesn't necessarily mean we are making such distinctions for prejudicial or rascist reasons.

way to take the one defintion that applied to your argument.

the word was discriminatory, not discrimination.

from dictionary.com:

discriminatory: "making distinctions" in addition to showing prejudice. but being discriminatory does not universally mean being prejudiced. thats where you're wrong.

If Lagat breaks Scott's American record should it be marked with an asterisk?

NO

BA wrote:

way to take the one defintion that applied to your argument.

the word was discriminatory, not discrimination.

from dictionary.com:

discriminatory: "making distinctions" in addition to showing prejudice. but being discriminatory does not universally mean being prejudiced. thats where you're wrong.

Sorry didn't take the "correct" word. Discriminatory is the same thing as discrimination in a different form of the word.

dis·crim·i·na·to·ry

Marked by or showing prejudice; biased.

Making distinctions.

dis·crimi·na·tori·ly adv.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Main Entry: dis·crim·i·na·to·ry

Pronunciation: dis-'kri-m&-n&-"tOr-E

Function: adjective

1 : applying discrimination in treatment

2 : having unlawful discrimination as an effect

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Discriminatory

adj 1: being biased or having a belief or attitude formed beforehand; "a prejudiced judge" [syn: prejudiced] [ant: unprejudiced] 2: containing or implying a slight or showing prejudice; "discriminatory attitudes and practices"; "invidious comparisons" [syn: invidious] 3: capable of making fine distinctions [syn: discriminative] 4: manifesting partiality; "a discriminatory tax"; "preferential tariff rates"; "preferential treatment"; "a preferential shop gives priority or advantage to union members in hiring or promoting" [syn: preferential]

Personally I wouldn't be happy if I were applying discrimination to people. Time to look in the mirror.

brettman10k wrote:

If Lagat breaks Scott's American record should it be marked with an asterisk?

NO

Nice one. Here's another:

When Lagat breaks Scott's American record will it be marked with an askterisk?

NO

(Except for a few printouts of a meet program in Alabama, where BA will be dutifully going adding his own notes with a crayon.)