FIFA bans international football in the altitude
Lleo
"For medical reasons and in the interests of player health, the
executive also ruled that in future, no international matches may be
played at an altitude higher than 2,500 metres above sea level."
This will apply for the next WC cycle already. So, no qualifiers will
be played in places like La Paz (Bolivia), Bogotá (Colombia), Cuzco
(Peru), Cuenca and Quito (Ecuador). Bolivia and Ecudor will suffer
more, as they earn almost all of their points in the altitude. Peru
and Colombia usually play in their sea-level venues and won't be
affected.
I wonder if this restriction will apply when any of these countries
host an international tournament. You can hardly ask a country to do
it without using some of its main cities. Not that they don't have
other venues, of course.
And how would they handle this issue regarding club football?
Obviously, medical reasons apply regardless of whether the game is
international or not. Otoh, you can't really ask a team not to play in
the city it is based on... that would be the equivalent of banning
football altogether above 2,500 m.
--
Lléo
MH
Lleo wrote:
> http://www.fifa.com/en/media/index/0,1369,138541,00.html?articleid=138541
>
> "For medical reasons and in the interests of player health, the
> executive also ruled that in future, no international matches may be
> played at an altitude higher than 2,500 metres above sea level."
>
> This will apply for the next WC cycle already. So, no qualifiers will
> be played in places like La Paz (Bolivia), Bogotá (Colombia), Cuzco
> (Peru), Cuenca and Quito (Ecuador). Bolivia and Ecudor will suffer
> more, as they earn almost all of their points in the altitude. Peru
> and Colombia usually play in their sea-level venues and won't be
> affected.
Would also prevent Mexico from playing in a few cities like Toluca. They
don't play there very often at full national team level though.
I am not sure I like this ruling - seems almost like a deliberate
anti-Ecuador rule :-) !
Does Nepal even have grounds lower than 2500 metres ?
Plus I am not sure the adverse health effects of playing in La Paz are
really all that worse than playing at 35 degrees celsius at 90 % humidity.
Paul C
>http://www.fifa.com/en/media/index/0,1369,138541,00.html?articleid=138541
>
>"For medical reasons and in the interests of player health, the
>executive also ruled that in future, no international matches may be
>played at an altitude higher than 2,500 metres above sea level."
Well fancy that. Mexico City is a little below 2500 metres asl.
PB
> And how would they handle this issue regarding club football?
> Obviously, medical reasons apply regardless of whether the game is
> international or not.
I'd love to know precisely what those medical justifications are. I
made a cursory look to see if I could find anything relevant and came
up with nada. Instead, I found that for recent heart attack victims "a
rapid ascent and submaximal exercise can be considered safe at an
altitude of 3454 m." (Heart 2006; 92:921-925). If people with serious
health problems can go to altitudes far above 2500 m. and safely ride
an exercise bike, is it really such a big deal for pro athletes to run
around?
In the absence of further information, I've got to think that the
competitive disadvantage is the real consideration at work here.
P
Jack Hollis
>In the absence of further information, I've got to think that the
>competitive disadvantage is the real consideration at work here.
And a valid considerations as well.
Jesper Lauridsen
>
> Does Nepal even have grounds lower than 2500 metres ?
Their lowest point is 70m, so it's likely.
James....@gmail.com
Bolivia's government calls an emergency cabinet meeting over the
issue. Will cut off supplies of Cocaine to FIFA.
James
Lleo
> Lleo wrote:
> >http://www.fifa.com/en/media/index/0,1369,138541,00.html?articleid=13...
>
> > "For medical reasons and in the interests of player health, the
> > executive also ruled that in future, no international matches may be
> > played at an altitude higher than 2,500 metres above sea level."
>
> > This will apply for the next WC cycle already. So, no qualifiers will
> > be played in places like La Paz (Bolivia), Bogotá (Colombia), Cuzco
> > (Peru), Cuenca and Quito (Ecuador). Bolivia and Ecudor will suffer
> > more, as they earn almost all of their points in the altitude. Peru
> > and Colombia usually play in their sea-level venues and won't be
> > affected.
>
> Would also prevent Mexico from playing in a few cities like Toluca. They
> don't play there very often at full national team level though.
>
> I am not sure I like this ruling - seems almost like a deliberate
> anti-Ecuador rule :-) !
And anti-Bolivia.
WCQs since 1996, 52 games (26 home, 26 away):
Bolivia earned 49 points, 46 at home, 3 away
Ecuador earned 80 points, 62 at home, 18 away
You could argue that Ecuador wouldn't have an 80% home record if they
played in Guayaquil (only worse than Brasil, Argentina and Paraguay) -
in fact, that's where they used to play qualifiers up to 1996, never
coming anywhere close to qualifying. But Bolivia's record, in spite of
not taking them anywhere near the World Cup recently either, would
surely have been a lot more embarassing!
> Does Nepal even have grounds lower than 2500 metres ?
Kathmandu is 1300 m high, so I'd guess they do :-)
> Plus I am not sure the adverse health effects of playing in La Paz are
> really all that worse than playing at 35 degrees celsius at 90 % humidity.
Indeed.
--
Lléo
Rob Maxwell
"Paul C" <pa...@thersgb.net> wrote in message
news:uduj53l9r103cl2ah...@4ax.com...
But of course, this is done to help the top 20 nations, not hurt them.
-Rob
Bruce Scott TOK
Jesper L wrote:
>On 2007-05-27, MH <nos...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Does Nepal even have grounds lower than 2500 metres ?
>
>Their lowest point is 70m, so it's likely.
Kathmandu itself is listed variously as 1400m or 1800m or 4500ft (maybe
it is somewhat "3D" like Lausanne).
In the US this may or may not mean we couldn't play in Santa Fe, though
most placed should be safe :-)
--
ciao,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
MH
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
> <4659F7FE...@ucalgary.ca> <465a2cdf$0$4151$ba62...@nntp02.dk.telia.net>
>
> Jesper L wrote:
>
>
>>On 2007-05-27, MH <nos...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Does Nepal even have grounds lower than 2500 metres ?
>>
>>Their lowest point is 70m, so it's likely.
wow. Didn't know that.
>
>
> Kathmandu itself is listed variously as 1400m or 1800m or 4500ft (maybe
> it is somewhat "3D" like Lausanne).
Again, I am surprised how low it is. Not much higher than Calgary, which
is between 1100 and 1300 m, depending on who you believe and what part
of the city you measure from.
MH
The Estadio Azteca is somewhere between 2200 and 2300 IIRC, so 2500 is
not that close.
However, since Mexico could play home games in places like Guadalajara,
among others, that are below 2000 metres but still give a substantial
elevation advantage over teams coming from sea-level, evening banning
Mexico city would not hurt Mexico too much.
Paul C
>http://www.fifa.com/en/media/index/0,1369,138541,00.html?articleid=138541
>
>"For medical reasons and in the interests of player health, the
>executive also ruled that in future, no international matches may be
>played at an altitude higher than 2,500 metres above sea level."
They should also rule out matches in countries where it is far too
hot. In fact all World Cup finals should be played in Scotland.
symbi...@yahoo.com
that are horribly polluted, for example Santiago de Chile, Los Angeles
or Mexico City, to mention just a few. And here in Barcelona, if the
Nou Camp were not where it is but lower, the air would be dangerous
for players. What is worse, the lack of oxygen or its replacement by
toxic substances?
By the way, the above comment is meant seriously. If I come back to
Barcelona after a trip to a clean place, the air smells like shit.
Best,
SMT
PB
http://www.gssiweb-sp.com/reflib/refs/222/re-33.cfm?pid=98&CFID=4230029&CFTOKEN=56630948
I find it curious that medicines that prevent altitude sickness are
banned by the IOC. If soccer players were to use these treatments when
they travel to altitude, would they really be doping? Even if it is
doping, surely it's preferable to letting the competition become
skewed by altitude, or to banning games at altitude altogether.
P
ruud
That's the point of the whole thing. They've banned it so people don't have
to take drugs. Any sort of nausea is telling you that something is unusual.
If you are sick becasue you are at 3000m, why would you then take a drug
just so you can ignore your body and go out and exert yourself anyway?