Moreno's Reaction to FIFA
Like all Bolivians, United captain Jaime Moreno is not happy about FIFA's decision to ban high-altitude venues for international matches. Bolivia has played qualifiers in La Paz over the years with mixed results.
"It's terrible because in '97 Brazil beat us in the final in Copa America [in La Paz], so that shows any team that is fit can play the game and can play anywhere."
What about the health concerns?
"So far nobody has died. They don't have any proof to say that it is dangerous for your health. Definitely it is going to affect you as much as playing in 100 degrees."
Does this put Bolivia at a disadvantage?
"It didn't [affect us] in the last qualifying because we lost a lot of games at home. So that showed we didn't have the home advantage anymore. Teams right now are fit enough to play in the altitude so that's not an issue."
Is this a case of big countries using their influence?
"I don't think anyone has a doubt about that. Brazil is Brazil, Argentina is Argentina, they put a request. They are doing this to the people who live there. I don't think it's our fault, to anyone that was born there. People who love the game won't be able to watch it anymore. That is kind of devastating."
I will have more from Jaime on his return to the national team and his Copa prospects on washingtonpost.com later this evening and in the print editions tomorrow.
By Steve Goff |
May 29, 2007; 1:52 PM ET
D.C. United
Previous: High There |
Next: USA Roster for China Match
Posted by: Logan Circle | May 29, 2007 2:16 PM
I've seen this story covered all over the Web by news organizations all over the world, and nobody has addressed the very obvious question - are their other cities in these countries with suitable stadiums that fall below the 2,500 ft. line, or are these countries out of luck? Hello? Any journalists out there?
Personally, I think it's crap. If teams can play in the tropics, the desert, the arctic, they can play in the mountains.
Posted by: Obvious Man | May 29, 2007 2:25 PM
I'll have to catch up on this story but it doesn't make sense that they would single out banning soccer from being played in high altitude cities.
Posted by: 12th man | May 29, 2007 2:27 PM
how's his back? i saw a report that he was subbed out at the end of the half with a back injury.
Posted by: pat | May 29, 2007 2:33 PM
How is playing in thick smog (i'm looking at you Azteca)any different than playing at extremely high altitude?
Posted by: Questioning authority | May 29, 2007 2:40 PM
I think this is utter crap...altitude has always been one of the intriguing wild cards in football. Bah. And yes, totally unfair to the fans who live there.
Posted by: Kaloramaist | May 29, 2007 2:40 PM
You have to wonder how they justify this decision. I agree with everyone so far. It is a stupid, stupid decision. What's next? Everyone has to play indoors?
If there was some instance(s) where players were dropping dead from the conditions, then I could understand, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Posted by: BT | May 29, 2007 2:54 PM
Is it possible the biggest thing in this is that FIFA is scared that sometime Argentina or Brazil might not get to the WC finals?
Posted by: Larry G | May 29, 2007 3:17 PM
It was an obvious attempt to stop the Sherpas, who were bidding hard at having a World Cup Final played on the top of Mt. Everest
Posted by: Graham | May 29, 2007 3:25 PM
Obvious Man - Ecuador can play in Quayaquil and Bolivia can play in Santa Cruz. I think one post noted that Tibet is out of luck (but they ran out of luck when China invaded) and probably Nepal and Bhutan.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 29, 2007 3:27 PM
It's a stupid argument that Bolivia has still lost so it can't be a big advantage -- I guess Bolivia is just that bad.
Posted by: RB | May 29, 2007 3:31 PM
Sure, Bolivia's bad. How would your country do in CONMEBOL?
Posted by: BarraBrava | May 29, 2007 3:45 PM
Screw FIFA. Blatter reminds me of G.W. Bush.
Blatter: We are banning altitude games because it affects teams adversely.
World: What? Where is the proof? Show us conclusive evidence.
Blatter: We will...but for now you have to trust us...
World: Trust you? That's like leaving your money with Jack Warner.
Blatter: Too bad, I am the Imperial Puba of the Grand Order of Football.
Posted by: Dave | May 29, 2007 3:50 PM
How would the US do in CONMEBOL? Prolly place 10th among the 14 teams.
Posted by: 761-091 | May 29, 2007 3:55 PM
Questioning authority.
How about the smog in LA? MOST POLUTED AIR IN THE US. PERIOD.
Doesnt seem to be any problems with USC, UCLA, Rose Bowl, Dodgers, Olympics, World Cup Final, LA Galaxy, Chivas USA . . .
Posted by: 761-091 | May 29, 2007 3:58 PM
Like all true Bolivians, I hate Sepp Blatter.
Posted by: Jim Rome | May 29, 2007 3:59 PM
But LA comes nowhere close to Mexico City. That is a cold, hard, fact.
Posted by: AlecW81 | May 29, 2007 4:30 PM
More medical contrindications to soccer:
Ban all matches in areas with mosquitos because of malaria and yellow fever.
Ban all matches in areas with ticks because of Lyme Disease.
Ban all matches in places with flowers and trees because of allergies.
Ban all matches in places with bars because of liver cirrhosis.
Ban all matches at wherever Sepp comes from because of dumb ass disease.
Posted by: I-270, Exit 1 | May 29, 2007 6:25 PM
Can these countries press a claim at that sports court everybody always goes to when they get caught doping to get this ban wiped out? Or go the ICC at Den Haag? :-) Or will Blatter ex-communicate anyone who goes against his decision?
Posted by: Glenn | May 29, 2007 8:11 PM
But LA comes nowhere close to Mexico City. That is a cold, hard, fact.
Posted by: AlecW81 | May 29, 2007 04:30 PM
*********
it doesn't?
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/Fact_Sheets/Key_Stage_4/Air_Pollution/pdf/11.pdf
given that Mexico City is twice as big, LA's level of pollution can be compared with other major cities in the world.
in addition, the heat of the CA dessert does nothing in making it relatively easier to breathe in that oven of a city.
since people in LA can not live with out their cars, good luck in bringing those levels down. even $5.00 a gallon gas wont make residents in LA give up their cars.
Posted by: 761-091 | May 30, 2007 10:26 AM
and nice, top 5 most polluted cities in the US happen to be in CA.
http://www.forbes.com/logistics/2006/03/21/americas-most-polluted-cities-cx_rm_0321pollute.html
Posted by: 761-091 | May 30, 2007 10:28 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
I never really considered the spectator's angle. That really is a devastating turn of events, particularly in countries and regions where soccer is king.