[GocartMozart]

Interesting article I thought I should share.
SI.com - Writers - Tim Vickery: High-altitude bans smack of hypocrisy and unfairness - Tuesday March 18, 2008 12:01PM

High Anxiety
FIFA's altitude ban may be its most hypocritical move

FIFA's ruling on soccer at high altitudes threatens to throw the South American game into turmoil.

The world governing body has decided that an adaptation period of three days is necessary before an official international match can take place at 8,200 feet above sea level. At 9,000 feet, the period is extended to one week, and soccer at or above 9,800 feet is all but ruled out with the stipulation of a minimum period of two weeks.

The measure affects Colombia, which is staging its home games at Bogotá (8,500 feet); Ecuador, which uses Quito (9,200); and especially Bolivia, whose base is La Paz, nearly 12,000 feet above sea level. (For some perspective, keep in mind that Denver's elevation is 5,280 feet.)

The immediate problem is that this measure has been announced with a tournament already underway. Four of the 18 rounds of South America's 2010 World Cup qualifiers have been completed. If, from now on, visiting countries don't have to climb up the Andes to Bogotá, Quito and La Paz, those who have already done so are left at a clear disadvantage. The integrity of the competition has been affected.

But it's the long-term ramifications that are especially problematic. This measure will be seen as a arbitrary act of discrimination which hits a region that has already had way more than its fair share of misfortune.

There's no doubt that playing at high altitudes offers an advantage for the home team playing against opponents who are unaccustomed to the conditions. The lack of oxygen in the air causes the un-acclimatized player to lose some of his athletic capacity.

But how much home advantage is too much? Russia, for example, qualified for the finals of Euro '08. Visitors to Moscow had to cope with not only the excesses of the Russian winter, but also a plastic pitch. And yet this is considered acceptable. The restrictions on altitude appear to have been imposed in isolation without looking at the issue in the context of other extreme conditions.

This becomes especially apparent when taking into account the fact that the restrictions on altitude have been brought into effect based on health risks to the players. This is all very well, but doctors and physical-preparation specialists seem largely to agree that playing soccer in extreme heat offers a greater risk than altitude -- and this is a condition prevalent in South America.

If banned from playing in Bogotá, for example, Colombia is likely to switch to Barranquilla, the sweltering Caribbean port where conditions could well be considered more dangerous. So how have the players been protected?

But, if absolutely necessary, the national teams can move their base. Colombia can play in Barranquilla or elsewhere, Ecuador can use Guayaquil, Bolivia can come down the Andes to Santa Cruz de la Sierra.

But what about the clubs based in the mountain regions? Should their locations force them to be excluded from international competitions? This surely infringes the concept of the universality of soccer, and also swims against the prevailing tide of South American integration.

FIFA recommend that the restrictions be extended to international club competitions -- in this case, the Copa Libertadores. It's here that the potential for conflict really exists inside the South American Federation.

The Brazilian clubs -- who despise playing at high altitudes -- have been lobbying for these restrictions, and will see themselves as the big winners of the current situation.

Flamengo of Rio de Janeiro has been especially vociferous. But these strutting lions on the global stage are meek little lambs at home. In the Rio State Championship, they accept the requests of the local federation and the TV companies to play at 4 p.m., even during high summer when daylight savings time is in operation and it's effectively 3 p.m. In this scalding heat, playing soccer is at best highly uncomfortable and at worst dangerous.

So let no one think that medicine and science have the upper hand in this debate about soccer at altitude, because it looks more like hypocrisy and power politics.

[Dirtycheat]

Stupid really, I read about the proposals a while back and im disapointed that they would ban high altitudes.

High altitudes make it a lot harder but so does extreme temperatures. This is a sport ffs, its meant to be challenging. What next? Air conditioned football pitches?

I could rant about FIFA all day but there is so much wrong with it i dont know where to start. Sepp Blatter needs to either be voted out or shot.

[Torque]

I don't understand why can't clubs and national teams' staff deal with this problems and find the best solution for them?

I agree it's quite stupid. Fifa makes big deal out of nothing.

[Iron_Maiden]

Quito is a place of nightmare for brazilian players,but they would not like to play in the forest either.And this ban seems to be more stupid when you watch Bolivia on the map,they don t really have an alternative.Yes many were complaining about the different air they breath there,but nobody died.If we take on a world cup in summer,when it s hot and advantaging south american countries and african,then why cannot we play a world cup in Northern Russia.I mean that if there is a ban about heights why there could not be a ban about global warning....?

This proves what kind of work Fifa is doing:it s a tribute to big countries in history and disadvantaging the less successful teams.It shows us how they are trying to say:WE WORK!

[cbud003]

I guess it's pretty unfair to play against a team whose use to playing at high altitudes. But isn't it more unfair to make these teams play at a different pitch than what they are use to? I don't really like this proposal at all.