>Canada generally does poorly in 'summer' sports events. We don't have the infrastructure to grow good athletes.
>Any that make it big usually get scholarships to U.S. universities, and with their own huge pool of talent to draw from, those are few and far between.

But once they've had the benefit of the US facilities do they not come back and represent Canada?
Infrastructure? You mean there aren't many olympic-sized pools, running tracks, etc. (there's a lack of these in the UK)? I'd have thought that Canadian high schools and colleges would have rivalled the American ones for fac's.

I was wondering how come the English shooters have done so well, considering that there aren't any gun clubs now, since the govt. outlawed ALL guns 10 years ago (after Dunblane), but I discovered that they have to train abroad.

Incidentally, I just read last night that the number of gun-related incidents has multiplied in the UK during those 10 years, as have the number of homicides. Just shows the value of knee-jerk policies (stop the legal gun-club users from having guns while the gangs can get them easily)

>
>That's my take on the matter. Could be all wet.
>
>
>>Three things have really puzzled me here:
>>
>>1. The "Home nations" are doing very well - esp. England (note England alone and not GB), which is 2nd to Oz at the moment, and Scotland. Even the Isle of Mann has a gold.
>>
>>2. India is 3rd at present. I hadn't figured India for a sporting nation.
>>
>>3. Canada isn't doing so well. This made me wonder whether Canada is a particularlyt sporting nation. I must admit to not knowing how well she does in the Olympics (admitedly very well oin the Winter Olympics)
>>
>>I know the only way the British teams can shine is by the fact that there aren't any e. European, US, Russian, or far eastern powers in contention :-)