事実上の／代理 急速な／放蕩な not whining is what counts in 差別 事例／患者s

By Dwaipayan Ghosh Dastidar

Published: 18:15 BST, 6 August 2012 | Updated: 18:15 BST, 6 August 2012

After Sumit Sangwan, it was Vikas Krishnan. Now, it's Manoj Kumar who's cried 'cheating', 誘発するing a 審議 over 申し立てられた／疑わしい 差別 against Indian boxers in the Olympic （犯罪の）一味.

Our マスコミ has 部隊d in 非難するing the 'biased' 態度 of 審判（をする）s and the 陪審／陪審員団. さもなければ, why would our best boxers lose after making light of their 挑戦者s?

One argument is the computergenerated point system could be いっそう少なく than perfect. Or you might latch on to Manoj's 見解（をとる） that he lost because 'if it's 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain in the (London Olympics) （犯罪の）一味 it doesn't 事柄 who's against them'.

Manoj Kumar of India, left, and Thomas Stalker of 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain in the men's light welterweight ボクシング 競争

Some say Vikas won and lost because of Uncle Sam's 影響（力） - he had after all outpunched an American - over the International Amateur ボクシング 協会 (AIBA).

Delve 深い into the Indian psyche and you can find the real answer. We are a nation of Hamlets given to procrastinating. How else would you explain the Indian ボクシング 連合 wasting nine hours to 宿泊する a 反対する-（民事の）告訴 in Vikas's 事例／患者?

Moreover, when it did not 宿泊する a （民事の）告訴 within the 義務的な 30 minutes of Sumit's 一区切り／（ボクシングなどの）試合, it was 確かな that the 控訴，上告 would be 拒絶するd. We are also a nation of doormats.

さもなければ, why didn't we 宿泊する a 抗議する after we felt Manoj was done in deliberately? Because our 冒険的な bosses thought we would be "見解（をとる）d as cry babies". After Sumit's 控訴，上告 was turned 負かす／撃墜する, the 国家の coach resignedly said: 'It is rare that a 抗議する is 受託するd and a 決定／判定勝ち（する） overturned.'

He was wrong. For, the 陪審／陪審員団 決定／判定勝ち（する） in the Vikas episode was overturned in favour of the USA. Why? Because the US 公式の／役人s 行為／法令／行動するd 急速な／放蕩な and 持続するd 支えるd 圧力 on the AIBA. Unless we learn to get things done quickly, we would always 結局最後にはーなる as, what we in reality are - a nation of whining losers.