Jump to content

Quaker2001

Members
  • Content count

    6478
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    126

Quaker2001 last won the day on July 9

Quaker2001 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1185 Excellent

1 Follower

About Quaker2001

  • Rank
    Flag Bearer Level 6
  • Birthday November 25

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    NYC

Recent Profile Visitors

24435 profile views
  1. Quaker2001

    Beijing 2022

    That date has been locked in since the moment Beijing won the bid. 3 years later, it's still the date. Why is that so hard to believe? That the Chinese and their "one fifth of humanity" care more about themselves than NBC and an American sporting event that means very little there? NBC has influence, but asking them to move the entire Olympics by a week is a little too much. It's not like they're asking an entire country to go to daylight savings for their benefit. Oh wait.. nevermind Not sure the reasoning behind it, but someone pointed out to my that the Chinese New Year in 2022 is February 1st. So perhaps they wanted to piggyback off of that with the timing for the Olympics. As for NBC.. there's 1 change they may be able to influence. Rumor has it NBC could be negotiating to switch the Super Bowl rotation so they have the 2022 game (currently scheduled for CBS). They would swap to get the Super Bowl and the Olympics in the same month just like they had this year. Obviously it's very different if the Super Bowl and the Olympics clash rather than 1 after the other. But can you imagine the viewership if that night's Olympic coverage (which if the schedule is the same as PyeongChang - before postponements that is - could include the men's downhill and women's slopestyle qualifying) has the Super Bowl as a lead in. Logistically it could be a mess, but could be an enticing situation for all involved rather than something to be avoided at all costs.
  2. Sorry to disappoint my biggest fan, but no, not at all what I'm going to say. What I am actually going to say is.. FFS, really Bach? You're still giving us the "less losers" line? Keep going with that and the biggest loser will be the IOC. You should be focusing on producing more bids and then yes, you can vet them on your own terms and decide who actually has a legitimate shot of being a winner. But tread carefully in that water where cities can and probably will drop out on you. Right now, they don't want to hear your bullshit. They want to (and need to) hear how you're going to make your organization more transparent and make hosting an Olympics less of a strain on the host city/country. Tough task that it's now a matter of convincing the citizens rather than the bid committees, but know the game you're playing right now. I really hope for the sake of the Olympics that this is just the happy face they're putting on what they know is a more serious problem. Good for him (that's for you, "other poster") that they're committed to increasing the dialog with cities and trying to reduce the number of cities on the final ballot. But as the other other poster likes to point out, "you have to be in it to win it." Work on that part now, then reduce, if you even have that luxury.
  3. I just came across the story online.. what a terrible tragedy. He gets killed over someone trying to steal a car mirror? That's absurd
  4. What it came down to is where did the IOC want to leave their legacy? In an East Asian country of more than a billion people or a relatively obscure Central Asian country with 1 person for every 77 in China. History should remember how close that decision was, but if we're going to play the "should have" game, then let's talk about Oslo, not Almaty. Beijing will not pose the same problems as Sochi. With China, they spent obscene amounts of money in 2008 to try and showcase themselves to the world. Sochi was more about Putin and was fraught with corruption. We can all list the numerous reasons why Beijing is not a good place to host a Winter Olympics, but given the alternative they had in front of them, hard to argue with the choice
  5. What exactly is the traditional Olympic spirit these days anyway? Yea, the IOC was once about cities building these big monuments in their honor, but we've seen where that got them. Hence their reforms of Agenda 2020 (not Project 2020) to give off the impression they're trying to cut costs. And you're absolutely right that it's difficult to figure if the IOC is actually serious about it. Either way though, the IOC doesn't have the benefit of choice. If even they do have a preference, if only 1 or 2 bids are on the table for them, that's what they have to choose from. May not be a can't of what they want. And even if it's Calgary, that Olympics wouldn't happen until 2026. Which means it could take a cycle or 2 before we see how that turns out. And even then, if we're talking about Calgary or Salt Lake City hosting a successful Olympics, what will that show Europe? They both have a good amount of their existing infrastructure. Similar to an LA or a Paris, that means only a city with a lot in place and little to build is likely to succeed. How many of those kinds of cities exist in Europe? The answer is obviously higher than zero, and that's where Agenda 2020 needs to kick in where the IOC is more accepting of things that a decade ago would have been bid-killers.
  6. Quaker2001

    Beijing 2022

    Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics add seven new events
  7. In post-Olympic Sochi, white elephants – and improved daily life I don't think Sochi deserves the label of "sports mecca". It was a resort town before the Olympics and I think that's what it's mostly known as now. The investment and infrastructure was a big boon for them, but aside from the F-1 race they have annually, the region hasn't seen too many sports events come there recently (the World Cup notwithstanding, but that's more the stadium than anything else). Could Erzurum, with similar investment become a competitor? Don't know, but the question is what exactly would they be competing with? And I know when a certain other poster reads that article, he knows what my favorite section is. To be fair, it does help put Sochi's place in the world and specifically in Russia into perspective to understand what they're all about.
  8. Quaker2001

    Tokyo 2020 News - General

    I read on a swimming website that they're holding out on finalizing the schedule because they added the women's 1500 free and the men's 800 free, so they're debating adding a 9th day of swimming. And they also noted that FINA is in discussions with NBC, so I have a feeling we'll see a Beijing-like setup. Gymnastics wasn't in primetime during Rio either. That it was during the afternoon there I believe was a concession to European rightsholders, so that might be what's at play here. I think NBC is okay with gymnastics on tape anyway. They'll have plenty of beach volleyball available to them. I'm sure they'll push for a few key track finals in the morning much like we saw in Rio. Plus some other sports. I think it'll be a lot like Beijing where there was a lot of live coverage in week 1. Not so much in week 2. This won't be a redux of PyeongChang (which is a shame, because I thought that was great), but I'm sure it'll be similar with respect to primetime being a combination of some live coverage and some events on tape.
  9. Quaker2001

    Tokyo 2020 News - General

    And here is said competition schedule.. Olympic Sports Competition Schedule
  10. Quaker2001

    Russia To Consider 2032 Olympic Games Bid

    Isn't it authoritarian governments that got them in the mess they currently have in the first place? Where China spent $40 billion and Russia spent $50 billion on their Olympics and that scared everyone off. That's not what they want. What they wanted was a Paris or an LA and they managed to get both of those. Beijing was not what they wanted for 2022, but the alternative was a fairly obscure country in Central Asia. And we know how close that competition was. Yes, once upon a time, the IOC was all about cities building the biggest and grandest facilities a bidder could offer. These days, not so much. They've made steps towards trying to reign in costs and requirements of hosts. Yes, many times those words have been very hollow and I agree it makes me lack faith in the IOC as well (although FIFA stooped to all sorts of new lows with Qatar). That all said, what other backdoor deals do you think there have been in recent Olympic bidding? Paris/LA aside (and nothing was going on there until about a year before the vote, not a decade in advance), what gives you an indication that the IOC could already be working on something as far out as 2032? The only thing they might be doing now is having conversations with potentially interested host cities/countries. After all, you have to be in it to win it. But until they know who is in the running or who might even be interested in being in the running, it's not like they can make deals. Even if that were the case, ask Athens how that worked out for them for 1996. Ask Beijing how that worked out for them for 2000. To a lesser extent, Paris for 2012. Sometimes the city we would assume is going to be the winner loses out on the vote. Again, that's the danger in trying to predict who will host an Olympics 14 or 18 years from now. Istanbul has played those cards before. It's landed them progressively closer to getting an Olympics, but they were still a significant number of votes away from beating Tokyo for 2020. And obviously the political situation there didn't help their cause. But there has to be a will to want the Olympics and assume the costs and risks associated with them. If Istanbul can develop a plan that they are comfortable with, they'll push it. If not, they won't bid. Rio played the "first South American host" card and look what that did for the city? Only if it's a responsible bid should they put it forward.
  11. At a point in time where all these cities (mostly in Europe, as opposed to scattered elsewhere) are skeptical of hosting the Olympics and/or rejecting them outright, should it be that surprising that a city like Sapporo isn't falling all over themselves to get the next available Olympics? Maybe it's as simple as them not wanting to be committed to an Olympics - and the money that's necessary to make it happen - until after Tokyo 2020 is complete and the JOC can focus more of their attention on Sapporo. I'm confident we'll see an Olympics there in the next 20 years or so. Doesn't necessarily need to be the next one though, especially not with the previous 2 Olympics in East Asia. If the IOC had their druthers, which they most decidedly do not, I'm sure they'd prefer to not go back to East Asia for a 3rd straight Olympics. Perhaps the Sapporo folks acknowledge this and would like to wait a little before they get their Olympics.
  12. Iran? Sochi wasn't far enough south that Iran would warrant a shot? The Olympics going to the Southern Hemisphere is not about the IOC *allowing* the games to be held in July. It's about a country putting forth a bid to hold the Olympics then and convincing everyone involved that it's the best choice. Aside from the countries involved (and no, it's a BS argument to say that countries who reject the Olympics lose their rights to choose), what about all the sport federations? Would FIS accept having the Olympics several months removed from their World Cup seasons? Would the ISU accept having their signature event in the middle of the summer when they'd be competing with the World Cup? That's who needs to be convinced to allow this and I don't see that happening anytime soon. We've seen what a clusterfuck it is for FIFA to alter the calendar for the World Cup. It's an even bigger leap to ask the IOC to sign on for that. To say nothing of the fact that it may simply not be worthwhile for a Chile or a New Zealand to offer up for that in the first place.
  13. The previous details tell us a story of history. Yes, that history can be used to learn about the future, but there's nothing to be proven here. This isn't a mathematical problem that comes with a definitive solution. As I said on the other thread, these cities aren't rejecting the Olympics so much as they are rejecting the IOC. Oslo told the IOC to piss off because of a 7,000 page list of requirements they didn't want to deal with. Stockholm dropped out in part because they didn't think the IOC would be interested in their plan to use Are as a venue for the alpine events. These are things that the IOC can change. We're seeing them at least start to acknowledge that they need to go about dealing with host cities differently. Is that enough to entire a Norway or a France back into the picture. Can the IOC repair their image to where citizens of many countries wouldn't start to view them as a massive liability rather than an entity that can do good by them and their citizens? Yea, Norweigans probably won't forget how the IOC told them off after Oslo's pull out. I'm betting given another couple of years, that may feel like ancient history. Again, you say it would take a perfect storm to make it happen, but that's now. 5 or 10 years from now, perhaps the IOC is more receptive to their concerns and figures how to manage those issues without the worry of leaving a city holding the bag when the Games are over. Time may not heal all wounds in this case, but sometimes it helps. Calgary is in a precarious position because there is a vote involved. Losing that vote would undoubtedly knock them out for 2030 and probably longer if SLC gets those Olympics. But a couple of cycles down the road? Certainly feasible. After all, "never" is a long time. I don't think the IOC has the luxury of trying to provide an example to other countries. The many rejections of 2022 came on the heels of the Sochi Olympics, not only one that went way over budget, but an Olympics that is a symbol for corruption. The lack of interest since them is probably tainted by Rio's shortcomings. And perhaps it's no coincidence that these 2 countries recently both put on successful World Cups, which are much easier to plan out and manage. Either way, the point of Agenda 2020 is to better work with the cities that might be bidding, not to provide an example for other cities. Because many times, what works for 1 city won't necessarily apply elsewhere. It's not so much a matter of finding a city that can host the Olympics without spending a ton of money. It's working with the IOC and putting together a plan that works for everyone involved. If the IOC can every see clear to that, they'll be in much better shape
  14. Quaker2001

    Russia To Consider 2032 Olympic Games Bid

    I wouldn't give much thought to the fact it mentions 2036. Is that really reason to believe there are ulterior motives and something cooking behind the scenes? Because Russia says so? Given the troubles the IOC is having for finding a bidder for 2026 and that there were 0 cities that stayed in the running for 2024/2028 who didn't walk away with the Olympics, I doubt they have a plan in place for 2032. The earliest that's likely to be on the table for them is 4-5 years from now. Erdogan might not be in power by then. Istanbul than St. Petersburg? Possible, but given the climate of a lack of bidders, especially European bidders, for the Winter Games, that seems like a stretch to think 2 cities from a continent where cities are dropping like flies will get successive Olympics. Let alone that the IOC already has the wheels in motion for this.
  15. I don't claim to have too much insight on how this is all playing out from a local perspective or how to influence voters. But remember what the real issue is here. All these cities/countries that are saying no aren't rejecting the Olympics so much as they are rejecting the IOC. So I don't know how prudent it will be for IOC to put themselves out there in support of the vote. The message needs to come from somewhere else. And the problem is that until the financial aspects of a potential Olympic bid become more apparent, it's going to be tough to hold onto supporters who are skeptical of having their city get in bed with the IOC. I do remember all the commercials that ran in NYC in 2005 in support of the West Side Stadium and the Olympic bid before the original plan fell apart. But that was a kind of opposition. Not sure how to appeal to the citizens of Calgary. I'm sure most people with memories of 1988 would be happy to re-live that. But at what cost? And that's what the No Olympics folks will be pointing to. If the IOC has money to throw out there, use it to better assure the folks of Calgary that they're not going to lose out because the Olympics returns to town. And more importantly, because the IOC returns to town.
×