FYI
-
Posts
12,680 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
238
Posts posted by FYI
-
-
I never said anything about skate parks. So IDK WTF you're even talking about.
And perhaps they're considered to be a 'community asset' so they're not out there in the streets with the regular traffic where they don't belong.
-
5 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:
Hopefully Randy Newman is still alive come 2028. Apparently this is from 1983, so it's older than the last LA games!
A certain Missing Person's song also comes to mind. Although, it seems to go against any form of physical, sporting activity - "Walking in LA? Nobody walks in LA!"
-
6 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:
That’s also a lot LA’s call. I agree, cricket was foisted on them, but it was LA who stuck by their guns that they’d still insist of including their choices - flag football and baseball/softball - as well.
Yeah, but what about if they couldn't have included it all? And that's what I'm getting at. So "Sun King" would've twisted their arm to drop a sport in favor of one of his choosing instead (in order to appease a certain other country)? That would certainly in-effect cancel out any local flavor of the Games in favor of another kind of flavor.
-
I can concede to the BMX biking (since you do need a lot of energy, strength & endurance to keep up with it), & as I said earlier, it even makes sense for L.A. 2028, but the skateboarding I just can't. It seems more of a nuisance than a "sport".
Equestrian I'm on the fence about since I do enjoy watching that (but I don't like horse racing). But agree, the expense has got to be staggering, especially nowadays. Plus, after that incident in Tokyo 202One, yes, that also starts to become a concern. Boxing I guess I can take or leave. It's never big on my Olympic watching list.
-
18 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:
I’m not particularly a cricket fan, but I don’t have a problem with it in the games (beyond the fact I think team sports make balancing the competitor numbers that bit more problematic). I think it passes the internationality test, probably more so than baseball (baseball’s sorta the flip side of cricket, covering those regions - the Americas and East Asia - where cricket - Australasia, South Asia, Southern Africa, north west Europe - doesn’t hold sway).
Flag Football’s, of course, a novelty and the type of thing that would have been a medal-less “demonstration sport” in the old days. But again, I’m not opposed to the IOC’s new policy of optional sports - I quite like it - and tailoring some of those to the hosts.
And that's fine, but I'm not arguing that. Cricket, though, didn't need to be in L.A.'28. We already have softball/baseball on the 2028 roster (it really should've been re-introduced in Brisbane 2032, that would've been much more appropriate). So why the need to pack on even more onto the L.A. 2028 plate?
At one point, before that final decision was made, it was widely assumed that baseball/softball was going to get the axe in favor of Cricket. So how would've that been tailoring to the local host? So instead, they included all bat-&-ball games, thereby leaving L.A. 2028 to come up with yet another large venue for another (added) team sport.
-
Plus, all those "sports" have their own championship games anyway, like the X-games, or what-have-you.
-
Meh, they seem to be more of a punk-ish past time, than being about the trained & disciplined athlete like a gymnast, swimmer, diver or T&F athlete that the Olympics should be about.
-
Talk about another (elitist) "sport" that was absent from the Olympic program for more than a century, that definitely should've never been brought back, is golf. They have plenty of championship games of their own anyway, so they definitely don't need to be in the Olympics. Even golf itself doesn't really know if they belong there. And talk about the wasteful construction of the new venue, of all places, in Rio 2016 when it made it's return. Tennis is another one with their own mega events for the game, so I'd still say that's another one that probably doesn't belong.
And soccer, while it's been in almost every Summer Olympics (except two of them 1896 & 1932), also has their own World Cup. So why does it also need to be in the Olympics as mainly an afterthought really for most who watch the Olympics TBW. And since soccer is so venue intense, it would take the burden off of many host cities/countries if it wasn't there. I know some of the arguments for it staying in would be "but it would be a great way to engage the rest of the host country in the Games", but when the marquee events of the Olympics take center stage anyway, the main focus is not on soccer. And for 2028, it'd mark the first time in the U.S. that Olympic soccer is not spread across the country like it was in '84 & '96, since all the 2028 Olympic soccer venues will all be within California, so there goes that theory anyway.
And as far as flag football is concerned, it's still not as popular here as tackle football. So IDK about 'guaranteed' gold medals in that category come 2028. But all this recent inclusion, especially of the team sports, is so contradictory of trying to cap athlete participation to 10,500, as Coates has recently said he wants to do for Brisbane 2032 (although, in there case it makes a lot of sense). But how can you do that when you just keep making the Olympic program that much bigger just for the sake of "inclusivity". Other things that need to go are skateboarding, mountain climbing & BMX biking (although for L.A. 2028, that makes a little more sense, since it's actually popular there).
-
Yeah, sure. But what does Cricket have to do with "to help give a Games a local flavor" in L.A.'s 2028 case, though? There's nothing 'local flavor' about Cricket in the U.S. or even California nor L.A. for that matter. The last time Cricket was on the Olympic roster was way back in Paris in 1900 (& the irony that Paris gets to miss out on it this time).
And for all the talk that goes on, that the Olympics are just getting too big & too expensive for their own good, & yet all these niche sports keep getting added to the Olympic program. Even since the last time that L.A. hosted in 1984, the Olympic roster has been jacked-up with so many more events. It's really an oxymoron to the 'sustainability' of the Games, especially with the team niche sports.
-
Cricket comes quickly to mind. No one in the U.S. really follows it (only a handful of countries seriously do), & yet it’s on the Olympic roster for the L.A. 2028 Games.
-
2 hours ago, sebastien1214 said:
- "in mid summer": when was the last Summer Olympic Games... which did not take place in summer?
35 minutes ago, Guilga said:Actually for real Rio 2016, just because it's Winter in August in my hemisphere.
And then we’ll have Brisbane 2032 in the “winter”.
And from the looks of it, it’ll be ‘chillier’ there than it was in Rio for the Olympics.
-
1
-
-
But it’s *L.A.* (not “California”) 2028, though!
-
1
-
-
Darn, apparently the book is not going to be available in English (at least not yet anyway), & only available (as of now) on Kindle in the U.S.
-
Wow, I guess that's what they mean when they say - 'making a deal with the devil'. And the more I hear about Bachy-poo lately, the more I'm convinced about his sketchyness.
-
Closed-off dodginess is even more dangerous, cause you don't see it coming. Speaking of 2036, Bachy-poo has also been playing footsie with India & Qatar. Makes one ponder what kind of 'grubby deals' he has to settle with them, too. Including Cricket on the Olympic roster seems to be one. But something tells me that's just the appetizer.
-
Well, that article that you put on here a month or two ago was the one that really did it for me. This is just more like icing on the cake & the cherry on top. That old saying around here "the IOC is not FIFA" can really be thrown out the window now. Cause they really are more & more like them now than ever before.
-
3 minutes ago, StefanMUC said:
It was always clear he put self-interest over that of any German bid. 2018 was probably chanceless against PC, but a clever campaign could have built on it for 2022, yet the top job was more important personally…
Yeah, sure. But the thing that caught my attention the most, is him disappearing from Garmisch at the ASWC's which Munich 2018 was using to promote themselves, so he could then fly in-&-out of Moscow, on a secret private jet, to meet up with his 'buddy' so that he was sure to get "it" (the IOC's top-job). I mean, you can't make this stuff up.
-
Gives a whole new meaning to cronies.
-
Interesting, so instead of campaigning for Munich 2018, he went to the motherland to campaign for himself.
-
That seems so trivial. I mean, I wouldn't be annoyed or bothered if the Team USA uniforms were presented in the backdrop of NYC or L.A. (even though they're the 2028 host), which I don't think they did anything like that anyway (the drama here over the uniforms is mostly about Nike's female piece).
Obviously, the AOC selected the city that's most recognizable to the *international* audience for the unveiling, & not so much the domestic one (too bad they couldn't do that, too, with the actual 2032 host city. I mean when some think that Brisbane is in Western Australia - probably confusing it with Perth -
).
-
The Olympics are nearly here. For a weary world, they can't come soon enough.
-
7 hours ago, Australian Kiwi said:
Also Coates stating that if Victoria Park is chosen as the Olympics site - it should not be noted as an Olympic cost. It shows this is really what it is all about, Brisbane 2032 is their guinea pig for the low cost model and they need to do what they can to preserve that narrative.
It is, I've been saying that all along that's what it's all about. That's what Coates basically means when he said "it's his job to protect the Olympic Brand. And he'll do that at all costs". There was even an interview with Quirk & the Australian anchor who was sitting in asked him; what does 'whatever it takes' even mean? But Quirk never really had an answer for that.
One thing it doesn't mean, that it's really about preserving cost. Cause obviously now, as long as the spending isn't directly connected to the Olympics, B&C don't really care what a city does. If the Gabba rebuild hadn't turned into the political sh!tfest that it did, B&C wouldn't have batted an eyelash about it, & it'd most likely still would be moving forward.
7 hours ago, Australian Kiwi said:What I don't understand is why they chose a city with such little infrastructure to make this point.
Because it wasn't really 'they', but Coates who chose. Brisbane to him was like Barcelona to Samaranch. He even said that he was butt hurt when Brisbane lost the 1992 bid, & that he had "unfinished business" when it came to Brisbane. So the spin that choosing them was so that they could be a "model" for other medium-sized cities to follow is just that, spin.
Cause it what IOC universe (other than a JC one), would a gamma-city (& in a relatively smallish country that already hosted not so long before, relatively speaking) with so much to build in such a short time, would ever be selected to do this? There isn't one. It'd be like San Diego hosting 2028 instead of L.A. And the USOC basically told them before, thanks but no thanks.
-
33 minutes ago, Gonzo said:
And we have a "can't recall"
"Can't recall" DG not sure who made QSAC call
Mr Fraine says he can't recall exactly who asked the department to investigate the QSAC option when it became clear the Quirk review had rejected it.
Senator McKenzie is incredulous at this response, asking was it Minister Grace, the Premier or his office.
Mr Fraine cannot recall, and neither can Ms Kelly.
"No-one can remember?" Senator McKenzie asks.
"It would have been someone higher than you (as Director-General) – wouldn't be many people in that category."
-
40 minutes ago, Bear said:
Yeah, Albion was listed on the feasibility report as the designated venue. The IOC then suggested Carrara instead in that same report, but nothing came out of it until the previous QLD premier randomly decided to go with the Gabba rebuild later on.
...or at least, that was what we all thought until Coates for some reason decided to invalidate the report today:
Ah, okay. So the IOC was never keen on a new stadium then. Of course, that makes sense, cause that’s not what the new-norm, under Coates, is/was suppose to be all about.
Yeah, from what I understood, Brisbane 2032 was suppose to be a “regional Games”, again under Coates’ new-norm, capitalizing on the legacy of the Gold Coast 2018, enter Carrara.But as even Coates himself has admitted to, that in order for all of it to work out, Brisbane’s regional transportation network would have to be “drastically improved”. But “that’s okay”, cause the growing region needs that anyway, according to him. But yet I don’t see any massive improvements on transportation links being done there as of yet.
Even QSAC still remains a mystery how it will work out in that regard, which Coates today even said, they won’t “tick off” on it if they’re not satisfied with the transportation methods to get to & from there.
40 minutes ago, Bear said:(i know this is in reference to Penrith, but if the IOC is "mistaken" with this, then what other "mistakes" have been made? 🤔)
I’d still say selecting a gamma-city before it’s time. Even in this video, the guy on the right says that of all of Brisbane’s (& area) needed transportation upgrades due to its continuing growth won’t get completed until about 2045.
So that means Brisbane should’ve been more comfortably been considered for 2044 or even 2040. And it also would’ve been a more appropriate gap from Sydney 2000. They start talking about the Olympics at the 3:45 mark:
And doesn’t the guy on the left, with the glasses, look a lot like Casey Wasserman? That’s who I thought it was at first. Lol
And also love this headline from today lol:
Olympic veteran "relaxed" about Brisbane venue delays
New Sports at Brisbane 2032
in Brisbane 2032 Sports / Events Discussions
Posted
Just for the record, that last post wasn't directly for you.
But anyway, yes, I can agree with you. Any form of physical, mental activity/exercise for kids these days is a welcomed outlook. But as with anything else (or other type of sport), there's a time & place for everything. That's why we have parks, recreational centers & other proper places for social, recreational, sporting activity. Not in the streets, parking lots, lobbies, etc, where someone can get hurt, & while other people are trying to conduct their daily business.