Jump to content

tractarian

Members
  • Posts

    123
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by tractarian

  1. I'm on board with the cauldron-rising-from-the-center theory. I seem to recall early aerial pics of the stadium including a giant hole in the middle of the infield. But I'm less confident about where the cauldron will actually end up. Wouldn't that mean it would be visible outside the stadium, though? And wouldn't that contradict the (reported!) statement by Denis Oswald?
  2. And you know that the cauldron is not in the shape of a bell, because....?
  3. Hm. Well, Atlanta's OC did have the opening countdown on the big screen, the artistic segment, the parade of athletes, and a relay around the track featuring the final torch-bearers. So I guess they did copy Barcelona. Wait - aren't those part of every Olympic OC? I'll admit there were some similarities - but I might call "How Y'all Doin'?" an homage to Barcelona's "Hola" rather than an imitation. Anyway, are you really going to fault them for the color of the ground covering? Really? What color do you think would have been appropriate for Atlanta, would have looked good on TV, and also would have been original? Frankly, IMO, the blue looked a lot better than the dirt-colored covering in Sydney. Some IOC members were furious with Atlanta because of games-time logistics problem and overt commercialization (which, by the way, was shocking in 1996 because it was the first true post-Cold War, post-globalization Games - but now it's the norm and nobody complains). I seriously doubt Chicago lost out because of Atlanta's OC, which is what you're implying. It came in last because of the revenue dispute, period.
  4. I noticed that too. That was a bit odd, to say the least. But it doesn't change the fact that they would be risking a hell of a lot in terms of prestige, reputation, and access, if they in fact fabricated a quote by an IOC exec board member.
  5. I'm just not understanding this sense of bemusement and mystery here. ATR, as far as I know, is one of the leading - if not the foremost - industry publication regarding the Olympic Games. They have directly attributed a quote to a top IOC official stating that the cauldron will not be visible from outside the stadium. Usually, when you have a story in a reputable publication with a quote directly attributed to a top official, what do you call it? "Substantiation." If you believe that they just made up this quote out of whole cloth, then you have to also believe: (1) they don't care about their reputation within the Olympic Movement; (2) they, in particular, don't care about torching (no pun intended) their relationship with a man who might be the next IOC president (though my money's on Bach); and (3) they don't care about their reputation with the public in terms of being an entity with any journalistic or ethical standards. Am I guaranteeing that what they reported is true? No. But I'm willing to give ATR the benefit of the doubt because I cannot fathom a possible motive for them to risk their relations with the IOC by printing lies. And again, I'm willing to revise my opinion on ATR if anyone can point to any examples of "hogwash" journalism in its past. Anyone?
  6. My bad; I must have skipped over the part of the article where Oswald was specifically mentioned as the leaker. Still, ATR is relatively reputable, isn't it? Have they been blatantly wrong about things in the past? And do you really think they would jeopardize relations with IOC by fabricating a quote by one of its top officials? And keep in mind, he (reportedly) didn't say anything about the cauldron itself, the lighter or lighting method, or even its location within the stadium. He just said it wasn't visible outside of the stadium. So it's not exactly spilling all the beans; just a bean or two.
  7. The IOC is made up of human beings. Human beings make mistakes. And membership in the IOC is not based on an individual's tact or sense of responsibility; more often than not, it's based on bloodline. The point being, these people are not infallible. Just because they've been successful in keeping secrets in the past doesn't mean they are incapable of leaking. Even if you assume that all IOC members will exercise discipline, one has to think that it's more than just the IOC membership that has knowledge of cauldron details. Include top LOCOG brass, Danny Boyle's staff, OBS staff, and more. When you consider all the people that need to cooperate to get something like this done - and that it takes just one leaker to blow the secret - it's not surprising at all that ATR got this scoop.
  8. Could the bell itself be the cauldron? Haven't heard that possibility broached.
  9. Hey, I know that until I'm appointed to the IOC (or become president of an IF) my opinion is worth ****. No need to rub it in. That said, I wouldn't be quite so confident about YOG's staying power. The world media greeted both Singapore and Innsbruck with crickets. It is a drain on the IOC's coffers. It is a pet project of Rogge and the rest of the IOC is well-known for clumsy attempts to appeal to young people (beach volleyball, anyone?). Give it another few cycles and we'll see how willing they are to keep financing this luxury. Only if it's in English.
  10. You forgot: Bastardized versions of real Olympic sports that no one plays (e.g., 3-on-3 basketball) Co-ed teams and mixed-nation teams Continental teams in some sports Participation restricted by age Miniature team-sport tournaments with participation limited to one per nation Virtually zero attention paid by world media In my view, the YOG just dilutes the Olympic brand and cheapens the Olympic Movement. We already have an Olympic Games for the "youth of the world" - they're called the Games of the Olympiad. For some sports, the Games of the Olympiad actually is, for all intents and purposes, a youth competition. (Soccer of course, and have you ever seen an Olympic gymnast who could not be described as a "youth"?) I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the merits of the YOG.
  11. Are you incapable of following a thread? Rogge referred to London as the first city to host the Olympic Games three times. I posited that this actually makes sense if you do not consider the YOG to be true Olympic Games. And I, for one, don't. I consider them to be a sideshow, a futile and silly attempt to pander to young people, and a blemish on the Olympic Movement. I'm sure Rogge doesn't share my exact opinion on the matter, but apparently he doesn't consider them to be true Olympic Games, either. So blame him for splitting hairs.
  12. Maybe the IOC just doesn't consider the YOG to be actual Olympic Games. I know I don't.
  13. Nash, Le May and Hansen all should have been final-night torch-bearers or part of the flag squad. But I thought it was ridiculous that anyone was included with Gretzky. Gretzky is a God in Canada. He's not just the best ice hockey player to have ever lived - he's the best player who ever lived by a substantial margin. Frankly, I thought it was a dishonor to Gretzky to have him share the cauldron-lighting duties. I guess karma saw to it that the lighting would be botched.
×
×
  • Create New...