Athensfan

So I have a technical question. In team qualifying, I believe a country can only put up 4 athletes on a given apparatus, with the low score being thrown out. But team qualifying ALSO serves as qualifying for the all-around and event finals. So. Presumably the U.S. will want Kocian to do team qualifying on bars (since she is one of the gaggle of world champions on the apparatus and likely to qualify for the event final). BUT! The U.S. has FOUR legitimate all-around contenders (Biles, Raisman, Douglas, Hernandez). However only THREE of those four will be able to do team qualifying on bars alongside Kocian. So. Which one of these three gymnasts will not have an opportunity to try to qualify for the all-around? I realize only 2 per country may qualify, but I'd like to see an honest battle between these gymnasts and it seems like that is flat out impossible because of the qualifying procedure. Thoughts?

Just wondering if anyone has good quality MP3s of the medal ceremony music for either Athens or Beijing. Would love to have both.

I actually think that this whole mess with 2022 sets up the US extremely well for 2024. The IOC needs to go west. They need a democracy. They need a total contrast and a host that will stage fun and exciting Games. They need a blockbuster. And they need it to feel fiscally responsible. If you ask me, 2024 has the US written all over it. The IOC needs the US to bid now and I think they need them to win. Their public image is tanking. The brand will start flagging with three straight Games in Asia and a big American splash is just what they need to restore confidence and popularity.

Since when can the IOC force countries to enact legislation?! NO WAY. This is out of control and totally lacking in perspective. The IOC WANTS the heads of state. That doesn't mean they can have them. They WANT Olympic laws. That doesn't mean they can have them. These people seriously need to be put in their place. Why would you sacrifice all that just to host two weeks of sports? It makes no sense. I'm out of positive votes, but I totally agree!

They need to develop relationships with the people they're ACTUALLY WORKING WITH. The organizers and the mayor. Heads of state aren't involved and it's pointless for them to be there unless you're buying this silly idea that IOC members deserve to travel in such circles. It sounds like you are.

He called Lula and congratulated him. I'm sure he was surprised and pissed (who wouldn't be?!), but he didn't show it. I saw flaws with Chicago 2016, but arrogance wasn't one of them.

That's really foolish and you know it. Chicago lost because: The revenue deal rankled the IOC. It was still too soon for more American Games. There was a revolving door of leadership at the USOC. The Olympic network proposal was bungled. Oprah was a huge hit, but there was NOTHING she or anyone else could do to overcome the above problems. I agree that the presentation was awful, but again, only because it was amateurish and bland.

As it turned out he was in the neighborhood anyway on other business.

That's honestly one of the stupidest things I've read on this site. The heads of state should be prohibited from attending. These are GAMES -- not Middle East peace summits. The IOC needs to get over itself and focus on bid leadership and the mayors of the bid cities. That's it. The rest is just a three-ring circus that achieves nothing more than stroking the already inflated egos of a bunch if self-important windbags. It was incredibly gracious of Obama to clear his schedule for the stupid IOC. He has MUCH more important things to do than wasting his time begging these clueless, entitled snobs for the chance to host two weeks of sports.

No, it wasn't arrogant at all. You are totally clueless here. It would have been seen as arrogant if Obama had NOT gone. Every other country sends it's head of state, but the US is above all that? That would not have sat well. As for the scheduling, the guy is the leader of the free world and is a wee bit busy. I'm not at all surprised he couldn't commit to the schedule until the last minute. He wasn't even in Copenhagen 24 hours. Where security is concerned, he's the president of the United States in a post 911 world. You want the president to dignify your event with his presence? You're gonna have to deal with the security. The president of Brazil doesn't have anywhere near as many potential assassins lurking in the shadows as the president of the USA. Regarding Oprah, she was the hit of the delegation. She's a great communicator, internationally known and a great person to stump for Chicago. She absolutely should've been there. That wasn't arrogance, that was just smart. The IOC managed to get the president of the US to come to them, hat in hand, (totally unprecedented) AND they spat on his bid by booting it out first. So no, there was no arrogance at all on the part of the US in any of that. You, sir, are mistaken.

I thought Chicago's presentation sucked, but I didn't think it was arrogant at all. Just amateurish and boring. "We need your Games." That wasn't arrogant in the least. Obama wasn't arrogant either.

Even if some are embarrassed by the statement, there's no way to close Pandora's box now. It's out there. For the time being they'll ride it out and try (unsuccessfully) to save face. Like I said, what they DO matters a lot more than what they SAY.

I can't tell what Bach and company really believe. Yes, they're making stupid public statements, but I think that's because on some level they realize the seriousness of the problem. They may not have owned up to it yet, but I think they must be aware that they need to change. It's hard to know for sure. Agenda 2020 has become very important. If there are no meaningful reforms then we'll know that the IOC is hopeless and I think the Games would certainly be in crisis. However, if there are substantive changes that lighten burdens on bidders and reduce the scale and cost of the Games, that will be encouraging. Actions speak louder than words. We've got a lot of disappointing words right now, but perhaps the actions will be more positive.

The US should say no to those demands, but saying no to the Games is another question. Let's see if the IOC cleans up their act. If they're willing to let the US put on the Games the way the US wants to, it might work. If they're going to be entitled sticks in the mud, then I agree the US shouldn't bid.

Tokyo was definitely the best available choice for 2020. The problem is that the IOC should have already started restructuring the process and soliciting different types of bids that were more fiscally responsible and legacy-minded. Unfortunately they didn't do that. Now it feels like there's an impossible mountain to climb. They should have started reforming the process much earlier. As for LA, the city would do a great job and just saying it would be "f*cked up" is no argument. The thing that worries me is that the US may not go far enough in re-envisioning the Games and may still give the IOC too much of the prodigality and spectacle that they crave. This is NOT the time to kowtow to the IOC.

Tokyo 2020 will be grand and impressive, I have no doubt. It's friendlier government, but I wouldn't expect a frugal, workable reboot of the Games. Look at the stadium alone. Frankly, of the 2020 bidders, Tokyo was always likely to stage the flashiest Games. Plus there's the fact that few people will be able to afford to go to these Games because costs in Tokyo are astronomical and the exchange rates are quite unfavorable.

Bernham: You weren't alive for 1984. You have NO grounds for saying they "involved a bit of ego." You're just assuming that because it was during the Cold War. LA just really wanted to host. They had bid multiple times previously and lost. When they finally got the Games, no one else wanted them. They were not seen as any kind of a windfall or point of pride, but rather an albatross that the rest of the world wanted to avoid. So no, LA84 was not about ego, it was about hosting a great sport festival. If LA cared about ego and international respect, they wouldn't have bid. And NO, the present looks NOTHING like the 80s. Just because the IOC has alienated all but two bidders and is doing a bang up job of shooting themselves in the foot with their present PR campaign, that doesn't mean the world remains unchanged. The US is not going to waltz away with four Olympics in a 22-year period. That's just ridiculous. Only a child with no grasp of history would argue that 2014 looks like the 80s.

Yes. That was a typo. Sorry. Lake Placid, LA, Atlanta, Salt Lake. Except that the ONLY reason Almaty is bidding is because they want to show off their schlong. I actually think American Games have really been about our love for sport. I don't think the US has ever used the Games to puff itself up the way that China and Russia have.

The IOC encouraged the spiral. They only reason they are questioning the prodigality of the Games now is that everyone is abandoning ship. Make no mistake though, they love the lavish spectacle. If that were not true, they would've voted for different hosts and fostered a different type of delivery of Olympic projects.

If I were the IOC, I'd pick LA over Rome in a heartbeat. Italy is still struggling economically and is known for graft and corruption. The three-cycles out of Europe is no argument because now we've got three consecutive Games in Asia and Europe is CLEARLY disenchanted with the IOC. By contrast, the Americans have been bending over backwards to win the IOC's favor. Turning down a third consecutive American bid (from the only one of the top three cities the IOC hasn't already rejected) would alienate the Americans and trample on the good faith they have shown with the revenue deal, renewed leadership, etc. If ever there was a time the IOC needed the US in their corner, this is it. Plus, LA looks very likely to produce fun, innovative, cost-effective and profitable Games. To me it's a no-brainer.

I understand that SOGs are YOUR plan B. But let's be honest, you champion some pretty fringe perspectives. In what world is "more prestigious " not also "more glamorous?" Oscars are more prestigious and more glamorous than Independent Spirit Awards. And why are we even talking about "glamour" as it relates to Olympic Games? This is an international sporting event, not a gala benefit for the Metropolitan Opera. "Glamour" doesn't apply here. That's why I picked a word that made more sense: prestige. You seem to believe only Summer athletes sweat. I'm not sure what world you're living in. Sports are sports, no matter what season holds the competition. Summer Games are much larger, with more sports, more athletes, greater diversity of competitors, and superstar athletes who are far more recognizable and better paid than their Winter counterparts. Historically speaking, the Summer Games play a far bigger role than Winter Games with nearly all the major watersheds in Olympic history occurring at Summer Games, not Winter Games. You prefer Winter Games for your own idiosyncratic personal reasons. That's fine, but please don't act like there is some empirical "correctness" to your position because there isn't. And by the way, why am I off of your ignore list? You put me on with such flamboyant fanfare. I'd just assume you return me to it. LD, the US CANNOT regroup that quickly. Look how many years they've spent preparing for 2024. They're not going to throw something together for 2026 in just a few months. If the US bids for and loses 2024, the soonest they'll bid for Winter Games is 2030. Personally, I think a 2028 Summer bid is more likely.

Because, of course, Winter athletes don't sweat. Just stupid. Uh, the real world. SOGs are clearly more prestigious. No contest. The sun shining on the Acropolis and glinting off the Aegean is pretty magical. Depends on the setting.

Certainly seems probable. I'm ok with that. It will be time to go back to Germany soon, but 2022 would've fit much better in the rotation than 2024. I'm sure we'll see more German Games before too much longer.

There's no problem with the logic at all. The IOC can only work with the polling data they have. What evidence do you have to prove the Kazakhs and Chinese do not want the Games? Just because those countries are not known for free speech does not necessarily mean the IOC's polls are wrong. It certainly doesn't mean those countries are equally opposed to the Games as Norway. That's the huge flaw in your "logic." I fail to see how there is any logic whatsoever to awarding the Games to people who clearly don't want them just because the country allows free speech. What good is free speech if the government ignores its people? "Let's reward Norway's free speech by giving them Olympics that most people don't want." Yeah, that makes sense. I know you derive some sense of identity by playing the iconoclast, but this is just foolish. Get it together.