Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Colonel Iredale

Iraq Banned From Beijing Olympics

Recommended Posts

I agree Citius with everything you say. The IOC is a lot like FIFA when it comes to government interference of national sports in a country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is "nice" to see that there are negotiations, but why is the Iraqi government involved?

That's because the Iraqi gov't would still have to appoint officials that the IOC would be comfortable with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Iraqi people want to see their athletes in the Olympics and nothing's wrong with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Iraqi people want to see their athletes in the Olympics and nothing's wrong with that.

OK~China trying their best PR efforts between Iraqi government and IOC at the moment, Iraqi track&field athletes might be able to attend the games

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
should negotiations fail, will anyone really miss iraq in beijing?

I'd certainly do. Just like I'd miss any other country whose athletes were banned because of the mistakes of their officials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quick question: why are they negotiating in Geneva and not Lausanne?

Maybe because it's closer to the airport (Lausanne doesn't have more than a small aerodrome)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea Geneva's airport is a nice size, I flew in there from Rome a few weeks ago.....that's what I figured but was just wondering...I thought maybe it had something to do with the UN headquarters being there or something perhaps

Edited by SOlympiadsW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yea Geneva's airport is a nice size, I flew in there from Rome a few weeks ago.....that's what I figured but was just wondering...I thought maybe it had something to do with the UN headquarters being there or something perhaps

Perhaps the Iraqis wanted a more neutral site rather than have it appear they, a sovereign gov't, was making a pilgrimage to Lausanne -- hat in hand. I recall a 1966(?) summit meeting between Kosygin and Lyndon Johnson that took place in Glassboro, New Jersey, because it was the midway point between Washington, DC, and New York City where Kosygin happened to be, having addressed the United Nations that fall. See, in diplomacy, appearances are everything.

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am bringing this thread back up because I wanted to comment on how hyper-HYPOCRITICAL the IOC is...

Position: it does NOT want government interference in picking who will constitute the NOC. However, when it seeks a host to stage its parties, it wants guarantees and commitments from the STATE where the Games will be held, to the point of carte blanche access to their funds. Huh? This does NOT compute. And it sort of frowns upon the private funding that the USOC goes by so that any Olympic Games in the US will ATTEMPT NOT to depend on taxes and other federal funds.

But the IOC's basic stance is PURE HYPOCRISY!! How can it want independence from gov't YET ask gov'ts to spend for its extravaganzas? You can't have it both ways. You can't have your cake and eat it too!! :angry:

I think I will write a letter to Mr. ROgge and put him on the spot. Or better yet, does anyone know what the main Lausanne newspaper is -- and if they accept Letters to the Editor written in English?

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I will write a letter to Mr. ROgge and put him on the spot. Or better yet, does anyone know what the Lausanne newspaper is -- and if they accept Letters to the Editor written in English?

Obviously the two main newspapers of Lausanne are 24 Heures and Le Matin. And I'd simply give it a try with an English letter. Or you ask one of your friends or someone in this forum (not me, since my French isn't good enough ;)) to translate your letter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am bringing this thread back up because I wanted to comment on how hyper-HYPOCRITICAL the IOC is...

Position: it does NOT want government interference in picking who will constitute the NOC. However, when it seeks a host to stage its parties, it wants guarantees and commitments from the STATE where the Games will be held, to the point of carte blanche access to their funds. Huh? This does NOT compute. And it sort of frowns upon the private funding that the USOC goes by so that any Olympic Games in the US will ATTEMPT NOT to depend on taxes and other federal funds.

But the IOC's basic stance is PURE HYPOCRISY!! How can it want independence from gov't YET ask gov'ts to spend for its extravaganzas? You can't have it both ways. You can't have your cake and eat it too!! :angry:

Baron, Baron,

Once again, scr*wing up a perfectly valid first point with a very ill-informed second one...

Yeap, except for very few countries (the USA being one of them as the USOC is completely independent from the government) no government interference with the NOC is at best wishful thinking, at worst pure hypocrisy: just look at how may NOC leaders are either government members or closely associated with a government. Likewise, when a minister states Games medals results for a national team, it could be considered as interference...

But your second point:

  • First of all, contrary to what your post could imply, the IOC does not get any access (and certainly no "carte blanche") to public funds. The IOC, thank God, does not get a nickel of public money.
  • Second, the IOC requires financial guarantees to:
    - ensure the financing of all major capital infrastructure investments required to deliver the Olympic Games,
    - cover a potential economic shortfall of the OCOG.
    So, again, no "carte blanche" but a precise perimeter for the required guarantees.
  • Third, where should the guarantees come from. Let's see what the Olympic Charter Rule 37, article 6 says: "Any Candidate City shall offer such financial guarantees as considered satisfactory by the IOC Executive Board. Such guarantees may be given by the city itself, local, regional or national public collectivities, the State or other third parties."
    So the guarantees do not have to come from public collectivities.

I will also add that:

- Atlanta and Salt Lake were both awarded the Games without a guarantee covering any shortfall of the OCOG,

- NYC and Chicago were both made candidate cities with no public guarantee covering any shortfall of the OCOG. NYC had a guarantee covering up to $462 million shortfall for the OCOG and NYC 2012 budget was deemed realist by the Evaluation Commission,

- no OCOG in recent history has ever come up with a shortfall so there is not much risk at covering a potential shortfall.

If anything, the guarantees required by the IOC have the merit of making the candidate cities absolutely aware of the financial commitment that comes with staging the Games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, it's official: the Iraqi NOC will take part in Beijing. 2 athletes will compete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baron, Baron,

Once again, scr*wing up a perfectly valid first point with a very ill-informed second one...

Yeap, except for very few countries (the USA being one of them as the USOC is completely independent from the government) no government interference with the NOC is at best wishful thinking, at worst pure hypocrisy: just look at how may NOC leaders are either government members or closely associated with a government. Likewise, when a minister states Games medals results for a national team, it could be considered as interference...

But your second point:

  • First of all, contrary to what your post could imply, the IOC does not get any access (and certainly no "carte blanche") to public funds. The IOC, thank God, does not get a nickel of public money.
  • Second, the IOC requires financial guarantees to:
    - ensure the financing of all major capital infrastructure investments required to deliver the Olympic Games,
    - cover a potential economic shortfall of the OCOG.
    So, again, no "carte blanche" but a precise perimeter for the required guarantees.
  • Third, where should the guarantees come from. Let's see what the Olympic Charter Rule 37, article 6 says: "Any Candidate City shall offer such financial guarantees as considered satisfactory by the IOC Executive Board. Such guarantees may be given by the city itself, local, regional or national public collectivities, the State or other third parties."
    So the guarantees do not have to come from public collectivities.

I will also add that:

- Atlanta and Salt Lake were both awarded the Games without a guarantee covering any shortfall of the OCOG,

- NYC and Chicago were both made candidate cities with no public guarantee covering any shortfall of the OCOG. NYC had a guarantee covering up to $462 million shortfall for the OCOG and NYC 2012 budget was deemed realist by the Evaluation Commission,

- no OCOG in recent history has ever come up with a shortfall so there is not much risk at covering a potential shortfall.

If anything, the guarantees required by the IOC have the merit of making the candidate cities absolutely aware of the financial commitment that comes with staging the Games.

You're nitpicking here, jeremie. (Actually, my US angle to it is just secondary.)

My main point is the IOC maintains a double-standard. The IOC member is NOT your country's rep to the IOC, but the IOC's rep to your country. And then, as evidenced by this recent case in Iraq, "... you cannot pick and choose whom you want in the NOC; it must pass our vetting..." YET when it comes to awarding and financing of an Olympic Games, who else will pick up the tab and the shortfall -- why? The gov't of the sucker country?!! Who else is footing the final $40 billion bill for Peking 2008? Don't tell me it's the Beijing Chamber of Commerce or the Sino-American Friendship Society!!

Whether or not a shortfall occurs is beside the point. It's the principle of the thing. And I don't know what asking an institution or a gov't to commit, on PAPER no less, but a HUGE imposition.

Don't appoint people we didn't vet, but we'll call on you to help cover our PARTY!! What happened to quid pro quo? Sheer hypocrisy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news that they have been let in... although 5 members wont be going as their spots have be redistributed to other competitors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iraq is BACK!

I feel bad for the athletes who were kicked out but at least Iraq will have presence in Beijing! You guys are awesome... thanks for standing by our athletes!

By the way, the Iraqi minister of youth and sports might be fired by the end of this week. I think the IOC needs to put athletes before any rules.

Just one more thing... why the IOC has no issue with many NOCs that discriminate against women? Culture and religion have nothing to do with discrimination!

Banned from the Olympics!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're nitpicking here, jeremie. (Actually, my US angle to it is just secondary.)

My main point is the IOC maintains a double-standard. The IOC member is NOT your country's rep to the IOC, but the IOC's rep to your country. And then, as evidenced by this recent case in Iraq, "... you cannot pick and choose whom you want in the NOC; it must pass our vetting..." YET when it comes to awarding and financing of an Olympic Games, who else will pick up the tab and the shortfall -- why? The gov't of the sucker country?!! Who else is footing the final $40 billion bill for Peking 2008? Don't tell me it's the Beijing Chamber of Commerce or the Sino-American Friendship Society!!

Whether or not a shortfall occurs is beside the point. It's the principle of the thing. And I don't know what asking an institution or a gov't to commit, on PAPER no less, but a HUGE imposition.

Don't appoint people we didn't vet, but we'll call on you to help cover our PARTY!! What happened to quid pro quo? Sheer hypocrisy.

LOL, I was not expecting to change your mind because:

1- You have the absolute truth on everything,

2- See point number 1.

The truth, in the real word, is the IOC is not asking for what you claim it asks, the US has proven that it is possible to stage a Games without raising taxes, no one forces anyone to bid for the Games, if a government choses to invest massively in infrastructure in relation to the Games it is its choice, the IOC has accepted cost saving money measures proposed by VANOC and LOCOG (NHL sized rink for Vancouver, relocation of Fencing to Excel for London...).

BTW, tt's standard business practice to request financial guarantees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The truth, in the real word, is the IOC is not asking for what you claim it asks, the US has proven that it is possible to stage a Games without raising taxes, no one forces anyone to bid for the Games, if a government choses to invest massively in infrastructure in relation to the Games it is its choice, the IOC has accepted cost saving money measures proposed by VANOC and LOCOG (NHL sized rink for Vancouver, relocation of Fencing to Excel for London...).

Granted. It's just the way the IOC structures their demands that gets me. And now it becomes more relevant to the case of the US.

As you well know, the USOC's desire is to exist independently, so indeed it can be true to the Olympic spirit -- free and unbeholden to Washington -- and probably the only such case in the world. Yet, the IOC makes US bids a little more difficult to assemble because of the little coda -- about the gov't covering the shortfall; and also, is now strangling the lifeblood of the USOC's existence: hoping to reduce the USOC's share of TV rights from the US market, so the IOC's share is more in line with the share it gets from other countries who get majority funding from their gov'ts. And then dangling this sword of Damocles over the heads of US bids in that: oh, the USOC's firmness in getting a bigger piece of the pie makes the Americans very greedy!! My foot!!

Yet the IOC advocates 'independence' and non-interference from the gov'ts!?! How will this be possible if you're reducing the source of independent funding and uncompromised existence?? The IOC really needs to undertake a serious self-exam and take a long, hard look in the mirror at itself and its soul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...