Jump to content

Opening Ceremony


Recommended Posts

I do not agree with your opinion of Chicago's technical merit at all, but really it doesn't matter why they lost from Obama's perspective.

He is the only sitting US president to attend an IOC session and make a plea on behalf of an American city. For a combination of reasons, that city was eliminated FIRST. This constituted a serious embarrassment to the president that detracted from his air of authority and respect. Even if Chicago had been beaten by Rio later in the vote, it would've looked better. From a political perspective, Chicago's shocking early exit could be interpreted as disrespect for the president. As Gamesbidders, we don't really see it that way, but in an election year the White House will pay attention to probable public perception.

If Obama attended the Games, the commentators would remind millions of tv viewers (and voters) that he had stumped for Chicago and Chicago was summarily dismissed.

I agree that he isn't warm and fuzzy towards the UK, but no matter where these Games were being held, I don't think he'd be in attendance for a variety of reasons -- one of them being the bad taste he still has in his mouth from Copenhagen.

Well, to wade into this one:

It's quite right to say that Obama didn't lose Chicago the games, but as I said at the time, the whole “Is/should Obama going to Copenhagen or not” was a major distraction and sideshow at a time Chicago should have been getting its wider “story” across and did seem to imply (even if it was a fair enough assumption to make after Blair's and Putin's IOC performances) that famous personalities meant more than solid bid plans or rotation or legacy in getting starry-eyed IOC members to vote for you. It also carried the implication that Chicago wasn't confident enough of its bid to win without some celebrity help. I thought and said at the time that after the criticism the IOC got over Blair's and Putin's roles in their respective hosting wins, the IOC was more likely than not to try to make a point that they weren't going to be swayed by celebrity.

Anecdotally, Obama's whistle-stop visit (unlike Blair's and Putin's sustained lobbying), and the huge security hoopla that goes around a POTUS visit, also didn't win friends among IOC members who were pissed off at being forced to wait and go through stringent security in order to get into their own meeting. Whether it lost Chicago any votes, we'll never know, but I'm prepared to think it may have made the difference between first out and surviving a few more rounds.

Anyway, at the end of the day, the whole Obama in Copenhagen saga was a sideshow he couldn't win. He was going to be damned if he didn't go (and so would be blamed for the loss) or damned if he did (and they lost as happened, and his influence and lobbying thus come under criticism). Looks like it's almost the same with going to London's OC - he's slammed like here if he's not going, but leaving himself open for criticism in an election campaign if he does swan off to a carnival in the UK.

As to whether or not he likes the UK or France better ... you're all wrong! He told us in Oz when he was here last year that WE were the US's closest ally!!!

:wub::lol::rolleyes:

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's disrespectful (why should those athletes get more respect than others anyway), but I do prefer the tradition of staging the ceremonies in the athletics venue because it gives a sense of more continuity and ties the spectacle more directly to the competition. Yes there is competition at Maracana, but football is hardly one of the marquee sports of the Games and one medal awarded in Maracana pales in comparison to the numbers that will be awarded during the full week of competition at the athletics venue. Plus you lose our on having the flame in the background of those sports. I understand why Rio is doing it this way, but I like the traditional approach. It has nothing to do with respecting track athletes though.

Fair enough, I've got nothing wrong with anybody who just expresses a personal opinion that they'd prefer a traditional ceremony - everyone's got their personal likes and dislikes. Just the histrionics that certain members put on that it was basically the end of the world and the Olympics as we know them that such a tweak to tradition was even considered, much less approved. And, yes, "disrespect" to track and field athletes was one of the arguments put forth by more than a few whiners.

Personally, it doesn't affect my enjoyment or judgement of a games or a ceremony where the ceremonies are held or where the cauldron is located - I'd hardly notice it. If anything, I wouldn't mind seeing a bit of daring or innovation - I'd have been quite happy to see Athens' OC at the Panathinaiko, or Rio to do it at the Sambadromo to add some flavour. One thing I'm actually liking about Istanbul is the idea of a Bosporus ceremony location (though I agree, not sure of how viable it would be).

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate the UK media, and what it has become. As Lee said, they seem to think that they have the right to speak on behalf of the nation and they blow the smallest of issues way beyond proportion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an objectively known fact Madrid and Tokyo had superior technical bids to Chicago hence my post. The IOC were the ones who said that, not me. Both Tokyo and Madrid were marked higher with their respective technical bids. There's nothing to disagree with on that point since I was merely relaying a fact.

Widely accepted by whom? You're confusing fact with opinion and this is not the thread for it anyway. There are many who would contest your assertion that Chicago trailed both Tokyo and Madrid technically. The Evaluation Report can hardly be considered unbiased either. Dredge up a 2016 thread if you want to get into this again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, the only reason I brought up the breach of protocol was in reference to the Obamas not being invited to the Royal Wedding. I doubt the rest of Britain cares much, but apparently the Queen was offended. It's disappointing and a bit embarrassing to me that the Obamas didn't conduct themselves more carefully, but it's not going to destroy anything. I can see where they wouldn't be eager to attend London Olympics though.

After Copenhagen, I think it will be awkward even for Michelle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CHicago did have cycling scheduled for Madison, Wisconsin so that probably is what the weakness was.

I think that was the least of their worries.I think the USOC's proposed Olympic TV network, the ongoing revenue sharing flak and four US games since 1980 had far more to do with its los than a single venue (which the IOC would have just told them to change if Chicago had won and they really didn't like it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CHicago did have cycling scheduled for Madison, Wisconsin so that probably is what the weakness was.

And Tokyo had a stasium that was unsaid in an emergency. There are so many technical considerations that it's impossible to develop a rubric that objectively and accurately weights everything. I know the IOC tries, but at the end of the day a subjective element has to enter the picture. It's not like a race where someone runs quantifiably faster than someone else. My sense of the 2016 race was that Tokyo, Madrid, and Chicago all had very strong technical bids and that Rio lagged behind, though this imbalance was noticeably shaded in the Evaluation Report.

I'm not following my own advice though. This isn't the thread for rehashing 2016...

Arrgh. Read "And Tokyo had a stadium that was unsafe in an emergency."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, not to continue getting this thread completely off topic, but as a person who followed Chicago's bid more than most people on this forum, it is true that in the application report Chicago scored third behind Madrid and Tokyo. But during the campaign, weaknesses were revealed about Madrid and Tokyo (like the small amount of land for the OV in Tokyo, or confusing management structure for Madrid), and Chicago seemed to improve its communication with the IOC about venues and infrastructure, but no bid city was perfect. At the end of the day, all of that really didn't matter, because Rio, with the lowest initial technical score out of the four candidate cities won handily. We all know that the new horizon argument was too strong to succumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Tokyo had a stasium that was unsaid in an emergency. There are so many technical considerations that it's impossible to develop a rubric that objectively and accurately weights everything. I know the IOC tries, but at the end of the day a subjective element has to enter the picture. It's not like a race where someone runs quantifiably faster than someone else. My sense of the 2016 race was that Tokyo, Madrid, and Chicago all had very strong technical bids and that Rio lagged behind, though this imbalance was noticeably shaded in the Evaluation Report.

I'm not following my own advice though. This isn't the thread for rehashing 2016...

Arrgh. Read "And Tokyo had a stadium that was unsafe in an emergency."

See what I mean most people don't consider even the Madison venue to be a weakness. Chicago probably would have won if it wasn't for the USOC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See what I mean most people don't consider even the Madison venue to be a weakness. Chicago probably would have won if it wasn't for the USOC

I really think that once Rio hit the minimum benchmark of readiness that it was a done deal and no bid could beat them. I do think the USOC is primarily to blame for the early exit, but the the IOC sure didn't pull their punches either. It was an ugly vote that definitely did some damage. Yes, it was a wake-up call for the US, but it was also an insult from the IOC and relations will continue to be "delicate" for a while.

But! We must let our good Londoners have their thread back! I have no doubt that there will be many wonderful aspects of the OC and I really don't see Obama's absence showing up on the radar in the grand scheme of things.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Widely accepted by whom? You're confusing fact with opinion and this is not the thread for it anyway. There are many who would contest your assertion that Chicago trailed both Tokyo and Madrid technically. The Evaluation Report can hardly be considered unbiased either. Dredge up a 2016 thread if you want to get into this again.

Widely accepted by whom? Em, that little thing called the IOC which em, stated quite clearly that Tokyo and Madrid had technically superior bids to Chicago hence why they were scored higher during the evaluation phase. That's a FACT whether you like that or not. I'm not confusing anything. For the sake of your nationalistic American fantasies, you're attempting to confuse because it unnerves you no-end that an American city was outperformed.The 2016 reports are 'bias'. I suppose your contrarian views aren't...........

I would just like to clear up your mistake for you (no need to thank me Athensfan): Stating that Chicago had a technically weaker bid than Madrid/Tokyo isn't 'my' assertion. It was the IOC who made that claim. Got a beef, go moan to them.

P.S Don't say 'it's not the thread for this' aiming it at me when you're also commenting on the issue to which you deem inappropriate. Just sayin'.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an FYI oaky, the Evaluation Commission Report does not give scores. The Working Group Report on the applicants is what gave scores. They compiled their info without actually visiting the cities, and it was based on answers to the applicant questionnaire. A little fact, but not that important.

Anyway, Chicago's lower scores early on is not what hurt their bid, it was the plethora of other things that hurt them the most... USOC issues, TV Network, Atlanta '96 and SLC '02, questions on financial guarantees and the Obama drama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Widely accepted by whom? Em, that little thing called the IOC which em, stated quite clearly that Tokyo and Madrid had technically superior bids to Chicago hence why they were scored higher during the evaluation phase. That's a FACT whether you like that or not. I'm not confusing anything. For the sake of your nationalistic American fantasies, you're attempting to confuse because it unnerves you no-end that an American city was outperformed.The 2016 reports are 'bias'. I suppose your contrarian views aren't...........

I would just like to clear up your mistake for you (no need to thank me Athensfan): Stating that Chicago had a technically weaker bid than Madrid/Tokyo isn't 'my' assertion. It was the IOC who made that claim. Got a beef, go moan to them.

P.S Don't say 'it's not the thread for this' aiming it at me when you're also commenting on the issue to which you deem inappropriate. Just sayin'.....

Of course the EC report said that. It's a fact that they said it. It's not a fact that it's true (which was your original assertion) and I have not made a mistake here.

Any report that glosses over Rio's crime and questions Chicago's transportation has to be taken with more than a grain of salt. Plus the IOC's biggest concern about Chicago was the government guarantees which were resolved after the report came out.

I keep trying to get away from this topic. Shall we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an FYI oaky, the Evaluation Commission Report does not give scores. The Working Group Report on the applicants is what gave scores. They compiled their info without actually visiting the cities, and it was based on answers to the applicant questionnaire. A little fact, but not that important.

Anyway, Chicago's lower scores early on is not what hurt their bid, it was the plethora of other things that hurt them the most... USOC issues, TV Network, Atlanta '96 and SLC '02, questions on financial guarantees and the Obama drama.

The working group report is an evaluation report in as far it appraises relative merits of the various bids for the IOC.I mean, it isn't a working group established for the merits of FIFA, is it? I never said the evaluation commission per se gave the scores. I said an evaluation in general came to the aforementioned conclusion. This happens under the 'jurisdiction' if you like of the IOC and they then make their decisions based off of the info collected ensuring the shortlisted bids etc have the bare essential capacity to stage the games. I understand ur pedantry, but with regards the 2016 race, both Tokyo and Madrid were marked higher with regards the relative strengths of their technical bids. I'm not saying that -- the IOC is.They accepted the findings.

So, no need for any 'FYIs' since my post wasn't incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the EC report said that. It's a fact that they said it. It's not a fact that it's true (which was your original assertion) and I have not made a mistake here.

Any report that glosses over Rio's crime and questions Chicago's transportation has to be taken with more than a grain of salt. Plus the IOC's biggest concern about Chicago was the government guarantees which were resolved after the report came out.

I keep trying to get away from this topic. Shall we?

If you wish to 'get away' from the topic please stop LYING about what I said. People have eyesight you know and can read a few pages back to what I ACTUALLY wrote.I made a fairly off the cuff point in a wider post about the relevant issues of Obama not attending the London games. I gave my opinion on that issue like many have.

This is my original post:

Chicago lost the 2016 bid because they were not a new frontier and in relation to Tokyo and Madrid, their bid, in technical terms, was far weaker. They didn't deserve to be awarded the Olympic games.

You retorted:

I do not agree with your opinion of Chicago's technical merit at all, but really it doesn't matter why they lost from Obama's perspective.

So Athensfan, please stop trying to tell me what my opinion/assertion is when frankly, I'm the only authority on what I think. I pointed out to you clearly that I wasn't expressing a personal opinion but rather that endorsed by the IOC.The above quote by me and my subsequent posts afterwards clearly show I was relaying the known fact, as per the IOC evaluations.You or I didn't conduct the evaluations -- thus any info is drawn from those that did. My point is and remains that Obama snubbing the the IOC in retaliation to supposed IOC humiliation is silly since it wasn't Chicago's moral right to win the 2016 games and in actual fact, according to the IOC, 2 bids -- Madrid and Tokyo-- had technically superior bids anyway along with the exotic, new frontier city of Rio.So, actually, the result wasn;t all that surprising.

Now, if you wish to discuss this further, you are free to dm me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Widely accepted by whom? Em, that little thing called the IOC which em, stated quite clearly that Tokyo and Madrid had technically superior bids to Chicago hence why they were scored higher during the evaluation phase. That's a FACT whether you like that or not. I'm not confusing anything. For the sake of your nationalistic American fantasies, you're attempting to confuse because it unnerves you no-end that an American city was outperformed.The 2016 reports are 'bias'. I suppose your contrarian views aren't...........

I would just like to clear up your mistake for you (no need to thank me Athensfan): Stating that Chicago had a technically weaker bid than Madrid/Tokyo isn't 'my' assertion. It was the IOC who made that claim. Got a beef, go moan to them.

P.S Don't say 'it's not the thread for this' aiming it at me when you're also commenting on the issue to which you deem inappropriate. Just sayin'.....

You also wrote the above. I think my paraphrase summarizes it well. If anything I minimized your dismissive, insulting tone

In the interest of preserving the integrity of this thread, I'll just say that whatever you think must be right. I totally disagree with you on this, but I'm over it. LET IT GO. Or at least take it to a thread where it belongs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You also wrote the above. I think my paraphrase summarizes it well. If anything I minimized your dismissive, insulting tone

In the interest of preserving the integrity of this thread, I'll just say that whatever you think must be right. I totally disagree with you on this, but I'm over it. LET IT GO. Or at least take it to a thread where it belongs.

I've sent you a DM Athensfan.

P.S. Your paraphrase didn't summarise anything well since you were commenting on my original post which I showed you misconstrued. That post above is not my original post as you well know -- it's a post made several posts after my original one.And it merely reiterates the truth of what I repeatedly said : the IOC accepted the findings that Chicago had the third best technical bid (anyone can dispute those findings). That is all. That's what I relayed too.That's not 'my' opinion. That's a fact/truth/assertion by the IOC. They accepted it. Not me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...