Jump to content

What You Must Know About Rio´s Bid


Recommended Posts

First of all, I would love to see Rio host, but I think they just need to wait a decade or two to get things in order more. Why do they need to host just 2 years after World Cup?

I see many of you are comparing Rio to Beijing, and trying to make it sound good. In my opinion, Beijing was not a good example for how to host. They built walls on their streets to hide the poor, much like Rio has done in the favelas. Both countries have a big problem in disproportionate wealth. Sure, Rio looks nice in photos, but behind the pictures is a very ugly Brazil that needs to improve before the world is invited to come in.

You don't think Atlanta 1996 didn't hide their public housing problems ? What about LA and what happened in the 1960s with the WATTS riots and then repeated in the 1990's the Rodney King Riots ? Comptom or East LA is not a picture that many people saw during the LA 84 games.

Thomas I have been to LA, Atlanta and Rio and they equally have their good and bad points. Gee at least people in Rio don't have to worry about sewage outfalls like they do along certain parts of the coast around Southern California preventing them from swimming in parts of the Pacific Ocean !!!!

Wait a Decade or Two ? Strike when you have multiple stadia of fifa World cup standard that will be used for the Olympic Tournament !!!! Strike when you have the upgraded transportation Capacity for the 2014 Cup !!!

Beijing from a friend of mine Standpoint as a former Athlete was off the charts for hosting the 2008 games . He won gold in Sydney 2000 and was a competitor at athens 2004. Both combined he said could not compare with Beijing 2008.

Rio and Madrid are Candidate cities way ahead of the curve to host in regards to venues they have recently built.

Wait 20 years ? for what westerners to live in denial that developing countries are kicking their collective butts ?

Jim jones

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply
That's a huge number. It really is. So that doesn't calm my the concerns at all.

But I'm not one of those who says, because there are poor people Rio shouldn't host. So don't worry on that front.

I'm one of those who says, if Rio hosts it ought to have a long-term positive impact for everyone. If this is seen to be acheived it will ease the feeling of discomfort many of us share at seeing a sporting extravaganza in a city with such contrasts in wealth.

So whilst I wouldn't rule Rio out because of its slums, nor will I ignore Rio's biggest problems as how they are dealt with will determine how much I can and will support a Rio Games. I don't think that's an unfair stance.

That said I do and always have supported Chicago, so all this is hopefully only hyopthetical from my point of view. ^_^

Well hey be very comforted in the Fact that Rio De Janeiro will not be importing Cheap Labor from Eastern Europe.

Jim jones

Link to post
Share on other sites
You seem to know nothing of your own country, since you own government says 31% of your fellow Brazilians live below the poverty line.
And Ken ... Funny how your own posts discredit your statements.

Chill out, mate...

But if one of us is making a mess with the numbers I don't think it's me.

First you say 1/3 live below the poverty line.

Then I say i) 31% are poor, ii) 13% are below the poverty line (= 13% in extreme poverty, favela-like) and iii) conjecture 50+% are middle class.

And out of the blue you freak out for God-knows-why.

I just say it's wrong to write down that 31% live below the poverty line as you did.

You misinterprete the numbers from my perspective.

I don't see how my own posts discredit my statements but feel free to elaborate more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chill out, mate...

But if one of us is making a mess with the numbers I don't think it's me.

First you say 1/3 live below the poverty line.

Then I say i) 31% are poor, ii) 13% are below the poverty line (= 13% in extreme poverty, favela-like) and iii) conjecture 50+% are middle class.

And out of the blue you freak out for God-knows-why.

I just say it's wrong to write down that 31% live below the poverty line as you did.

You misinterprete the numbers from my perspective.

I don't see how my own posts discredit my statements but feel free to elaborate more.

Official government statistics and World Bank numbers say that 31% of the population is below the poverty line. You are an f-ing moron to think its 13% since Britain's is almost 15%, and the US's is in the same neighborhood as well.

Extreme poverty is, by UN definition, is living on less then 1.25 a day, your statistic says that 13% of Brazilians

or 26 million people in Brazil live on under 400 dollars a year. That does not account for all the poverty

Percent_poverty_world_map.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do want Rio to host the Games -- I might even travel to them -- but it does seem like 2016 is too soon. The Brazilian government is willing to throw billions of dollars at the Olympics, but nearly a third of the country lives in poverty. It would be irresponsible of the IOC to send the Games to Brazil under these conditions. If the IOC does elect Brazil, they have no business claiming that they want to make the Games less expensive and more accessible. Brazil's bid is by far the most expensive of all the candidates and of the four finalists, Brazil is arguably the country that can least afford the Olympics. The IOC should not turn a blind eye to this issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I really do want Rio to host the Games -- I might even travel to them -- but it does seem like 2016 is too soon. The Brazilian government is willing to throw billions of dollars at the Olympics, but nearly a third of the country lives in poverty. It would be irresponsible of the IOC to send the Games to Brazil under these conditions. If the IOC does elect Brazil, they have no business claiming that they want to make the Games less expensive and more accessible. Brazil's bid is by far the most expensive of all the candidates and of the four finalists, Brazil is arguably the country that can least afford the Olympics. The IOC should not turn a blind eye to this issue.

Ironically, the most expensive bid has won more often then not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Using this argument against Rio is not particularly a fair one. Beijing spent BILLIONS, UPON BILLIONS for their Olympic Games, making them the most expensive Olympics to date. Billions that could've been used more wisely to improve the lives of the everyday Chinese, but the IOC didn't care. I think the IOC has already been "irresponsible" in that aspect. Sochi is another example. Likely to be the most expensive Winter Olympic Games to date in a country where the citizens hardly are equal. If people want to point out Brazil's inequalities, fine. But lets not turn a "blind eye" at the other countries that have already hosted/gonna host with bad human records, cause it makes the argument laughable, not to mention hypocritical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Official government statistics and World Bank numbers say that 31% of the population is below the poverty line. You are an f-ing moron to think its 13% since Britain's is almost 15%, and the US's is in the same neighborhood as well.

Extreme poverty is, by UN definition, is living on less then 1.25 a day, your statistic says that 13% of Brazilians

or 26 million people in Brazil live on under 400 dollars a year. That does not account for all the poverty

Percent_poverty_world_map.png

According to the UNDP, Brazil have 7.8% of the population living under 1.25 dollar a day (bellow poverty line) and 18.3% living under 2.0 dollar a day (poverty).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Percent_poverty_world_map.png

Look, a coloured map with wrong information...

I posted here a Brazilian Govt. press release with 18% numbers... Dont say government numbers, you will be a liar...

BUT THE HELL, THIS MATTERS TO CHOOSE A BID? THE HISTORY SHOWS:'

NO!

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I can't believe either that US has 12% of its poblation BELOW poverty line... Maybe 12% in poverty, but no below povery line...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Official government statistics and World Bank numbers say that 31% of the population is below the poverty line. You are an f-ing moron to think its 13% since Britain's is almost 15%, and the US's is in the same neighborhood as well.

Extreme poverty is, by UN definition, is living on less then 1.25 a day, your statistic says that 13% of Brazilians

or 26 million people in Brazil live on under 400 dollars a year. That does not account for all the poverty

Percent_poverty_world_map.png

Oi-oi-oi...

I've got no clue why you behave like this. I assume people who join the Forum will know how to debate.

No need to use strong language, all right?

Again, I think you make wrong use of the numbers.

Remember, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I did not say Brazil has less poor people than Britain.

I say Brazil has 13% below the poverty line, 31% living in poverty.

Whereas in t

Link to post
Share on other sites
Official government statistics and World Bank numbers say that 31% of the population is below the poverty line. You are an f-ing moron to think its 13% since Britain's is almost 15%, and the US's is in the same neighborhood as well.

Extreme poverty is, by UN definition, is living on less then 1.25 a day, your statistic says that 13% of Brazilians

or 26 million people in Brazil live on under 400 dollars a year. That does not account for all the poverty

Percent_poverty_world_map.png

Oi-oi-oi...

I've got no clue why you behave like this. I assume people who join the Forum will know how to debate.

No need to use strong language, all right?

Again, I think you make wrong use of the numbers.

Remember, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I did not say Brazil has less poor people than Britain.

I say Brazil has 13% below the poverty line, 31% living in poverty.

Whereas in the UK there's essentially no one below the poverty line and around 15% living in poverty.

Considerable difference. Especially in absolute values.

And the map you show is also odd.

Have you compared Brazil to India or China there (just an example)?

I wonder how the CIA got this numbers, but UN figures reinforce my statements.

File%3a%50ercentage_population_living_on_less_than_1_dollar_day_2007-2008.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Percenta...y_2007-2008.png

No more "You are an f-ing moron", ok?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Using this argument against Rio is not particularly a fair one. Beijing spent BILLIONS, UPON BILLIONS for their Olympic Games, making them the most expensive Olympics to date. Billions that could've been used more wisely to improve the lives of the everyday Chinese, but the IOC didn't care. I think the IOC has already been "irresponsible" in that aspect. Sochi is another example. Likely to be the most expensive Winter Olympic Games to date in a country where the citizens hardly are equal. If people want to point out Brazil's inequalities, fine. But lets not turn a "blind eye" at the other countries that have already hosted/gonna host with bad human records, cause it makes the argument laughable, not to mention hypocritical.

Well this is what I have said pretty much . If you are going to use poverty as a yardstick then no place would host because there is always someone at the bottom of the economic ladder . Once you get past that bogus poverty excuse which is only used for Western Countries to Deny a Brazil or China the games then you should look at the finances of the Host country.

If you have to borrow for the games when you have double digit Debt to GDP Ratios then you indeed should not be hosting the games. THe UK and Japan with rates well into the Double Digits and triple respectively. Canada would be hosting Games as would Spain , Russia , China , Brazil.

The UK has had Personal Debt to GDP greater then the Government debt in the past two years. The citizens of the Uk may want to think they are rich but they are in for great pain in the future and Hosting sports festivals for the 3rd time in many cases is compounding problems from the UK economy not improving them. Every Country that has hosted the Summer Games with the exception of two have had economic down turns after the games for their national economies.

Beijing 2008 could not avoid a Global downturn but most are domestic in nature.

Jim jones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take those glasses off Jonezzz. That you don't want to recognise or discuss the differences between a city where 17% of people live in favelas, and a city like London where there is some relative poverty just about sums up your fvcked up way of thinking. Concerns about Rio having a large percentage of true poverty, whilst holding the world's most expensive sporting event, are perfectly legitimate and to simply say "well, all countries have poor people" is not helpful to anyone, or to this discussion.

Nobody would be comfortable with somewhere like Sudan hosting, even if they could stump up the money. Yet people don't generally have a problem with countries like Russia hosting where there are also very poor people. This proves what is patently obvious to everyone else but you Jonezzz; that's it's the level and spread of poverty in a potential host which concern people, not merely the fact that it exists.

Now, you have to try to draw the line somewhere and that fact that this is such a hot discussion with people on either side, suggests to me that Rio straddles the line. Some think it would be wrong for the IOC to award the Games to a country with its levels of poverty, others think it matters less and the IOC shouldn't be concerned with these things. And others (including myself) have no problem with Rio getting the Games as long as long-term good comes from them. But whatever their point of view everyone else here sees that this is a relevent topic of discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And I can't believe either that US has 12% of its poblation BELOW poverty line... Maybe 12% in poverty, but no below povery line...

Statements like this show that you are an idiot that doesn't know what you are talking about. The poverty line determines poverty. If your income is above the poverty line you are not in poverty, if you your income is below the poverty line you are in poverty. The poverty line is a measure of being able to support yourself/your family unit by providing the most basic necessities of life. Shelter, food, health care and education. It is not a group of itself, it is the measurement. The poverty line is a statistic individual to each nation that is the necessary amount of money required for provide for yourself the basics of life. If you do not make this amount you are in poverty. For instance the poverty line in the US for an individual is roughly 11,000 dollars, for a family of 4 22,500.

I don't know what figures China supplied for that map, but less than 10 per cent?????????

Chinese statistics are notoriously misrepresented. But also because of the type of government in China many necessities are far easier to come by for far less money. For instance basic health care in china costs fractions of what it does in other areas and the huge amount of subsistence farming meanings that many Chinese are poor but still have the means to provide for themselves and their families.

Oi-oi-oi...

I've got no clue why you behave like this. I assume people who join the Forum will know how to debate.

No need to use strong language, all right?

Again, I think you make wrong use of the numbers.

Remember, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I did not say Brazil has less poor people than Britain.

I say Brazil has 13% below the poverty line, 31% living in poverty.

Whereas in t

Living in poverty is being below the poverty line you f-ing moron. If you have nothing intelligent to say then shut up. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

And if you say that 13% of Brazilians live below the poverty line and 14.8% of Brits live below the poverty line by their standards and their government statistics then you are saying that there are fewer Brazilians living in poverty then in Britain. But I digress, with idiots like you and danny there is no point arguing about things that are far above your level of comprehension.

And Rob don't pay attention to Jones, he's just mad that my posts put poverty in his paradise at over 60%

And I'm done, the definition of insanity is to do the same thing and expect a different result and there will never be a different result coming for people that have no idea what they are talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloody hell.

Stupid. Rude. And stubborn.

==================

Statements like this show that you are an idiot that doesn't know what you are talking about. The poverty line determines poverty. If your income is above the poverty line you are not in poverty, if you your income is below the poverty line you are in poverty. The poverty line is a measure of being able to support yourself/your family unit by providing the most basic necessities of life.
Living in poverty is being below the poverty line you f-ing moron. If you have nothing intelligent to say then shut up. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

No. Poverty line is the U$ 1.25 a day stuff. Regardless of currecy rate.

Your map does not show the poverty line. The correct one for poverty line is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Percenta...y_2007-2008.png

There everyone can see Britain is in less than 2% and Brazil and China are in 6% to 20%, exactly where +/- 13% is.

Poverty is something else.

It is a statistical mean deviation number (60% of the median to be precise).

It measures inequality.

I assume that's what you try to say with your map.

There we see Brazil is much unequal than the UK, a 1st world country, and China, a comunist country. Now your map makes sense, uh?

To grasp the difference between poverty and poverty line see

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8177864.stm

===================

31% of your fellow Brazilians live below the poverty line.
I did not say Brazil has less poor people than Britain.

I say Brazil has 13% below the poverty line, 31% living in poverty.

Whereas in the UK there's essentially no one below the poverty line and around 15% living in poverty.

Considerable difference. Especially in absolute values.

And if you say that 13% of Brazilians live below the poverty line and 14.8% of Brits live below the poverty line by their standards and their government statistics then you are saying that there are fewer Brazilians living in poverty then in Britain. But I digress, with idiots like you and danny there is no point arguing about things that are far above your level of comprehension.

I never said 14.8% of Brits live below the poverty line. Can you read?

I said nobody in Britain lives below the poverty line.

=============

Are you going to offend anyone now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're arguing semantics here. Whatever measure you use, Brazil and Rio are someway behind the other bidding cities with regard to the numbers in poverty. I don't think that's deniable.

The real issue is whether that will matter or not, or whether it should matter or not, to their Olympic bid

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point, Rob.

I actually agree with you.

But you can't deny that some numbers are being misused, which is wrong. Especially if one uses these figures to base their arguments on.

I repeat: I'm not saying Brazil has no social issues. And I've seen none of the Brazilians denying it either.

As a matter of fact, I hope the SOG's could help them because they're the ones capable of hosting the games who need the most.

Recently there are loads of people saying: they are poor, they can't. I simply disagree.

It bothers me, though, to see distorted reasoning . It is clear I support Rio and I see no reason why Chicago supports should make use of statistics manipulation to give a wrong impression about Rio.

Just one last thing.

Although London 2012 is also planning to use / using the games to bring social improvements, there's a major difference with Rio 2016, namely the area.

Whereas 2012 will boost East London particularly, Rio is offering prime locations, not poorer areas.

The legacy in Rio will be more indirect but that's a compromise between social profit for the locals and international safety for us, visitors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Statements like this show that you are an idiot

And what are you? A double idiot or a... triple?

I can't discuss with no polite people...

Link to post
Share on other sites
But you can't deny that some numbers are being misused, which is wrong. Especially if one uses these figures to base their arguments on.

I repeat: I'm not saying Brazil has no social issues. And I've seen none of the Brazilians denying it either.

As a matter of fact, I hope the SOG's could help them because they're the ones capable of hosting the games who need the most.

THIS IS A REASONABLE COMMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to register (specially for Henrique Valverde, THE Brazilian)

At this exact time I'm watching at TV the match between Russia-China in World Grand Prix of Volleyball and OMG, the stadium is EMPTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The game is held in Tokyo but it's a worldwide problem.

When main teams or local teams doesn't play stadium gets EMPTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This happens in Brazil, in Greece, in China and even in Japan (and for sure in Spain and USA too).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to register (specially for Henrique Valverde, THE Brazilian)

At this exact time I'm watching at TV the match between Russia-China in World Grand Prix of Volleyball and OMG, the stadium is EMPTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The game is held in Tokyo but it's a worldwide problem.

When main teams or local teams doesn't play stadium gets EMPTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This happens in Brazil, in Greece, in China and even in Japan (and for sure in Spain and USA too).

This is a crowd/action shot from an AVP Beach Volleyball tournament in Chicago in 2007:

AVP_Chicago_Open_d7e5.jpg

This is a year before millions were watching Misty May Treanor, Kerri Walsh, and the rest of the beach volleyball team in Beijing. This team is from Hawaii (no where near Chicago, by the way).

We also fill up Soldier Field for Football matches between foreign teams:

Costa Rica vs. Mexico:

340x.jpg

When it was Mexico-US in the Gold Cup finals, much of the crowd was backing Mexico:

http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2009/07/23/t...present-future/

Holding the semi-finals and final in Chicago at Soldier Field allowed the buzz to envelope the soccer-loving community in the city, and the final itself was a classic: a capacity 60,000 crowd at Soldier Field saw the U.S. defeat Mexico on a beautiful sunny day before a crowd clearly partisan for El Tricolor Mexican Team.

I'm certain a Chicago 2016 Russian-Chinese finals match would be a difficult ticket with Chinatown only 3km away and a sizable Russian-American community that continues to grow.

CHItown '16

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't imagine a crowded stadium for example for some Beach Volleyball match between Georgia v Guatemala... Anywhere...

The beach volleyball venue is a few steps from two major museums (the Shedd Aquarium and the Field Museum of Natural History) which are very busy on a normal summer afternoon. People are always wandering up and down the lake just north of the beach volleyball venue. And it's a 15 minute walk from the downtown business district (and probably a much shorter Olympic shuttle bus or shuttle train ride). With hundreds of thousands milling around Grant Park, wondering how they can get tickets, and watching the events and results on the projected TVs, I'm pretty certain that a ticket office marquee change from:

"WOMEN'S BEACH VOLLEYBALL 3rd ROUND - Georgia v. Guatemala -- 3:00pm -- Olympic Island (SOLD OUT)"

to

"WOMEN'S BEACH VOLLEYBALL 3rd ROUND - Georgia v. Guatemala -- 3:00pm -- Olympic Island (AVAILABLE)"

or the first announcement of "TICKETS FOR WOMEN'S VOLLEYBALL AT 3pm ARE NOW AVAILABLE"

Would find the few hundred closest people shouting "THEY GOT TICKETS FOR BEACH VOLLEYBALL!!!! HOW MANY YOU WANT?!?!", followed by lines of people with their cell phones out:

"I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!! I CAN GET TICKETS!!!!! TICK-ETS!!!! YEAH -- BE-ACH VOL-LEY-BALLLLLL!!!! TH-REE-O-Clock!!!! YEAH THREE O'CLOCK!!! I'M I-NNN LINE NOWWWW!!!!"

and it'll be back to (SOLD OUT) very quickly and it'll be full in a few minutes. Even if many are tapping each other on the shoulder and asking "So, uh, which one's Georgia?" and "She doesn't look like she's from Atlanta!"

This is a pretty typical workday afternoon at Wrigley Field:

cubs4.jpg

When people are otherwise at work. This often happens in two stadiums at the same time (for the Cubs and Sox).

If there are any single event tickets by the start of Beach Volleyball in August 2016, they'll be ads all over for ticket raffles (buy tickets to win tickets),

raffles002.jpg

"OLYMPIC TICKET CONTESTS" on the radio:

wrigleyDoneRight_585w_01.jpg

offers for tickets to customers and employees:

ar124595152343548.jpg

So I'm pretty certain that people will have tickets and likely to show (not a particularly good example since Beach Volleyball's a popular sport outside of the Olympics as well).

CHItown '16

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...