Jump to content

Is Rio Really Everyone's Second Favourite?


____

Where do you put Rio and who's first and second for you?  

48 members have voted

  1. 1. Where do you put Rio and who's first and second for you?

    • Rio is my first choice
      26
    • Rio isn't my first choice but it is my second choice
      9
    • Rio isn't my first choice and Chicago is my second choice
      5
    • Rio isn't my first choice and Madrid is my second choice
      1
    • Rio isn't my first choice and Tokyo is my second choice
      7


Recommended Posts

This poll is in response to a point made by Stu in the Premium Members Lounge. He suggested that, if you don't support Rio, it's more than likely going to be your second favourite.

I know that's the case with me. If Chicago loses I want Rio to win. But what about everyone else?

Just be interesting to see the results. If Rio really is everyone's second choice (and IOC members agree), and they manage to get through the early rounds of voting, they've got to be strong favourites haven't they?

Anyway, vote away! Be interesting to see whether this point is true, or whether it's a bit of a myth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Rio really is everyone's second choice (and IOC members agree), and they manage to get through the early rounds of voting, they've got to be strong favourites haven't they?

And could also sneak from second place to win in the final round by getting the votes of those whose first choices lost but have Rio second in their preferences. It's a double-threat front runner, assuming that majority of the voting members have Rio either as their favorite, or as their second favorite.

Anyway, I'm for Tokyo, followed by Chicago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather see them b4 I saw Tokyo. At least Madrid's never hosted. It's not their fault they're on the same continent as London.

No. But it's their fault they didn't choose a better time for their bid. Whether they or anyone likes it or not, deciding to bid for the games directly after their continental neighbour is hosting meant they went into it with that factor always going to be a major disadvantage. I have no doubt they'd really like to win it - you can't go into a campaign ever being half-hearted - but i just can't help thinking they have an eye more towards a future bid against tough opponents like Paris or Berlin and see this as laying the ground and contacts for it. A waste.

I actually share your vibe that Tokyo. I'd certainly be pissed to see two repeat hosts in a row. I just like Japan - and the location's good for TV time zones and travelling from Oz. In reality, my preferences are Rio, then Chicago, then a long, long stretch of daylight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Rio really is everyone's second choice (and IOC members agree), and they manage to get through the early rounds of voting, they've got to be strong favourites haven't they?

But if it is everyone's second choice, no one would vote for Rio in the first round and will be the first eliminated.

BTW, it's also my second choice :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is more likely that a Chicago Olympics will look more like the London Olympics than a Madrid Olympics would. But the problem I have with Madrid's timing is that Barcelona still burns bright in the memory. But still, Europe back to back isn't kosher. Hasn't happened since the last time London hosted the Olympics (1948-1952) and we all know the Olympics and the world have changed since then.

If I were in charge of the Spanish Olympic Committee, after the 2012 decision, I would have used the capital gained from that failed bid and put in a really good bid for the 2014 Winter Games. And not Jaca. It was too small. Zaragoza supported by Jaca would have been a better option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1st RIO DE JANEIRO - I would love to see South America hosting for the first time and it is just Americas' turn after London 2012, Beijing 2008, Athens 2004, Sydney 2000 (my only concern is that Brazil can get into trouble due the FIFA World Championships two years before 2018)

2nd CHICAGO - I have absolutely no doubt that the USA can host wonderful Games and it is just Americas' turn

3rd TOKYO - Japan can host wonderful Games, but it isn't really Asia's turn

4th MADRID - Like the USA and Japan is Spain able to host wonderful Games, but two European Games in a row are very very unlikely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. But it's their fault they didn't choose a better time for their bid. Whether they or anyone likes it or not, deciding to bid for the games directly after their continental neighbour is hosting meant they went into it with that factor always going to be a major disadvantage. I have no doubt they'd really like to win it - you can't go into a campaign ever being half-hearted - but i just can't help thinking they have an eye more towards a future bid against tough opponents like Paris or Berlin and see this as laying the ground and contacts for it. A waste.

I actually share your vibe that Tokyo. I'd certainly be pissed to see two repeat hosts in a row. I just like Japan - and the location's good for TV time zones and travelling from Oz. In reality, my preferences are Rio, then Chicago, then a long, long stretch of daylight.

That's one of the things which perplexes me though.

Madrid is bidding because it wants to win. It has the bid to win. However, unwritten but nonetheless known rules such as continental rotation come into play.

That's why I get confused. It is unlikely that Madrid can win due to London hosting in 2012 plus the prospect of a USA bid and a new territory bid in South America.

So, if the continental rotation factor is indeed true, and history has taught us that it is, then why does the IOC allow outstanding bids in a particular race if they stand no chance due to unwritten rules regarding continental hosting?

It is a bit of a catch 22 situation - on the one hand, any city can submit a bid. Fair play to that. However, due to the fact that the IOC has not formally stated that continents can not host back to back, we all know they do try to avoid this. So, it does create a difficult decision sometimes as is evidenced in this particular bid race - can the 'best' technical bid (Madrid) win even though it is following on from a city (London) from the same continent. Or does the IOC's unwritten rule really stipulate that it stands no chance, although they are still welcome to bid?

My choices would be:

1.Madrid - it has the best all round bid

2.Tokyo- it has the 2nd best best

3.Chicago- it has the third best bid

4.Rio- it has the 4th best bid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The unwritten rule suggests it has little chance, not no chance.

But, like your protestations in the other thread that superior bids can be overtaken by weaker bids with great potential and that that's not right, it also has to be pointed out in this situation that bidding cities know exactly what they're letting themselves in for.

Madrid would have known they stood only a small chance of getting these games well before they bid, but they decided to bid anyway. They're not going into this with their eyes closed. You then have to ask why this is the case? Maybe Madrid thinks any chance, even a small one, is worth the bid. Or maybe they want to continuing bidding to show the IOC they are willing and hope that, when the time is right, they'll be stronger for doing so.

I have more sympathy for your point of view here Oaky than I do for your "objective voting" ideas. I don't think there's anything particularly misleading about the IOC process as it is, because as I've said cities know what they're letting themselves in for, but I wouldn't be aghast at the idea of preventing cities from bidding if the previous Games is on their continent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's one of the things which perplexes me though.

Madrid is bidding because it wants to win. It has the bid to win. However, unwritten but nonetheless known rules such as continental rotation come into play.

That's why I get confused. It is unlikely that Madrid can win due to London hosting in 2012 plus the prospect of a USA bid and a new territory bid in South America.

So, if the continental rotation factor is indeed true, and history has taught us that it is, then why does the IOC allow outstanding bids in a particular race if they stand no chance due to unwritten rules regarding continental hosting?

It is a bit of a catch 22 situation - on the one hand, any city can submit a bid. Fair play to that. However, due to the fact that the IOC has not formally stated that continents can not host back to back, we all know they do try to avoid this. So, it does create a difficult decision sometimes as is evidenced in this particular bid race - can the 'best' technical bid (Madrid) win even though it is following on from a city (London) from the same continent. Or does the IOC's unwritten rule really stipulate that it stands no chance, although they are still welcome to bid?

It's up to each city to decide whether it is worth biding or not. Madrid knew from day 1 that 2016 would be an uphill battle because of London 2012: they decided to bid anyway, it's their choice they cannot cry fool if they don't win.

Remember though, it's not over until it's over.

Madrid 2016 is unlikely but not completely impossible...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...