Is Rio Really Everyone's Second Favourite?

[oakydoky]

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.

That's why I'm perplexed. It's an unwritten rule but is yet more or less 'concrete' with regards voting practices.

In any case, I was just opening up this issue which a few people on these forums have talked about. Namely, the fact that it is not part of the IOC constitutuion to prevent back to back continents hosting. But, in reality it does prevent back to back continents hosting.

The rule is neither manifestly true or false given that it it is not stipulated in the IOC voting code but nonetheless we can all observe that the IOC does vote this way.

So, this 2016 is particularly interesting in that respect.

[oakydoky]

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...

I wasn't questioning a cities right to bid or their reasons for bidding and whether or not they understand the bidding process or not.

I was merely raising the issue which a few people have mentioned on these forums. Namely that in some bid scenarios it is possible to bid for the Olympic games on the basis that there is no written rule which prevents cities from any continent from hosting. However, history has shown that cities from the same continent never get the games and thus the unwritten rule of the 'continent' does come into play although it is not a formal rule of the IOC.

I wasn't suggesting Madrid cry foul if they lose.

[DannyelBrazil]

About this thread...

Baron become even more sarcastic against Rio...

Chicago-fans are getting desperate...

Tokyo-fans focused in winning the gamesbids.com frontpage poll...

Oakydoky is deeply discussing the "unverdeveloped" Rio de Janeiro...

Poverty and favelas became a real concern for t

Rio supportes (like me) are getting very mad, and fighting against all...

It's good! It's very good...

Here in general threads it seems that we almost only discuss Rio de Janeiro things...

Well, the fact is that exists a real concern for those opposing Olympics in the wonderful city...

[Rob2012]

Baron become even more sarcastic against Rio...

Chicago-fans are getting desperate...

Tokyo-fans focused in winning the gamesbids.com frontpage poll...

Oakydoky is deeply discussing the "unverdeveloped" Rio de Janeiro...

Poverty and favelas became a real concern for t

Rio supportes (like me) are getting more and more paranoid

Corrected this for you. This thread's fine Danny! We're talking about continental rotation and whether it should be codified or not (although that wasn't the original reason I started the thread, lol). If you have anything useful to add, go ahead...

[oakydoky]

About this thread...

Baron become even more sarcastic against Rio...

Chicago-fans are getting desperate...

Tokyo-fans focused in winning the gamesbids.com frontpage poll...

Oakydoky is deeply discussing the "unverdeveloped" Rio de Janeiro...

Poverty and favelas became a real concern for t

Rio supportes (like me) are getting very mad, and fighting against all...

It's good! It's very good...

Here in general threads it seems that we almost only discuss Rio de Janeiro things...

Well, the fact is that exists a real concern for those opposing Olympics in the wonderful city...

Danny,

I never mentioned anything at all about Rio being underdeveloped!

I was actually picking up on a point I perceived in one of the posts about the idea of continental rotation and it's application to this particular race.

[tpman]

1. Rio

2. Madrid (after reading the evaluation report - it was my top choice before)

3. Chicago

4. Tokyo (too soon after Beijing)

[Soaring]

1. Chicago

2. Rio (although the way some Brazilians on here act makes me want to see Rio win because their whining is becoming unbearable)

3. Tokyo

4. Madrid

[DannyelBrazil]

Corrected this for you. This thread's fine Danny! We're talking about continental rotation and whether it should be codified or not (although that wasn't the original reason I started the thread, lol). If you have anything useful to add, go ahead...

This thread is positive, no doubts... Maybe my opinion should be posted in other thread...

But it's ok to say People are discussing Rio more than others...

Brazilians Paranoid? Maybe... I will not disagree...

[FYI]

Well, this issue as been discussed many, many times before. But really, at least one of the reasons why the IOC has included Madrid to compete even though continental rotation is an "unofficial rule", surely has to be one of a "back-up" plan. A plan where in case the other 3 cities; Chicago, Rio & Tokyo just couldn't get their act together, the IOC still has this "back-up" city to fall back onto. It makes sense in that aspect, & like in any other business. And surely that has to be what Madrid was hoping to hang on to for them to have any kind of chance in this race despite London 2012. But considering that all 4 cities have "passed" (in their own way) the IOC EC report, it's an open game now to decide the ultimate winner in Copenhagen.

[Kenadian]

Paris ruled out it's third bid in a row after London won. They just knew the Olympics weren't going to "slide down the Chunnel" after four years. Perhaps if New York had won 2012, Paris might have gone again. But they knew that barring a complete lack of interest from every other continent, Europe would not get another go for 8-12 years (the average length of time between European hostings). But I guess Madrid was just hoping that Rio would get cut again or that Asia-Pacific would have another economic meltdown or that another American stadium deal would collapse in the final leg of the bid and they'd do something that hasn't been done since Helsinki won the rights to the 1952 Summer Games. And yes, they could still do it. But highly doubtful.

[DannyelBrazil]

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

It's seems that HERE 40% have Rio as second choice and the majority of the opposition really have Rio as second option

... Even Baron, the most informed member here, that choosed Paris first... and Detroit and third choice

[aluz]

Well, this issue as been discussed many, many times before. But really, at least one of the reasons why the IOC has included Madrid to compete even though continental rotation is an "unofficial rule", surely has to be one of a "back-up" plan. A plan where in case the other 3 cities; Chicago, Rio & Tokyo just couldn't get their act together, the IOC still has this "back-up" city to fall back onto. It makes sense in that aspect, & like in any other business. And surely that has to be what Madrid was hoping to hang on to for them to have any kind of chance in this race despite London 2012. But considering that all 4 cities have "passed" (in their own way) the IOC EC report, it's an open game now to decide the ultimate winner in Copenhagen.

I totally agree and I would put another fact which is the risk of not having enough cities bidding.

Discouraging cities to bid due to a rule would not help the IOC keep the SOG running.

[baron-pierreIV]

... Even Baron, the most informed member here, that choosed Paris first... and Detroit and third choice

I chose Paris first, Danny, because of my long friendship with Sao Schlumberger. But then Rio is #2 because of her and Teresa Heinz Kerry -- those are my two lady Portuguese friends.

[DannyelBrazil]

Good Baron, wise choose!

[Feheva]

1. Chicago

2. Rio (although the way some Brazilians on here act makes me want to see Rio win because their whining is becoming unbearable)

3. Tokyo

4. Madrid

Well... It could be a strategy...

For me:

1. Madrid

2. Tokyo

3. Rio

4. Chicago (Nothing Personal Soaring...)

Hey! It's exactly the opposite of above... Nothing personal again...

[baron-pierreIV]

/\ Stupid reply as always.

[caraRIOca]

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

It is more of a common sense. They don't have a rule of continents rotation because in a particular time NO COUNTRIES (or very few ones) in that zone might be able to host the GAMES. They don't need to specify this rule because it is in everyone's minds the feeling that the Olympic Games are Universal and should fairly enough belong to the entire world.

Bring the Games to South America !

BTW Rio is my 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th choice. Let's just play fair, it is our turn now.

[DannyelBrazil]

Geez... Now you awake Oakydoky again...

Let's prepare to read a lot of "weakest technical bid" and "favelas", "poor" and "social issues"...

Aff...

[Stocking Phil-er]

Ideally 1. Madrid 2. Chicago 3. Rio 4. Tokyo, however I don't rate Madrid's chances and am supporting Chicago instead. Of course the presentations could change everything...

[Stocking Phil-er]

Madrid lacks momentum and stature, big time.

[MrCatra]

Geez... Now you awake Oakydoky again...

Let's prepare to read a lot of "weakest technical bid" and "favelas", "poor" and "social issues"...

Aff...

Dunno about the "weakest technical bid" but why shouldn't him mention "favelas", "poor" and "social issues"?

Rio don't have those issues to deal with? What if a "bala perdida" from one of those favelas hits some journalist/tourist during the games?

will you open this forum and say that you was wrong and that the social aspect of our bid needed to be discussed and not ignored like you suggested in 2009?

plz.

Its a big problem for Rio's candidature and he have all the right in the world to keep posting about one of the biggest weakness in RIO16 bid... Simple as that...

[NYCD 2012]

Geez... Now you awake Oakydoky again...

Let's prepare to read a lot of "weakest technical bid" and "favelas", "poor" and "social issues"...

Aff...

Speak for yourself. We're just as sick seeing you people repeating the pharse "Its our turn now" again and again day in day out.

[DannyelBrazil]

Dunno about the "weakest technical bid" but why shouldn't him mention "favelas", "poor" and "social issues"?

Rio don't have those issues to deal with? What if a "bala perdida" from one of those favelas hits some journalist/tourist during the games?

will you open this forum and say that you was wrong and that the social aspect of our bid needed to be discussed and not ignored like you suggested in 2009?

plz.

Its a big problem for Rio's candidature and he have all the right in the world to keep posting about one of the biggest weakness in RIO16 bid... Simple as that...

You have been here for 13 posts and don't know about what I'm speaking...

Read all the posts in the last 3 months and you will understand my point...

No Rio supporter denied the fact Rio have favelas, social issues, poor people...

People here wants to state Rio have ONLY favelas, 100% of its population is poor and there is no good things about Rio... This is not true either...

BTW, excelent humourous signature... Loved it!

[DannyelBrazil]

NYCD, fully agreed...

We're sick of reading same things (favelas-poor and It's our turn)...

I agree with you!