Obama Should Fight For Rio - Chicago Tribune

[Victor Mata]

Things are repetitive from both sides: One keep saying "riskier"," favelas", "too sun after the cup". The others go with "too much US", "South Am. time", "WC+SOG will be no problem"...

Maybe there's a communication problem here lately.

[aluz]

YES! This is it!! This is the argument which needs to be pushed hard from Rio. I'm not saying don't mention that South America hasn't hosted before; I'm saying that fact needs to be framed properly.

Don't say "South America hasn't hosted before unlike America which has hosted many times. It's therefore our turn and the IOC must correct the imbalances of the past."

Do say "South America hasn't hosted before and this is massive opportunity to open the Games up to a new market"

i.e. focus on what Rio can do for the IOC, not what you think the IOC should do for Rio.

I'm sorry to say Aluz, despite your protests to the contrary, some Rio supporters here have been using the first argument rather than the second one. That's what annoys me.

Rob,

That's why I apologized for my countrymen and pointed out the real wording used by the BOCG. I know they have been misquoted too often. I'm glad they are not the ones doing the presentations. My point is that the repetitions are due to all sides presenting the same issues over and over again. Sometimes they do it properly, sometimes they don't.

Cheers

[Rob2012]

Fair enough

[Cauê]

Some people are uncomfortable with the arguments of Rio because they are the strongest arguments. The question is clear, if the candidates are on the similar level after the report of the IOC, the winner may be the most appropriate response to the "why" of games in this city. And Rio have the best answer. This is evident.

Do not cry Roby. Your crying is repetitive.

[NYCD 2012]

Some people are uncomfortable with the arguments of Rio because they are the strongest arguments. The question is clear, if the candidates are on the similar level after the report of the IOC, the winner may be the most appropriate response to the "why" of games in this city. And Rio have the best answer. This is evident.

Do not cry Roby. Your crying is repetitive.

Its eejits like you that give a bad name to Brazil here and makes everyone pissed off with Rio fans

[NYCD 2012]

@aluz , Thank you so much for your reply. Sadly, not every Rio fan here can give a civilised and proper arguement, like you.

[Rob2012]

Some people are uncomfortable with the arguments of Rio because they are the strongest arguments. The question is clear, if the candidates are on the similar level after the report of the IOC, the winner may be the most appropriate response to the "why" of games in this city. And Rio have the best answer. This is evident.

Do not cry Roby. Your crying is repetitive.

Dumbass response to a relevent point. Well done.

[FYI]

"The fact that 3 times WC's and SOG's were held in the same country in a 2-year period just shows that it is not that big of an issue. It's 'doable'."

What it really shows is just a simple black-&-white comparison brushed over with the same paint brush.

Two out of the three countries that have already done it, were 'developed' countries & with most of the infrastructure already in place. The one country that wasn't, was over 40 years ago, when the Olympics & the World Cup were much smaller. So for a 'developing' country, such as Brazil & with all the infrastructure upgrading/building that would need to be done & with also the mammoth size that the Olympics & the World Cup have become today, it remains to be seen, to say the least, if it is "doable".

[baron-pierreIV]

The one country that wasn't, was over 40 years ago, when the Olympics & the World Cup were much smaller. So for a 'developing' country, such as Brazil & with all the infrastructure upgrading/building that would need to be done & with also the mammoth size that the Olympics & the World Cup have become today, it remains to be seen, to say the least, if it is "doable".

Plus, that one country, Mexico, for its second World Cup in 1986 was really just a fill-in for the initial, failed Columbian award. I guess Mexico didn't have to take it...but of course, being a macho Latino country, they could not resist.

[DannyelBrazil]

@aluz , Thank you so much for your reply. Sadly, not every Rio fan here can give a civilised and proper arguement, like you.

Maybe with less sarcasm, prejudice and accurate data, Rio supporters would be more "civilised" here...

But, greeat post, Aluz, it's perfect point!

[DannyelBrazil]

Maybe with less sarcasm, prejudice and WITH MORE accurate data, Rio supporters would be more "civilised" here...

[aluz]

Plus, that one country, Mexico, for its second World Cup in 1986 was really just a fill-in for the initial, failed Columbian award. I guess Mexico didn't have to take it...but of course, being a macho Latino country, they could not resist.

Back-to-back hosting in Mexico was 68-70. 86 was 16 years after the 1st WC. So they did not take it from Colombia that time. They won both bids.

[baron-pierreIV]

Back-to-back hosting in Mexico was 68-70. 86 was 16 years after the 1st WC. So they did not take it from Colombia that time. They won both bids.

R u sure? I thot I had read somewhere that 1986 was a fallback position for Mexico. I know Columbia bailed out on 1...or was it a PanAms?

[Dinhu4ever]

Wikipedia has the answer!

Colombia was originally chosen as hosts by FIFA in June 1974. However, the Colombian authorities declared in November 1982 that they could not afford to host the World Cup under the terms that FIFA demanded because of the difficult situation the country was passing through concerning the Colombian internal conflict. Mexico was selected on 20 May 1983 as the replacement hosts, beating the bids of Canada, and the United States (who eventually hosted the 1994 World Cup), and became the first nation to host two World Cups.

[aluz]

R u sure? I thot I had read somewhere that 1986 was a fallback position for Mexico. I know Columbia bailed out on 1...or was it a PanAms?

I realized that my comment might lead to misunderstandings.

Mexico won both the WC and SOG to be hosted back-to-back in 68 and 70. That's why I meant that the comment about Colombia does prove that a developing country has hosted back to back the SOG and the WC.

In 1986, they have inherited it from Colombia, that withdrew. Mexicans hosted the events a few months after a big earthquake in Mexico city.

In 1987, Santiago withdrew from the PanAm, which was given to Quito, that withdrew and it finally went to Indianapolis.

Now I think it's clear.

[baron-pierreIV]

Wikipedia has the answer!

Colombia was originally chosen as hosts by FIFA in June 1974. However, the Colombian authorities declared in November 1982 that they could not afford to host the World Cup under the terms that FIFA demanded because of the difficult situation the country was passing through concerning the Colombian internal conflict. Mexico was selected on 20 May 1983 as the replacement hosts, beating the bids of Canada, and the United States (who eventually hosted the 1994 World Cup), and became the first nation to host two World Cups.

Wow. So even with a 12-year lead, and only 8 years after could Columbia declare that it could not be ready. So I guess the present 7-year lead time by the IOC and FIFA works; except the 2022 WC host will again have 11 years to prepare.

If they did for the Winters, maybe Quebec City or some other southern could get those minimum 800m drops in place??

[jim jones]

Dumbass response to a relevent point. Well done.

So what is the Relevant Point . Again you have a so called first world Candidate that is up to their eyes in Debt and somehow needs the games as opposed to a Candidate with Money and Venues in place that should host the games finally.

Would Chicago cancel transportation Projects if they get themselves into a financial jam like a Semi Country in Northern Europe has Staging a Sports Festival ?

Sure . This is why all sports festival have to start ignoring these so called advanced Countries bidding for games while they can't seem to balance simple budgets . You either have the money of you don't . You either product wealth with goods or you go in debt to the Chinese, Gulf States or even Brazil promping up the illusion that your empire still exists

Jim Jones

[Triffle]

For the size of the US, how much it contributes to the Olympic movement and how it excels in sports, I don't think three Summer Games, four WOGs and one World Cup is too much.

But your a bias American. Many NON-Americans believe all that is too much.

[Sir Rols]

But your a bias American. Many NON-Americans believe all that is too much.

Not all NON-Americans think it's too much. Many of us think it's understandable as well.

[caraRIOca]

For the size of the US, how much it contributes to the Olympic movement and how it excels in sports, I don't think three Summer Games, four WOGs and one World Cup is too much.

Compare that to France, a country that's 1/6th the population of the US -- and nowhere near the athletic excellence of the US? 2 Summer Games, 3 WOGs and 2 World Cups. How can you say the US is greedy. For 52 years, between 1933 and 1984, there was NO Summer Games, and only 2 small Winter Games.

So...the US might be aggressive in going after some Games but for its size and influence, it is NOT greedy.

Now compare that to Brazil which is the same size as the continental USA. What did we have?

Moreover, If the US excel in sports perhaps it is because you have more opportunities. We've reached a point, the Olympic Spirit: "Make it UNIVERSAL and accessible to everyone".

[caraRIOca]

We are here to discuss the bid process and the bid cities, with their proposals, strengths and weaknesses. So, the points you have shown above are basically a product of discussions that have been pushed both by Rio supporters and detractors.

Please, forgive my countrymen who keep misquoting the BOCG speech. They never say "It's South America's turn!". They say "We offer the Olympic Movement with the opportunity to host the Olympics in a new continent, with one of the youngest populations across the globe". This is a fair argument and it is reinforced by the fact that all the competing bids are in continents and countries that have already hosted. So, they offer something that others can't. In a competition being unique is always good. So, it is a valid point, and the IOC usually responds well to those pleas.

The fact that the US has hosted many times is irrelevant. The fact that they have already hosted is enough to reinforce one of Rio's main selling points.

The BOCG stresses that the experience of hosting the PanAm Games was very important to develop a good bid for the SOG. It is a good pilot for the SOG and the EC seems to agree. That idea came from the realization of how complex it was to run the games in comparison to building its infrastructure. The evaluation report was always positive due to the venues and organising experience gained during Rio 2007. Again, no other candidate can say that they have recently hosted a multi-sport events using the same basic layout and infrastructure that will be used for the SOG. It's a good and valid selling point that the BOCG could present and got embedded in the minds of everyone following this bid.

One of the main handicaps for Rio bid is the 2014 WC, even according to the evaluation report. Some people here have said that the IOC would never let it happen. Well, the 2014 WC has mixed impacts. It helps for the infrastructure, but it may clog the marketing channels. The fact that 3 times WCs and SOGs were held in the same country in a 2-year period just shows that it is not that big of an issue. It's doable. This time, we are not repeating that over and over, we are reacting to supporters of other bids who repeat it over and over.

Europe has too many games is actually used by Chicago supporters more than Rio's. I haven't seen many Rio supporters using this. What a lot of people say here, not only Brazilians, is that Madrid is too soon after London. And, apparently, European major cities know that. If they felt otherwise, you would see many of them, like Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin, Moscow and others, like in 2012.

In one of the threads, a lot of people who support different bids said that their least favourite was Tokyo, so, again, it is not a Rio supporter mantra.

Rio is exciting. So is Madrid. Chicago is not as fun as those two cities. I've been in all of them (many times in Chicago) and I can say that for sure. Most of the people who go to Rio find it exciting. Since the SOG is a big entertainment opportunity for athletes and tourists that is another advantage of Rio. Why not use it as a selling point?

Regarding the "greedy US" comment. That's someone's personal opinion. I am sorry to hear such a comment, as you are when someone creates a thread called "Why Chicago needs to win".

So, you can see, that most of this yada yada is the lack of imagination of the ensemble of people in this forum. It is natural to discuss how the bids are run. There is nothing wrong with discussing them, though it is getting repetitive. If you want to have a different discussion, I've opened a thread on the IOC members inclinations. There, we might run away a little bit about the cities projects and inherent advantages and disadvantages to focus more on how to impress the voters. The repetition here is annoying not only about Rio, but also about Chicago and others, so maybe we have already said enough about this subject. Let's move on.

WOW.... ABSOLUTELY WELL SAID.

[FYI]

"Mexico won both the WC & SOG to be hosted back-to-back in 68 & 70. That's what I meant that the comment about Colombia does prove that a developing country has hosted back-to-back SOG & WC."

Again, that was 40 years ago & longer than that when Mexico was awarded both. The Olympics & World Cup have grown to enormous mega-world events today than they were back then, & that could prove to be very strenuous for developing countries, such as Brazil, to be able to cope with both in such a short lead-time between the two.

[FYI]

But your a bias American. Many NON-Americans believe all that is too much.

And you're just a prejudice Australian. Your contempt towards the U.S. is blatantly obvious for whatever reason. Even one of your fellow countrymen doesn't see it your way.

Going by your logic then, Australia shouldn't host again, 'til the earliest, the very latter part of this century, if not next, considering the size in population & influence on the global stage compared to the United States. So again, keep your "logic" in mind next time Australia places a bid, but I'm sure you'll just conveniently become a "bias" Australian then.

[DannyelBrazil]

The Olympics & World Cup have grown to enormous mega-world events today than they were back then, & that could prove to be very strenuous for developing countries, such as Brazil, to be able to cope with both in such a short lead-time between the two.

Why?

How, please detail, both events could be a real problem for Brazil or for the events itself?

[baron-pierreIV]

Why?

How, please detail, both events could be a real problem for Brazil or for the events itself?

Danny, the hesitation of "too much, too soon" has already been expressed in the Evaluation Report. We're just going around in circles. You guys don't think so but the IOC, which is entitled to their opinion (rightly or wrongly) have reservations.

The IOC and its marketing consultants are NOT entirely inexperienced in these matters.

OK, looking back at 1994 - 96. I don't have the figures on how much WC 1994 cost (but my guess is that it probably cost est $175 million, if at all). Atlanta, 2 years later, cost like $1.25 billion.

Brazil's scenario: 2014--what's the latest figure? $11 billion? And what will Rio 2016 cost? $4-6 billion? (Correct my figures if they are wrong.) Add another $1.5 billion for inflation, delays, etc.

Compare the 2 sets of figures--which clearly shows why the examples of the PAST ARE NOT COMPARABLE to what Brazil will be facing! About $1.4 billion for the two events in the US in 1994-96; and at least $17 billion for 2014-2016 for Brazil. That's more than TEN TIMES the cost for the same 2 events.

And I think the IOC does not want to be party--if that's what they are saying-- to such extravagant, narrow-issued spending -- WHEN THERE ARE OTher equally viable candidates in other parts of the world that will spread out the cost and will NOT BE BORNE SOLELY by one country? Do you NOT see that?