Jump to content

Lula Says Ioc Must Give Rio The Olympics


Athensfan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply
He said that "Brazil needs this Olympics more than other countries". He completes his statement by reminding that Brazil is the only country among the 10 largest economies to have never hosted it and by using his endless rich vs poor speech. It's really Lula being himself. He built his international image by being a defender of the underdeveloped world and he is just resonating this. It's coherent with every speech he's made in international forums since he became president in 2003.

All of these points are fair and your summary is excellent.

However, when the Olympic Games are the issue in question rather than global economic policy, the rhetoric takes on a different tone. It starts to feel like emotional arm-twisting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even Lula being a loose canon, he didn't say that. He said that "Brazil needs this Olympics more than other countries". He completes his statement by reminding that Brazil is the only country among the 10 largest economies to have never hosted it and by using his endless rich vs poor speech. It's really Lula being himself. He built his international image by being a defender of the underdeveloped world and he is just resonating this. It's coherent with every speech he's made in international forums since he became president in 2003.

While it a valid point, I think this will end up hurting the bid rather than help it. The "we need it more approach"/"give it to us" is probably one of the big no-nos any bid should do. Just look what happened to Peru's 2015 PanAm bid when they asked Canada to withdraw.

While Lula's character may be a bit _________, the IOC, or rather any sports body hates being told we they should do. They hate these kind of direct approaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly.

The IOC is smart enough to know where the Olympics have or have not gone to, & that mainly the developed countries have hosted (it's their party, obviously they would know). The IOC doesn't need Lula to state the obvious to them. Cause it just becomes rhetoric after consistently hearing it. And bids that have taken the blatantly aggressive approach in the past have all failed. But by all means, he should keep it up, though. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lula didn't say that to a IOC member face to face...

Some reporter got close to Lula and asked: Lula what's your opinion, and then Lula said his opinion...

Simply like that!

But I'm not silly to deny the fact that Lula should say same things to IOC member during Rio's presentation in Copenhagen...

That's Lula... You like, you don't...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh?

And IOC members don't read or see any of these news pieces that are circulating around? They've all got their heads in the sand? Cause that's basically what you're saying, & really that's offensive in itself.

Of course they read... Don't play the fool here...

One thing is state his opinion in the media, other thing is make a statement directly to IOC...

I've just said Lula showed his opinion to some reporter (All IOC member must readed that) and...................................................

Repeating:

Lula should say same things to IOC members during Rio's presentation in Copenhagen...

Lula should say same things to IOC members during Rio's presentation in Copenhagen...

Lula should say same things to IOC members during Rio's presentation in Copenhagen...

Lula should say same things to IOC members during Rio's presentation in Copenhagen...

Lula should say same things to IOC members during Rio's presentation in Copenhagen...

Then, he'll make their point directly. And then he will be saying IOC "what to do"...

Aff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even as a Chicago supporter, I say this has been blown out of proportion a bit. He might be too overconfident, and a bit dismissive of the other cities' reasons for bidding, but I don't think there's much there which will put voters off who want to vote for Rio.

Now, if he's slagged off another country's cuisine that's, as we know, a whole different matter!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even as a Chicago supporter, I say this has been blown out of proportion a bit. He might be too overconfident, and a bit dismissive of the other cities' reasons for bidding, but I don't think there's much there which will put voters off who want to vote for Rio.

Now, if he's slagged off another country's cuisine that's, as we know, a whole different matter!

Rob,

That was my point. Lula can get away with some statements that other people could not. He can do it because of his history, his life. His origins allows him to make more rustic speeches, without the usual politeness and ceremony typical of highly educated people. And I think that's pretty clear to the IOC members. Lula has been on the news for the last 7 years and everybody knows his style. By the way, a book was recently released in Brazil with a thorough analysis of Lula's speeches and catchy phrases and makes this exact point. It is called the Lula dictionary.

Nuzman is the real leader of the bid and will be the one writing the script of the presentation. Lula is an asset and will be used properly with the right people. I can assure that "Olympics is world event or a rich country event?", "financial crisis is blue-eyed", "developing countries need (can obtain larger gains) to host the olympics more" are a powerful speech for most IOC members from developing countries and to some of the more socialist leaning ones. This speech is going to be delivered by Lula, not by Nuzman, and, probably, to specific people. Nuzman will say "we can offer".

I would like to say that I have never voted for Lula and probably will never do it. I think he is running a good government, but there are other people in Brazil who can do better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob,

That was my point. Lula can get away with some statements that other people could not. He can do it because of his history, his life. His origins allows him to make more rustic speeches, without the usual politeness and ceremony typical of highly educated people. And I think that's pretty clear to the IOC members. Lula has been on the news for the last 7 years and everybody knows his style. By the way, a book was recently released in Brazil with a thorough analysis of Lula's speeches and catchy phrases and makes this exact point. It is called the Lula dictionary.

Nuzman is the real leader of the bid and will be the one writing the script of the presentation. Lula is an asset and will be used properly with the right people. I can assure that "Olympics is world event or a rich country event?", "financial crisis is blue-eyed", "developing countries need (can obtain larger gains) to host the olympics more" are a powerful speech for most IOC members from developing countries and to some of the more socialist leaning ones. This speech is going to be delivered by Lula, not by Nuzman, and, probably, to specific people. Nuzman will say "we can offer".

I would like to say that I have never voted for Lula and probably will never do it. I think he is running a good government, but there are other people in Brazil who can do better.

Agreed in every term...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob,

That was my point. Lula can get away with some statements that other people could not. He can do it because of his history, his life. His origins allows him to make more rustic speeches, without the usual politeness and ceremony typical of highly educated people. And I think that's pretty clear to the IOC members. Lula has been on the news for the last 7 years and everybody knows his style. By the way, a book was recently released in Brazil with a thorough analysis of Lula's speeches and catchy phrases and makes this exact point. It is called the Lula dictionary.

The question is can the IOC members understand this. Honestly, I think not everyone will, we could prove costly for Rio, but of course thats my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Double standards to say the least. It's "okay" for Lula to give semi-abrasive speeches because that's just how Lula "is", but it's not okay for Obama, for example (not that he would or wouldn't), to list the involvements that the U.S. has made to the Olympics.

I totally concur with NYCD 2012. This could have the potential of biting Rio right in the a$s. And like Rob making jest of Jacques Chirac's comments about Finnish food is exactly the point. There ARE two Finnish IOC members, & were they really offended by Chirac's silly comments back in 2005? And who else could've been offended by them? Cause as we all know, Paris lost by ONLY 4 votes. Hmmmmm, let's see, 2 Finnish votes + maybe 2-3 more? Probably we'd have Paris then for 2012 right now instead of London. And that's the whole point of the matter, that with such a tight, tight race like this one, any gaffe (especially potentially offensive ones, serious or "no big deal") could have serious consequences in the end. Now with more real & serious semi inflammatory comments than just making fun of somebody's menu, who knows.

And perhaps there are members from the developing nations that would probably embrace those type of comments from him, but *not* every IOC member is going to take Lula's comments lighty. Not "everyone" is "familiar" with Lula's "style". And most importantly, not every member is going to vote for Rio. And again, in a tight, tight race, you don't want to alienate even more votes. And if some people can't see that, & particularly the Brazilians, then you're blind. Cause all it takes is just *one* to declare the winner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally found Lula's recent statement about Rio "not having terrorists" to be the most offensive.

If he wants to go down that route that is fine, but be careful, because last time I checked more people were killed in Rio than the other three cities. In fact, you can add up all of the murders in Chicago, Madrid and Tokyo, and still have only half of the amount of murders in Rio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally found Lula's recent statement about Rio "not having terrorists" to be the most offensive.

If he wants to go down that route that is fine, but be careful, because last time I checked more people were killed in Rio than the other three cities. In fact, you can add up all of the murders in Chicago, Madrid and Tokyo, and still have only half of the amount of murders in Rio.

That's probably true... And that's a problem Rio is addressing... Murder rates lowered 16% lately...

We hope those numbers can be reduced more and more...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And perhaps there are members from the developing nations that would probably embrace those type of comments from him, but *not* every IOC member is going to take Lula's comments lighty. Not "everyone" is "familiar" with Lula's "style". And most importantly, not every member is going to vote for Rio. And again, in a tight, tight race, you don't want to alienate even more votes. And if some people can't see that, & particularly the Brazilians, then you're blind. Cause all it takes is just *one* to declare the winner.

Don't know what you're trying to debate...

are you worried that Rio may lose votes because of Lula's speech?

Lula will say whatever he wants whenever he wants. He wont change. Whats to be discussed? Rio may lose votes? Dunno. according to you: yes. So what? Are you supporting rio? No. Why do you care? You should be happy if rio lose some votes.

Point is: Lula wont change his style just because he may offend some fags from IOC.

His speech about 'blue eyed bankers' was in front of the England Prime Minister and you could see in his face all the embarrassment he was feeling during Lula's speech and so what? Lula didn't changed a word and Gordon Brown had to eat that words without saying nothing.

again: nothing to be discussed. Unless you're supporting Rio and feel you should start a campaign to make Lula shut up, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came across the following article in the New York Times and, frankly, it scared me a bit to see that Lula seemed to be aligning himself with Mugabe and Chavez. He decried the unfairness of rich, imperialist nations again. He made it very clear that he believes the IOC owes Brazil the Olympic Games. The article reports:

"The biggest sporting event after the World Cup cannot be a privilege of rich nations," said Lula.

The United States is also bidding for the 2016 Games.

"The International Olympic Committee's leadership is like the world's riches -- all concentrated in Europe which has more delegates than all of Africa and Latin America," Lula said.

Did you notice that he described the Olympic Games as the world's SECOND biggest sporting event? I'm sure that's the way they are perceived in Brazil, but how will the IOC respond? If Brazil believes they have already won the Grand Prize in hosting the World Cup, why is it imperative for them to host what they believe to be a "runner-up" event only two years later? Lula's tone is extremely demanding and combative.

As near as I can tell, the goal of Rio's bid is solely to make a name for themselves. For me, this is a big turn-off. The goal of Chicago's bid is to initiate a new spirit of warmth and openness with the world. I had been thinking that, though I would feel disappointed for Chicago, I would have been happy for Rio if they won. I am starting to find the Brazilian bid much less sympathetic.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/09/27/...tam-africa.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As people like to say here Lula stated a FACT.

Olympic games are the second biggest sports events... fact...

Could he be more simpathic saying only a major sports event, yes, and he should did... But that's Lula, unfortunatelly or otherwise...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have to put it this way..

Does anyone has a video of Lulas speech ? Because we are basing all this discussion on that article cited. We don't know how he meant and the tone he said, and everyone of us gets a different interpretation. And I agree and Its alright to say Rio deserves the games, it's not being egoist but ambitious. All four cities has the right to state "we deserve it" bc all of them Really do. !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m a bit disappointed how Rio has managed the last few weeks of this campaign. Up until the Eval Report, I thought they seemed to be doing everything right. But it just seems to me that the team hasn’t handled their new found “possible (and definitely arguable) front-runner” label well. It just seems to me a worrying trend that statements like this are starting to appear when it should be a time for closing the ranks and maintaining strict discipline. Having a charismatic leader who speaks his mind is one thing, but this is a game of diplomacy now. All bids are begging for a privilege. Making demands is definitely the WRONG thing to do.

I’m still hoping for Rio, but I just hope they don’t shoot themselves in the foot. It would be a shame to come so far and only have themselves to blame if they come up short.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad to read your thoughts, Roltel. I can see the argument in support of Brazil, but it's becoming increasingly clear that beneath the surface, the tone of the bid is demanding and maybe even angry.

I'm just curious -- people are saying it is a fact that the World Cup is the world's biggest sporting event. I'm not necessarily arguing. I'm just asking for an explanation. I would think that the Olympics involve more countries, more athletes, more venues and more money. The ideals of the Olympic Movement are certainly bigger and more powerful than that of the World Cup. I can imagine that perhaps the international viewership of the World Cup is greater, although this is certainly not the case in the U.S.

Incidentally, if you took a poll in the U.S. there would be no question that the Olympics are far more important to us than the World Cup.

I will ask my question again. If the World Cup is so much more important to Brazil, then why are they so anxious to get the Olympics too? Especially only two years later? It is really coming off like a lot of nationalistic chest-thumping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just curious -- people are saying it is a fact that the World Cup is the world's biggest sporting event. I'm not necessarily arguing. I'm just asking for an explanation. I would think that the Olympics involve more countries, more athletes, more venues and more money. The ideals of the Olympic Movement are certainly bigger and more powerful than that of the World Cup. I can imagine that perhaps the international viewership of the World Cup is greater, although this is certainly not the case in the U.S.

Maybe it depends on the individual cultures and countries. I agree with you (and think it would generally be the case in Oz) that the Olympics is way and above the number one event - even when Australia makes the WC finals. Brazzis are, of course, football mad. I'd be intertested in the view of the Europeans - what's bigger, the FIFA WC or the SOGs?

Actually, that's a point I didn't address earlier, though I thought it. I can't imagine many IOC members would be too pleased to hear their event described as the world's "second" biggest event. It harks back to that old comment from an IOC member last year discussing Rio's bid, that the IOC likes the Olympics to be the "main event", not the "dessert".

Like I said - I think Rio's lack of experience of being in the position they are is starting to tell. It may not be fatal (I sure hope it isn't), but nevertheless they're doing and saying some silly and unneccesary things lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I think Olympic Games are more important and possibly it is a bigger sports event (because athletes number) than World Cup,

but I've read many times that TV audience for World Cup is bigger than Olympic and then Sponsorship for WC are more expensive. I've read once that structure for World Cup costs more to be built than Olympics.

Well, the costs for WC 2014 in Brazil are about USD 40 bn meanwhile for Rio 2016 project points 14 bn.

I have no data to prove that.

It's only a thing I've read a lot, including here in GB forums.

If you ask me if which one I prefer Brazil hosting I will say:

No doubts: Olympic Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...