The New York Times: Brazil’s 2016 Olympic Bid Gets Presidential Push

[Felipe Menegaz]

Brazil’s 2016 Olympic Bid Gets Presidential Push

By GEORGE VECSEY

Published: September 22, 2009

The easiest job in the world belongs to Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, as he supports Rio de Janeiro for the 2016 Olympics.

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva wants the 2016 Games in Brazil. “We’re not this tiny country people thought,” he said.

All da Silva has to do is say “Rio has the most beautiful beaches in the world,” and he has an instant audience.

He made this simple statement Tuesday in throaty Portuguese, with English translation, and right away I was picturing the long foamy waves and Corcovado in the background and, well, all right, I was also picturing “The Girl From Ipanema.”

In a week or so, da Silva will fly to Copenhagen for the Oct. 2 vote by the International Olympic Committee that will decide from among Chicago, Tokyo, Madrid and Rio. He will undoubtedly mention beaches. But he will also push his other talking points: Brazil is an emerging economic giant and it deserves to represent South America, which has never hosted the Olympics.

A union man, a former lathe worker, da Silva talks with passion about poor kids from Brazil or Argentina or Colombia who could “hop on a bus or a truck” to see the Games. It is not clear that any of the 106 voting members of the I.O.C. will care about this populist sentiment.

In New York to visit the United Nations on his way to Pittsburgh for the G-20 economic summit on Thursday and Friday, da Silva will then go to Copenhagen. He is following in the path of Prime Minister Tony Blair, who flew to Singapore in 2005 and chatted up I.O.C. members, apparently so successfully that London was chosen for 2012.

And then there was Vladimir V. Putin, who as Russia’s president traveled to Guatemala City in 2007 and turned on his K.G.B. charm until the city of Sochi was chosen to hold the 2014 Winter Games.

After those two missions, the folk wisdom is that it does not hurt to have a head of state work the room before the members take their secret vote.

“I have information on how London won,” da Silva said. “And yes, Blair talked to a lot of people.” Sebastian Coe, the head of the London organizing committee and a gold-medal runner, is also said to have turned a few delegates as London stunned Paris to win the vote for 2012. But the point was made: schmoozing just might work.

With that in mind, Japan’s new Prime Minister, Yukio Hatoyama, is considering traveling to Copenhagen and King Juan Carlos of Spain is expected to attend. But President Obama has said he is not going.

“I would make a case in Copenhagen personally if I was not so firmly committed into making real the promise of quality affordable health care for every American,” Obama said recently, adding, “But the good news is I am sending a more compelling superstar to represent the city and country we love and that is our first lady.”

Asked if it was helpful for a head of state to attend the meeting, da Silva volunteered that he has been talking to I.O.C. members for two years. When somebody noted that Michelle Obama would represent the United States in Copenhagen, da Silva said he was bringing his wife with him, “so it will be two against one.”

More damaging than the absence of President Obama is the reality that the acting chief executive officer of the United States Olympic Committee, Stephanie A. Streeter, and the president, Larry Probst, have relatively little standing in the I.O.C., which is known for clubbiness and contacts.

The I.O.C. president, Jacques Rogge, has said, rather ominously, that disputes with the U.S.O.C. about revenue sharing and a proposed Olympic network in the United States will have “no negative effects whatsoever” on Chicago’s chances. The generally attractive plan by the great city of Chicago could be offset because some I.O.C. members are still unhappy over losing their perks in bid cities after revelations that favors helped bring the 1996 Summer Games to Atlanta and the 2002 Winter Games to Salt Lake City.

All four finalist cities for 2016 received good reports by the bid committee earlier this month. The strongest criticism of Rio mentioned violence, but da Silva said Brazil had not suffered an overt terrorist attack, and he told how poor youth from Brazil’s slums had helped quell robberies during recent sports events.

Speaking to invited representatives of about a dozen news outlets, da Silva made the point that Brazil has the largest economy of any nation that has not yet held the Summer Games. He stressed the development of oil fields off the Brazil coast and the nation’s aircraft industry.

“We’re not this tiny country people thought,” he said.

He noted that Brazil will be the host for the World Cup of soccer in 2014, and said infrastructure would be created for the tournament that would be useful in 2016. But the best infrastructure of all might be the sand and the waves.

Wait a minute: the 2016 Summer Games will be in August, which just happens to be late winter south of the Equator. However, a check of the weather for Rio in August revealed an average high of 76 degrees Fahrenheit and an average low 64 (24 to 18 centigrade). Very nice for walking on the beach, somebody from the bid committee reassured me. No doubt da Silva will mention this to the I.O.C. members.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/sports/2...azil&st=cse

[Dinhu4ever]

That was...adorably sarcastic?

[Adrian]

That was...adorably sarcastic?

I think is cool!

[DannyelBrazil]

I like the article...

[IceNarcissus]

Why do you guys like this article if you support Rio?

The article clearly paints Lula as an obnoxious noisemaker, not a hero. The repetition of key phrases, the focus on trivial statements, the parallel with Putin using "KGB charm", and the contrast with Obama's decision to not go due to presidential duties kind of all point to Lula being a nutty excitement-seeker ignoring more pressing Brazilian issues in the trying to capitalize on the USOC's shaky standing with the IOC.

You guys need to read between the lines a little bit better and scrutinize the news more closely, especially coming from papers like the NY Times which master the art of writing articles WITHIN articles. I understand if English isn't your first language the finer nuances of tone in English-language journalism might be difficult. I have that problem in other languages myself.

Trust me, this is isn't quite the positive piece it's made out to be.

[aluz]

Why do you guys like this article if you support Rio?

The article clearly paints Lula as an obnoxious noisemaker, not a hero. The repetition of key phrases, the focus on trivial statements, the parallel with Putin using "KGB charm", and the contrast with Obama's decision to not go due to presidential duties kind of all point to Lula being a nutty excitement-seeker ignoring more pressing Brazilian issues in the trying to capitalize on the USOC's shaky standing with the IOC.

You guys need to read between the lines a little bit better and scrutinize the news more closely, especially coming from papers like the NY Times which master the art of writing articles WITHIN articles. I understand if English isn't your first language the finer nuances of tone in English-language journalism might be difficult. I have that problem in other languages myself.

Trust me, this is isn't quite the positive piece it's made out to be.

I wouldn't say that the article is either positive or negative, but it clearly says, in a kind of sarcastic way, that the IOC members are subject to charm and schmoozing. It does paint Lula as a bit nutty, but that's coherent with his image as a world leader. And he is a very respected one.

It also implies that Obama's choice not to appear might hurt Chicago's chances, but that they approve the move.

It gives away that, maybe for the Copenhagen election, Lula's flaky style might actually work. And it is kind of critical and sarcastic about both Lula's and IOC members' behaviour.

Anyway, on the purpose of securing the 2016 SOG to Rio, it is positive.

[DannyelBrazil]

Trust me, this is isn't quite the positive piece it's made out to be.

I see the criticism (with a lot of sarcasm) about Lula and agree with that?

What's the problem with this?

I did understand the nuances and the sarcasm...

Besides I'm Rio supporter, I never said I'm a Lula supporter...

And, well, I think Lula is not bidding for be himself the host city of the SOG... LOL

[baron-pierreIV]

. “We’re not this tiny country people thought,” he said.

“We’re not this tiny country people thought,” he said.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/sports/2...azil&st=cse

WHO EVER said Brazil was a tiny country??? I never anyone who thought this?

Where does that come from?

[Dinhu4ever]

I believe he is using the word tiny in a metaphorical sense. He probably said "paizinho" (literally, tiny country), which in portuguese has a seriously derogatory tone. The reporter just translated it as tiny country when a most accurate translation would be along the lines of not important, underdevoleped and such. I don't think the media thinks of Brazil as tiny, I remember reading somewhere that people often thought of Brazil as "Mexico on steroids", but that is changing.

[aluz]

I believe he is using the word tiny in a metaphorical sense. He probably said "paizinho" (literally, tiny country), which in portuguese has a seriously derogatory tone. The reporter just translated it as tiny country when a most accurate translation would be along the lines of not important, underdevoleped and such. I don't think the media thinks of Brazil as tiny, I remember reading somewhere that people often thought of Brazil as "Mexico on steroids", but that is changing.

I saw the original quote in Portuguese and that's exactly what he said: "paizinho".

[Roux]

I believe he is using the word tiny in a metaphorical sense. He probably said "paizinho" (literally, tiny country), which in portuguese has a seriously derogatory tone. The reporter just translated it as tiny country when a most accurate translation would be along the lines of not important, underdevoleped and such. I don't think the media thinks of Brazil as tiny, I remember reading somewhere that people often thought of Brazil as "Mexico on steroids", but that is changing.

I don't think I would even use the word in that context. Brazil is becoming more & more important economically, in a similar way as the other BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China)

[Dinhu4ever]

I don't think I would even use the word in that context. Brazil is becoming more & more important economically, in a similar way as the other BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China)

And that's exactly what he said. I was just explaining why the report would state that our president believes that there are still people who think Brazil is a "tiny country".

[Soaring]

I don't think I would even use the word in that context. Brazil is becoming more & more important economically, in a similar way as the other BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China)

Russia is losing importance, but I agree, Brazil, India and China are gaining importance.

[Cauê]

"Brazil is an emerging economic giant and it deserves to represent South America, which has never hosted the Olympics."

Agree. Perfect!