Jump to content

Ioc Treatment Of (now) Nobelist Obama


Recommended Posts

Complete comparing of apples to oranges here. Besides, Samaranch was rumored to want the Nobel committee to award him a Nobel Peace Prize, when Lillehammer got the 1994 Winter Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chicago being eliminated in the first round was indeed surprising, disappointing (and I do feel sorry for they had an exciting innovative plan whose Chicago final presentation didn't do justice to).

But to keep calling it a "snub of Chicago and Obama" is just quite insulting to the other 3 candidate cities as it implies that they were not on the same league as Chicago and its leaders. Some of the Chicago backers always assumed that the 2016 race was just a matter of not giving the IOC a reason to by-pass Chicago while the race is all along about providing a compelling reason to select Chicago. Chicago's team and USOC failed to provide such a compelling reason (granted Rio had a much easier message to sale with the new-frontier card), failed to play by the IOC unwritten rules (I cannot believe that USOC apparently trusted IOC members when they told them that they would vote Chicago in the first round. If you add up all the first round promises made to the four candidates, you would come to the conclusion that the IOC has 150 members). I don't blame them, it's an easy mistake to make (just ask Paris 2012). But to be utterly incapable of recognising this failure and to blame anti-Americanism as this article is doing is showing ignorance and/or arrogance (just like the reaction of some Paris 2012 members was arrogant) and is certainly a sure way to prepare future defeat.

Well, that's just one persons opinion. If Mr. Hersh wants to think that way, that's his prerogative. If many of you here bothered to read any of the comments of his article in the blog section, though, you guys would see that the majority of those *Americans* disagreed with him.

Again, it wasn't a matter of being "snubbed", but one of shock & surprise, since again, it was widely viewed throughout the 2016 race, that the other two bids were seriously handicapped, again, for the *obvious* reasons; London 2012 & Beijing 2008, so it was "expected" that one of the other 2 bids were going to go out first, just like Moscow was predicted to go out first for 2012, which it was. But that angle seems to be kept getting overlooked over & over again, because a lot of you just like pointing the finger simply because of people like Philip Hersh. Who cares what he thinks, he's just one person with apparently not much of a following, judging by his blog.

I for one, AM "over it". Rio won, okay, congratulations to them. But some of these comments on here just like to keep on winding the wagon. And I would think that the IOC is smart enough to not put too much emphasis on Mr. Hersh's article. I'm sure they probably haven't even read it, & if some of them did, they probably just shrugged their shoulders & continued to sip on their morning latte.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

/\ Plus, they're still too busy winding down business; welcoming the new colleagues, etc., creating new alliances and blocs...to bother with Hersh's article. But I bet the news certainly woke up a few of them this morning. If anything, those with maybe troubled consciences will have been relieved, comforting themselves that: well, at least he got something equally substantial a week after.

And they all meet again in 4-1/2 months' time. This is probably the shortest period between full IOC Sessions in history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's just one persons opinion. If Mr. Hersh wants to think that way, that's his prerogative. If many of you here bothered to read any of the comments of his article in the blog section, though, you guys would see that the majority of those *Americans* disagreed with him.

Again, it wasn't a matter of being "snubbed", but one of shock & surprise, since again, it was widely viewed throughout the 2016 race, that the other two bids were seriously handicapped, again, for the *obvious* reasons; London 2012 & Beijing 2008, so it was "expected" that one of the other 2 bids were going to go out first, just like Moscow was predicted to go out first for 2012, which it was. But that angle seems to be kept getting overlooked over & over again, because a lot of you just like pointing the finger simply because of people like Philip Hersh. Who cares what he thinks, he's just one person with apparently not much of a following, judging by his blog.

I for one, AM "over it". Rio won, okay, congratulations to them. But some of these comments on here just like to keep on winding the wagon. And I would think that the IOC is smart enough to not put too much emphasis on Mr. Hersh's article. I'm sure they probably haven't even read it, & if some of them did, they probably just shrugged their shoulders & continued to sip on their morning latte.

For Christ sake, stop trying to guess what I am implying or not every time I post something.

I have never said that most of "Americans" agree with him or not, as a matter of fact I don't care.

I was just pointing out this as an example of the fundamental lack of understanding of the dynamics of the IOC from some "Americans".

And I am sorry but there have been a lot of articles talking about "snub", and this one is an example of it. And to be honest, there have also been many good articles trying to analyse the reasons behind Rio's victory.

And finally, I have never said that the IOC cared about this stupid article. What I have said is that this article is revealing of a kind of mentality where one is truly incapable of a honest analysis of a situation because one is certain he was right and treated unfairly, and that this kind of behaviour is not the best way to prepare for the changes needed to prepare a future victorious bid. And again, before being conveniently labelled as "anti-American", Paris 2012 and some French media went through the exact same phase, which I can understand on the one hand because of teh deception but also contributed to feeding the "arrogant French" cliché.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I am And again, before being conveniently labelled as "anti-American", Paris 2012 and some French media went through the exact same phase, which I can understand on the one hand because of teh deception but also contributed to feeding the "arrogant French" cliché.

Well, geez. At least the French made it into the final 2012 round (as it was expected) & only lost to London by a mere 4 votes. Quite a contrast from the 2016 Chicago/Rio results. I don't see how comparing the 2 votes are similiar. That's like comparing apples & oranges. But whatever, I digress. The 2016 race is over, time to move on to 2018 now. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have an issue with Obama getting the Nobel, really. I just think it's strange. I was reading in the newspaper today that, had Obama's nomination been submitted on the final possible day, he would have been president for 9 days! o.o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think first one must analyze how & why Obama won the Nobel Prize and whether it's deserved or not. It's a completely different and very loooooooooooong discussion that pretty much renders the IOC irrelevant. They saw through the Obama-appeal and voted based on the bids. End of discusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with you. In reality we don't know who Obama is yet, it's been just a few months in power.

And Obama acutally said he did not deserve the prize this morning. I think he got this prize mainly because he's "the first black president".

I don't think so. IMO, this prize is a kind of message from the World: try another way to solve your international demands, don't be like Bush and so on. I really don't know Obama's Administration and can´t judge them. Only American can do that. But it seems to me this prize came too soon.

About IOC and Nobel Prize, I agree to Denis: there is no link between them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...