Jump to content

Vancouver 2010 Offical Report


Recommended Posts

I love this never-ending teeth gnashing. Lillehammer wuz best! O noes Vancouver wuz! No way--Sapporo! LOL

Vanoc got a few things wrong and a few very, very right. One of the things I think they got bang on speaks to this very conversation: rather than trying to host the "best ever" Games they opted for "extraordinary Games." And in most respects they delivered on this: venues, setting, spectator experience, transport, competition, substantive Aboriginal participation. AND affordable tickets for most events: I paid $25 for the short track finale and $500 for the men's gold medal hockey. I paid 225 for a ticket to the recent Stanley Park playoffs (not finals). So in retrospect 500 wasn't that expensive for THE BEST HOCKEY GAME EVARRRRRRR!!!!!! ;)

But clearly Lillehammer was the best. Salt Lake? Too spead out and their Aboriginal participation reflected the historically poor relationship between the LDS and Aboriginal peoples of the Utah territory.

And FIL is responsible for the Georgian fellow's death--100%. They homologated the venue for competition. They chose to allow an unexperienced athlete compete--even after he said "I'm going for a track record" just before he launched into that horrible last run.

FIL ran the competition, not Vanoc. The sport manager is the liaison between the OC and the IF--but the IF is in charge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one of the reasons the Lillehammer Games are held up to such a high standard is because they were just so meticulously organized. The facilities were unique - the hockey rink carved into the mountain - and they had pristine views of the mountains, with gently falling white snow and evergreen forests. They were also the first Games to put a big emphasis on the environment and they were the last Games to be held in a small town setting. It is those little things. A lot of the little things are just timing and luck. Vancouver had a warm winter in 2010. Calgary had a chinook just before the opening of the 1988 Games. And Nagano suffered through the Asian economic meltdown of the late 1990s. These factors have an impact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this never-ending teeth gnashing. Lillehammer wuz best! O noes Vancouver wuz! No way--Sapporo! LOL

Vanoc got a few things wrong and a few very, very right. One of the things I think they got bang on speaks to this very conversation: rather than trying to host the "best ever" Games they opted for "extraordinary Games." And in most respects they delivered on this: venues, setting, spectator experience, transport, competition, substantive Aboriginal participation. AND affordable tickets for most events: I paid $25 for the short track finale and $500 for the men's gold medal hockey. I paid 225 for a ticket to the recent Stanley Park playoffs (not finals). So in retrospect 500 wasn't that expensive for THE BEST HOCKEY GAME EVARRRRRRR!!!!!! ;)

But clearly Lillehammer was the best. Salt Lake? Too spead out and their Aboriginal participation reflected the historically poor relationship between the LDS and Aboriginal peoples of the Utah territory.

And FIL is responsible for the Georgian fellow's death--100%. They homologated the venue for competition. They chose to allow an unexperienced athlete compete--even after he said "I'm going for a track record" just before he launched into that horrible last run.

FIL ran the competition, not Vanoc. The sport manager is the liaison between the OC and the IF--but the IF is in charge.

Thank you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you!

No worries. Take off, eh? ;)

And I meant Stanley Cup rather than Stanley park :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...