baron-pierreIV Posted August 31, 2015 Report Share Posted August 31, 2015 (edited) OH, woo-woo....self-praise and internet analysis!! U think you're worth well-thought barbs and retorts? Dream on, c*nt. LatinXTC - ph*ck u. Sorry, I save my best for worthier causes...and frankly, especially the c*nt krow -- you don't even rank. Edited August 31, 2015 by baron-pierreIV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted August 31, 2015 Report Share Posted August 31, 2015 While I wouldn't refer to Caitlyn Jenner as a "surgically altered attention seeking Kardarshjan cast-off", there is a tiny amount of truth what he's saying. The fact that someone - let alone the mayor of the bidding city - said she should light the cauldron is beyond absurd. I'm not worried about that statement though because if LA were selected to host, the day of decision for the cauldron lighter won't come for another 9 years and by then, most of us will have completely forgotten about Caitlyn Jenner and she'll no longer be a pop culture phenomenon. And attention can turn to finding a worthy American Olympian, of which there are plenty out there. Not sure which of the swimmers would make for good choices. Let's see what Phelps does in his post-racing career, because he's been anything but a model citizen as a competitive athlete. O'Brien would be a good choice. As Mike Huckabee said of Chelsea (Wo)Manning's quest for an operation -- The Army is NOT a social experiment. Neither are the Olympics. I don't think the IOC would OK it. Why this one misguided person who's caused an asterisk in Olympic records -- when there are tons of others who deserve it? Just curious.. how has he/she caused an asterisk in Olympic records? Would love to hear the logic behind that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usa2024olympics Posted August 31, 2015 Report Share Posted August 31, 2015 What about the Williams sisters? From the streets of Compton and rose from the streets to international fame. They will become the first females to light the cauldron on American soil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted August 31, 2015 Report Share Posted August 31, 2015 Just curious.. how has he/she caused an asterisk in Olympic records? Would love to hear the logic behind that one. I think any Olympic records books moving forward, would now asterisk Bruce Jenner's listing because his Olympic victory would be listed under the (Male) Decathlon. And if it were a Complete history book, it would asterisk his name, as having X'ed over. Just like that removal of Marion Jones' relay in Sydney, that is asterisked in newer history books becuz while her medal was confiscated; the other 3 got to keep theirs. You asked. And that stupid Garcetti was just playing to the bleachers. Typical politician. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phandrosis Posted August 31, 2015 Report Share Posted August 31, 2015 Until the IOC REMOVES the clause from the host-city contracts in which someone OTHER THAN THEM will catch the cost overruns, you will always run into this PROBLEM. All cities should REJECT this preposterous condition of the IOC and have THEM swallow cost-oveeruns due to their demands. That is the crux of why very qualified and desirable cities are bailing out -- becuz the IOC is just a chicken-sh*t organization that won't own up to its own demands. The time, IOC, has come for you to redraw your charter. I feel like that would result in Shanghai 2024, Krasnodar 2026, Moscow 2028, and Harbin 2030 while they write up something that saves taxpayers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMarkSnow2012 Posted August 31, 2015 Report Share Posted August 31, 2015 But instead of these one-gold winners, how about we consider giving it to these multiple-medal winners: Michael Phelps (18 gold, 22 total), Mark Spitz (9 gold, 11 total), Carl Lewis (9 gold, 10 total), Jenny Thompson (8 gold, 12 total), Matt Biondi (8 gold, 11 total), etc. The big problem with that list is that all but one of them are swimmers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted August 31, 2015 Report Share Posted August 31, 2015 I think any Olympic records books moving forward, would now asterisk Bruce Jenner's listing because his Olympic victory would be listed under the (Male) Decathlon. And if it were a Complete history book, it would asterisk his name, as having X'ed over. Just like that removal of Marion Jones' relay in Sydney, that is asterisked in newer history books becuz while her medal was confiscated; the other 3 got to keep theirs. You asked. I did ask. Somewhat expected a silly answer. And that's what I got. Did Bruce Jenner's medal get confiscated because Caitlyn Jenner now has tits? Don't see how Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner's situation is comparable to Marion Jones. To me, Jenner is more like an athlete who changed nationalities. Doesn't change who Bruce Jenner was and what he accomplished back then simply because he/she identifies with being a woman. This is not a Richard Raskin/Renee Richards situation where Jenner is trying to compete as a woman. That was a controversy. This is not. Not sure what IOC regulations or specific sport federation rules state, but I believe if you have a penis (and were born with a penis), you're classified as a man. If you have a vagina and were born with a vagina, you're classified as a woman. Bruce Jenner - so far as we know - still had a penis when he competed in 1976. No asterisk needed until Caitlyn Jenner decides to compete as a woman. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted August 31, 2015 Report Share Posted August 31, 2015 (edited) I did ask. Somewhat expected a silly answer. And that's what I got. Did Bruce Jenner's medal get confiscated because Caitlyn Jenner now has tits? Don't see how Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner's situation is comparable to Marion Jones. To me, Jenner is more like an athlete who changed nationalities. Doesn't change who Bruce Jenner was and what he accomplished back then simply because he/she identifies with being a woman. This is not a Richard Raskin/Renee Richards situation where Jenner is trying to compete as a woman. That was a controversy. This is not. Not sure what IOC regulations or specific sport federation rules state, but I believe if you have a penis (and were born with a penis), you're classified as a man. If you have a vagina and were born with a vagina, you're classified as a woman. Bruce Jenner - so far as we know - still had a penis when he competed in 1976. No asterisk needed until Caitlyn Jenner decides to compete as a woman. What is your problem, D? Did I say Jenner's medal or title was taken away from him/her? All I'm pointing out is that certain exceptions are noted in the books; and if the historians want to honor Jenner's 2015 wish to be recognized as a woman, then they would do that in the record books...but at the same, as historians, they owe it to first-time readers who know nothing about the sex-change originally to at least know that is how THAT particular story developed. And BJ is probably the first Olympic medalist who consented to tell his sex-change to the world. Have you read any Olympic or sports record books? They are so full of first-this...first-that, etc. I don't see why this should not be noted. It is an exceptional first in itself. And you think in BJ's obituary this won't be mentioned?? And you don't have to be so condescending. Wait for THE COMPLETE BOOK ... as it appears next year...and see. Edited August 31, 2015 by baron-pierreIV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanMUC Posted August 31, 2015 Report Share Posted August 31, 2015 Good to see first things first again...or is the naming of the cauldron lighter already part of the revised initial bid requirements now? If the mayor has no other worries... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bythebay Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 What about the Williams sisters? From the streets of Compton and rose from the streets to international fame. They will become the first females to light the cauldron on American soil. I like the idea of finding local Olympians for the cauldron lighting and final torch run. The William sisters would make good candidates but I'd really like to see Misty May and Kerri Walsh considering they played a sport LA is most recognized for and originated there. They're more associated with Olympics than the William sisters are. Also, Greg Louganis would make a better choice than Caitlyn Jenner if they're thinking about making a "statement". 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) Or I'd go with say, Diana Naiad (if she's still around come 2028) and a black female athlete who...when the time comes, is still untainted by commercialism (like the amazon WIlliams sisters) -- so maybe the gymnasts Gabby Douglas or the new one following in her footsteps, Simone Biles -- in one of the traditional Olympic disciplines, gymnastics. Edited September 2, 2015 by baron-pierreIV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulsa Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 LA seems to be the natural choice to 2024. I think it's a better choice than Boston and the strongest bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryker Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 So apparently the NFL frontrunners is the race to return to Los Angeles are the Rams and the Chargers who would share a stadium in Inglewood, set to be built on the site of the old Hollywood Park horse track across from the Forum. Excavation is already beginning. It will be interesting to see how this factors in to L.A.'s bid as the stadium will have a glass roof. My guess is perhaps basketball or perhaps gymnastics gets relocated here. Any thoughts? http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/san-diego-chargers-oakland-raiders-st-louis-rams-los-angeles-stadium-090215 http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/dirt-is-turning-in-inglewood-stadium-up-next/article_efd79b91-2efc-52c6-b49f-84bfacdd0512.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LatinXTC Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 I still think that if there is a new stadium to be build for any NFL team, that new stadium should be the venue for at least the opening ceremony so that unnecessary modifications have to be done to Memorial Coliseum besides prepping it as the athletics stadium. The closing ceremony can be held there too, as a US closing ceremony will be just a giant concert like London's and Atlanta's was and not something too extravagant like Sochi's or Beijing's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryker Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 I still think that if there is a new stadium to be build for any NFL team, that new stadium should be the venue for at least the opening ceremony so that unnecessary modifications have to be done to Memorial Coliseum besides prepping it as the athletics stadium. The closing ceremony can be held there too, as a US closing ceremony will be just a giant concert like London's and Atlanta's was and not something too extravagant like Sochi's or Beijing's. The only problem with that is the new stadium is in Inglewood south of Los Angeles. Also, if the stadium is to be used for indoor events, I don't think there's enough turnaround time to prep the stadium from the ceremonies to something like gymnastics or basketball. The other stadium proposal is in Carson near the Stubhub Center which would be an open air stadium. I like the Inglewood plan better as it is part of the City of Champions revitalization project, a good example of having a plan in place that an Olympics could fit into. The project also includes a 6,000 seat performing arts venue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LatinXTC Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 The only problem with that is the new stadium is in Inglewood south of Los Angeles. Also, if the stadium is to be used for indoor events, I don't think there's enough turnaround time to prep the stadium from the ceremonies to something like gymnastics or basketball. The other stadium proposal is in Carson near the Stubhub Center which would be an open air stadium. I like the Inglewood plan better as it is part of the City of Champions revitalization project, a good example of having a plan in place that an Olympics could fit into. The project also includes a 6,000 seat performing arts venue. I can't imagine they would convert a football stadium into a gymnastics or basketball venue during the Olympics. It's fine if it was just used for the opening ceremony. Or use the stadium for something along the lines of what it's original use is for, have it hold some soccer/football games and/or rugby 7s games. With the amount of stadiums in and around LA (including college stadiums), they don't need to spread out there games around the rest of California. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryker Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 Well the Inglewood stadium will have a roof with 80,000 capacity. State-of-the-art and I'm sure it will have IOC members oozing over it. I don't see how a retractable roof stadium wouldn't be used for marquee events like gymnastics or basketball much like Atlanta did with the soon-to-be demolished Georgia Dome. Now if the Inglewood plan falls through and the NFL opts for the Carson plan, then yes, in all likelihood it would just be used for football or rugby sevens. The Carson stadium would be an open air stadium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 So apparently the NFL frontrunners is the race to return to Los Angeles are the Rams and the Chargers who would share a stadium in Inglewood, set to be built on the site of the old Hollywood Park horse track across from the Forum. Excavation is already beginning. It will be interesting to see how this factors in to L.A.'s bid as the stadium will have a glass roof. My guess is perhaps basketball or perhaps gymnastics gets relocated here. Any thoughts? http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/san-diego-chargers-oakland-raiders-st-louis-rams-los-angeles-stadium-090215 http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/dirt-is-turning-in-inglewood-stadium-up-next/article_efd79b91-2efc-52c6-b49f-84bfacdd0512.html I'll believe there's an NFL team headed to LA when they say so. We've heard rumblings like these for years and LA remains without a team. Yes, this seems different because it's an NFL owner heading the project, but still, not convinced this is a done deal yet. Well the Inglewood stadium will have a roof with 80,000 capacity. State-of-the-art and I'm sure it will have IOC members oozing over it. I don't see how a retractable roof stadium wouldn't be used for marquee events like gymnastics or basketball much like Atlanta did with the soon-to-be demolished Georgia Dome. Now if the Inglewood plan falls through and the NFL opts for the Carson plan, then yes, in all likelihood it would just be used for football or rugby sevens. The Carson stadium would be an open air stadium. Retractable roof is different than fixed roof. This isn't like the Georgia Dome where they had the curtain and could easily split the stadium in 2. Easier said than done for a venue like this to host indoor sports. Unlike Atlanta, Los Angeles is not without many indoor venues to hold sports like gymnastics and basketball. Atlanta didn't have that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 Football will have to be in Carson or Inglewood or the Rose Bowl becuz the LA Galaxy site at Exposition Park has been designated as the Swim venue. Or LA could have THREE venues for Ceremonies - the Coliseum, Inglewood and Carson. It will be the FIRST moving Olympic Opening Ceremony -- starts at one stadium at 1:00 pm; then everyone moves to site #2 at 4:00pm; then on to Site #3 at 8:00pm!! INNOVATIVE!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usa2024olympics Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 So apparently the NFL frontrunners is the race to return to Los Angeles are the Rams and the Chargers who would share a stadium in Inglewood, set to be built on the site of the old Hollywood Park horse track across from the Forum. Excavation is already beginning. It will be interesting to see how this factors in to L.A.'s bid as the stadium will have a glass roof. My guess is perhaps basketball or perhaps gymnastics gets relocated here. Any thoughts? http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/san-diego-chargers-oakland-raiders-st-louis-rams-los-angeles-stadium-090215 http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/dirt-is-turning-in-inglewood-stadium-up-next/article_efd79b91-2efc-52c6-b49f-84bfacdd0512.html The foxsports article is a bit confusing... If the raiders and chargers are sharing a stadium in Carson, wouldn't that be the favorite? That plan would fit nicely into the LA2024 plan considering the South Bay cluster is right where the stadium would be located Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 (edited) Deal to win City Council support for Olympics could hinder L.A.'s chances-latimes Lawmakers rewrote several provisions of Los Angeles' agreement with the U.S. Olympic Committee, ensuring that the City Council will be able to closely manage key aspects of financial planning for the games. Council members feared that those decisions could have otherwise been left largely to Garcetti and his chief private-sector partner, sports executive Casey Wasserman. Most important, the council established its authority to veto any taxpayer guarantee to pay for potential financial losses resulting from the games. That sets the stage for potential discord with Garcetti, who insists that the guarantee is necessary to compete with other prospective host cities wooing the International Olympic Committee, including Paris, Rome, Budapest and Hamburg, Germany. Sources familiar with the process said the council's action capped protracted backroom disputes between mayoral counsel Richard Llewellyn, who argued in public and private that changes to an earlier version of the agreement with the U.S. Olympic Committee were unnecessary, and the offices of City Atty. Mike Feuer, City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana and Chief Legislative Analyst Sharon Tso. The latter contingent — which ultimately prevailed — maintained that the mayor had negotiated a deal putting the city at financial risk and failing to give the City Council adequate oversight of the bid process, according to the sources who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal deliberations. City analysts and attorneys also worried that the language of a preliminary agreement might allow the International Olympic Committee to unilaterally impose conditions on the city down the road. ...theres a quote form Rob Livingstone somewhere in there too. Edited September 5, 2015 by paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woohooitsme83 Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 The Inglewood stadium will have a fixed GLASS roof iirc. It's also going to be closer to a future transit line. And like Stryker said, the 6k seater theatre and Forum would definitely help it become the the LA Live of the West Side. And since the South Bay cluster would make Carson the LA Live of the South, maybe Baron's plans of a dynamic ceremony won't be too bad? Like, each site - Stubhub/Southbay, Inglewood/CityOfChampions, LA Live, Expo Park/USC, Grand Park, etc, would have their own little festival, but it wouldn't start just yet. There has to be a grand parade that has to pass through the site before the festival can start. So that way, it can represent rerpresent the spirit of the games spreading thorough LA (from Expo Park I assume). The actual ceremony can be at the Coliseum, but all the other clusters/sites/regions can watch it together while eating fried Twinkies to make it seem like it's the community's games (Or even America's if they have the festival's all over the country, minus the parade). But traffic would be a nightmare, so LA better get their transit game up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citius Altius Fortius Posted September 14, 2015 Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 (edited) Has Los Angeles already submitted the application for 2024? Edited September 15, 2015 by Citius Altius Fortius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 ^from other GB's news reports, it appears that they have, but I haven't seen anything else confirming such an action yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citius Altius Fortius Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 ^from other GB's news reports, it appears that they have, but I haven't seen anything else confirming such an action yet. well, let's hope that this is true - it would be weird when they "forgot" to send the letter in time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.