los angeles 2024

[Quaker2001]

1 hour ago, zekekelso said:

Two issues... does having more government experience help you do the job as POTUS vs does it help you get elected. There is apparently a large group of people in the US who feel government experience is a negative.

There's also a group of nearly 63 million people who thought it was in their best interests to vote for Donald Trump as their president.  I'm no fan of Hillary so I get the animosity against her, but still.. Donald fucking Trump

It's not having experience that's the negative so much as being in the inner circle of DC politicians where so few people are trustworthy.  Then again, following a Donald Trump presidency, who knows what people would be looking for in their next president because that's a pretty low bar he's setting.  Either way though - and I'll draw another Olympic analogy here - with a 2 party system, in order to run for president, you first need the backing of your political party.  Just like LA needed to get selected by the USOC before they could proceed to the IOC candidate stage.  So it speaks to how messed up the US political system is these days, but that's a discussion for another thread.

[Roger87]

45 minutes ago, RuFF said:

But forget that, the French media, and other international media, are acknowledging LA has a strong, perhaps stronger bid, than Paris.

https://www.google.com/amp/m.leparisien.fr/amp/sports/jo-2024-los-angeles-a-frappe-fort-15-05-2017-6949611.php

This was news because?

If any case, wait until the big presentations of Paris this week as Bauchmann said.

[Quaker2001]

45 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Awesome you brought that up, he's written a piece directed at Mayor Hidalgo.

http://www.3wiresports.com/2017/05/14/whos-got-next-mme-hidalgo/

i can definitely see the political nightmare Mayor Hidalgo is busing for herself.

I actually get the same e-mail alerts you do whenever he posts an article.  Seems like with you it's very Pavlov-ian.  See an article.. must post on the Internet to tell everyone you agree what he says!  You're a parrot.  Or I goes more to the point, a ParRufft

[Quaker2001]

51 minutes ago, RuFF said:

But forget that, the French media, and other international media, are acknowledging LA has a strong, perhaps stronger bid, than Paris.

https://www.google.com/amp/m.leparisien.fr/amp/sports/jo-2024-los-angeles-a-frappe-fort-15-05-2017-6949611.php

Bid evaluation scores from 2016..
Tokyo - 8.3
Madrid - 8.1
Chicago - 7.0
Doha - 6.9
Rio - 6.4
Prague - 5.3
Baku - 4.3

Bid evaluation scores from 2012..

Paris - 8.5
Madrid - 8.3
London - 7.6
New York - 7.5
Moscow - 6.5

 

Remind me who won those 2 bids?  But no, keep sharing articles that agree with your narrative.  I'm sure there's nothing out there to the contrary.

[Roger87]

1 minute ago, Quaker2001 said:

I actually get the same e-mail alerts you do whenever he posts an article.  Seems like with you it's very Pavlov-ian.  See an article.. must post on the Internet to tell everyone you agree what he says!  You're a parrot.  Or I goes more to the point, a ParRufft

He did the same thing with the opinion letter of "Liberation", even when "Le Monde" did another in support of Paris 2024 and both letters have nothing of ground with a political statement. Or now creating Hidalgo's aspirations as the next French President, when she declared she would respect the popular opinion and worked with Macron for the best regardless of her personal to him. 

Beyond the LA-Paris fight, this isn't the first time Abrahamson tends to bring his bias and stanning for a certain bid during his articles of the Olympic races. When he has a favourite, his full impartial thought as a journalist is lost and create even alternative facts to help his cause. But somehow this 2024 race tends to be "huge" in comparaison. That's bad because his op-ed of history are interesting to read.

[FYI]

52 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

I actually get the same e-mail alerts you do whenever he posts an article.  Seems like with you it's very Pavlov-ian.  See an article.. must post on the Internet to tell everyone you agree what he says! 

Lmfao - gives a whole new meaning to  Ruff-gina alert. 

53 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

You're a parrot.  Or I goes more to the point, a ParRufft

Lol - another one to add to the endless list of Truff-inisms.

[FYI]

46 minutes ago, Roger87 said:

Beyond the LA-Paris fight, this isn't the first time Abrahamson tends to bring his bias and stanning for a certain bid during his articles of the Olympic races. When he has a favourite, his full impartial thought as a journalist is lost and create even alternative facts to help his cause. But somehow this 2024 race tends to be "huge" in comparaison. That's bad because his op-ed of history are interesting to read.

This is kinda interesting, bcuz I've been following, & been on this website, for almost as long as AbraTwatson has been commenting on the Olympics, & I've never heard of her before until six months ago when Truff first introduced her mumbo-jumbo here. But good to know that everytime she has a "favorite", her "noteriety" becomes moot, to say the least.

[FYI]

1 hour ago, Roger87 said:

Again with this sh*t? Abrahamson may have 20 years of experience, but he's widely known for his clear bias for his favorites and this isn't the first time. And then making Anne Hidalgo as a hateful woman for envy and anger against Macron. His levels of pettiness and arrogance couldn't hit more low levels (And coming from you, Ruff which always put LA bid as ethical, unbiased and nice, this is even desperate). 

Maybe you need to leave the Abrahamson circle of adoration and stop wanting anything to put down. I know Miss Hidalgo and she was always a smart, wonderful and dilligent woman, who even can leave her personal aspirations for team objectives related to the work as public service. She did the same thing with Miss Valerie Pecresse (Even when both have different parties) and after Macron's investidure, she spoke to him and discuss beyond their differences related to the prospect of the Olympic bid. 

What Abrahamson did there not only is personal bias, it's simple unethical as a journalist and a pathetic attempt to secure the Olympics for dirty tricks (Which ironically he accused the French team for the Facebook "allegedly" competition). But my respect to him can't go anywhere low, because he's capable to create a feud in spaces where no one had. 

I guess since Marine Le Pen lost the French election, to "neutralize" the Trump factor, this is the latest petty & grasping at straws attempt to try & discredit Paris 2024. It really is telling how low that she'll go.

[Roger87]

22 minutes ago, FYI said:

I guess since Marine Le Pen lost the French election, to "neutralize" the Trump factor, this is the latest petty & grasping at straws attempt to try & discredit Paris 2024. It really is telling how low that she'll go.

Speaking of that, by Wednesday Macron will reveal his Cabinet -Starting with the Prime Minister today-. He promised a Cabinet close of full parity of men and women, experienced and young ministers. If he keeps that promise on board, his Cabinet may be the most diverse in all the Ve. Republic. Exactly the same day as Macron will have an evening meeting with the IOC members and the new French government.

And again related to Abrahamson, 5 years can be a double sword. Let's say he's right and Hidalgo prefers sabotaging Macron to get the full triumph. That doesn't guaranteed: a. She will be eligible of competing for the French Presidential race, especially with the PS in full reconstruction with the Greens and b. That action can backfire (Something like happened with Valls when he was Prime Minister), especially if Macron has a healthy administration (He'll probably ended re-elected after Sarkozy-Hollande disasters), making her as the "villain" (Again like Valls).

And like I said (For personal knowledge), Hidalgo isn't that kind of person. And what Abrahamson seems lacking is clear information of the French political system (With some differences of the American style). Just for status and as unitary republic, Macron has the upper hand in the decisions (In this case, she would lose more than him) and the Paris bid has been approved by all the members of the Council (Including by the chief - Ms. Precesse). Then all the main parties gave positive points. Also, if the projections of the legislative elections in June came true, there won't be a long opposition for the bid (As Abrahamson really wants), considering EM! can be only 3 slots behind of the clear majority (And that's dependable how many of the Juppistes will join to Macron). And last, if an opposition letter was enough to stop an international event, we wouldn't have Euro 2016 in France in first place.

And please, sorry for the long post, but srly reading these half trues and alternative theories from Abrahamson gave me enough nerves of anger. It's like reading the Spanish media during 2020 Olympic race.

[baron-pierreIV]

3 hours ago, A-Money1983 said:

Any input from the 1984 Time Magazine MOY/ Fmr. MLB commissioner if LA wins on either try?

Good point.  But what would you expect Peter Ueberroth to say?  

[Quaker2001]

2 hours ago, RuFF said:

He sends email alerts? 

I guess that explains why are quick to reply to posts, too. I think FYI is right. Get a life. Over and over showing up for stuff you claim is crap. 

[A-Money1983]

7 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Good point.  But what would you expect Peter Ueberroth to say?  

I'm not sure.  He just knows a thing or two about conducting a successful SOG, and one of the few (if not only) to turn a tangible profit.

[baron-pierreIV]

Just now, A-Money1983 said:

I'm not sure.  He just knows a thing or two about conducting a successful SOG, and one of the few (if not only) to turn a tangible profit.

But he's also one whom the IOC has kept its distance from because he made them look like clueless bozos.  So I don't know what else he can really add.  

[Quaker2001]

7 minutes ago, A-Money1983 said:

I'm not sure.  He just knows a thing or two about conducting a successful SOG, and one of the few (if not only) to turn a tangible profit.

That was a long time ago.  What advice could he give the current committee that they don't know already?

Also remember that the LA 2024 folks are attempting to do something their 1984 counterparts didn't have to do, and that's earn more votes from the IOC than another city (although if the double award happens, that might be a moot point)

[A-Money1983]

This just came to mind, but which format for LA24 would be more likely to be followed?  1984 or 1996?

[paul]

26 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

But he's also one whom the IOC has kept its distance from because he made them look like clueless bozos.  So I don't know what else he can really add.  

.....and they are back in their clown bus to see which city is stupid enough to throw an all expenses paid 6 year party for a bunch of old crusty criminal were the main theme is diverting time and resources from the cities needs to the IOC and sport federations desires.  And which city is stupid enough to help cover up their horrendous track record of leaving cities in worse shape than they found them (if not totally devastated and in shock....see RIO)....and which city has the most corrupt partners that will plot and sustain a spin narrative that ... "it's about the children's future, happiness and sharing". (and probably world peace and a world without oil). p.s. the child is typically a poor minority pre-teen who loves to play basketball in a make-shift but colorful back ally court that his community came together to construct out of their love of sharing and caring. There may or may not be rainbow color painted around the court...it's optional.

Paris has got this in the bag.

[paul]

52 minutes ago, A-Money1983 said:

I'm not sure.  He just knows a thing or two about conducting a successful SOG, and one of the few (if not only) to turn a tangible profit.

....no Olympics turn a profit, not something the IOC wants to emphasize.

[Quaker2001]

2 minutes ago, A-Money1983 said:

This just came to mind, but which format for LA24 would be more likely to be followed?  1984 or 1996?

In terms of what?  Olympic bids rarely follow a formula or a template because every city is different.  There are lessons to be learned from every Olympics, some good and some bad.  But it's not necessarily the case where an Olympics had a "format" to be followed, especially since there are so many variables.  Are we talking about venue plans?  Financing?  Or any number of things to point to.

[A-Money1983]

Just now, Quaker2001 said:

In terms of what?  Olympic bids rarely follow a formula or a template because every city is different.  There are lessons to be learned from every Olympics, some good and some bad.  But it's not necessarily the case where an Olympics had a "format" to be followed, especially since there are so many variables.  Are we talking about venue plans?  Financing?  Or any number of things to point to.

I just meant since 1984 was so financially successful, why did other cities not take the same approach?  

For instance, did Athens, Beijing or Rio have enough pre-existing venues of their own without having to build white elephants?

[Quaker2001]

Just now, A-Money1983 said:

I just meant since 1984 was so financially successful, why did other cities not take the same approach?  

For instance, did Athens, Beijing or Rio have enough pre-existing venues of their own without having to build white elephants?

Do you not know the answer to that first question?  Olympic bids from every country other than the United States are backed by the government.  No way to raise the billions of dollars needed otherwise.  The U.S. is the exception in that there's enough money from the private sector for them to back the bid.  That's simply not an option in other countries to take the NOC and the government out of the equation.

As for the second part.. no, they did not have enough venues.  Athens especially, as birthplace of the Olympics, made the point that they didn't want to build temporary venues.  Needless to say, that proved to be a bad decision.  Beijing didn't care so much since they threw more money at the Olympics than they knew what do to with.  Rio tried to find a balance between permanent and temporary, but they're now left with an Olympic park that probably is of little use to them.  To that end..

9 minutes ago, paul said:

.....and they are back in their clown bus to see which city is stupid enough to throw an all expenses paid 6 year party for a bunch of old crusty criminal were the main theme is diverting time and resources from the cities needs to the IOC and sport federations desires.  And which city is stupid enough to help cover up their horrendous track record of leaving cities in worse shape than they found them (if not totally devastated and in shock....see RIO)....and which city has the most corrupt partners that will plot and sustain a spin narrative that ... "it's about the children's future, happiness and sharing". (and probably world peace and a world without oil). p.s. the child is typically a poor minority pre-teen who loves to play basketball in a make-shift but colorful back ally court that his community came together to construct out of their love of sharing and caring. There may or may not be rainbow color painted around the court...it's optional.

Paris has got this in the bag.

Is the city of Rio actually "totally devastated and in shock" or is that just hyperbole?  And if that is the state of the city, is that the fault of the Olympics or other socio-economic issues?  It's easy to blame the Olympics on the downfall of the Greek economy, but it's only a small factor in what happened to that country and city.  Same thing with Rio.  They won the Olympic bid when the country was on an economic high.  7 years later they fell down to Earth.  The Olympics may have contributed to that, but it's hardly the only reason.  The city did get some infrastructure improvements (yes, I know the argument where it needs to be looked at who that benefited and at the same time, who was hurt by that), similar to Athens, but I don't think the situation there is as dire as the media wants you to believe.  If it was, we'd still be hearing about it rather than the reality is that the world stopped caring as soon as the Olympics were over and the sensationalist headlines subsided.

[Quaker2001]

30 minutes ago, paul said:

....no Olympics turn a profit, not something the IOC wants to emphasize.

You mean other than 1984?  Something that LA folks want to emphasize, even though that factoid is not as relevant as they want it to be.

[paul]

32 minutes ago, A-Money1983 said:

I just meant since 1984 was so financially successful, why did other cities not take the same approach?  

For instance, did Athens, Beijing or Rio have enough pre-existing venues of their own without having to build white elephants?

...I think in those cases (and most) the government was overly involved in trying to make the games a PR stunt, with more success in Beijing than Rio in the very end. But Beijing has more success, more money to burn, and more global spin experience than Rio. Rio was just stupidly naive thinking their economy had somehow found a magic success formula...they actually convinced themselves they had arrived with unlimited funds, but nobody really believed it would last outside Brazil.

Once the IOC gets these governments ginned up and paying for things......THEN the corruption machine really goes into overdrive. Budgets always explode.....ask Tokyo (and the Japanese are so organized right?).

Interesting that the ONLY profitable games was one in which the Organizing committee had (at the time) the leverage to say we do it our way, we offer no guarantee to the IOC and you play by our rules. Ever since it's been a slow crawl back to where they were before 84.

It's Classic IOC that we see a huge project about to wrap up 24 with a lot of similar characteristics to what got the movement where it is now. The disturbing part is LA is allowing the IOC to use them as a guarantee which allows another old school risky games before LA has to come in and clean up an even bigger mess if they take 28.

Yeah, I'd love to hear what Mr. Euberroff thinks.

[paul]

56 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

 I don't think the situation there is as dire as the media wants you to believe.  If it was, we'd still be hearing about it rather than the reality is that the world stopped caring as soon as the Olympics were over and the sensationalist headlines subsided.

....ya I think it's actually worse.....but nobody cares now.

..except of course the raw sewage issue running in rivers to the bay, I'm sure that is much better now that the committee has had a year to continue it's city wide improvements.

[A-Money1983]

I wonder how counter-productive social media has been for the Olympics as a whole.

There could be a 20-minute power outage in the Olympic Village, and then it suddenly gets compared to Munich and Atlanta.

[paul]

5 hours ago, paul said:

.....and they are back in their clown bus to see which city is stupid enough to throw an all expenses paid 6 year party for a bunch of old crusty criminal were the main theme is diverting time and resources from the cities needs to the IOC and sport federations desires.  And which city is stupid enough to help cover up their horrendous track record of leaving cities in worse shape than they found them (if not totally devastated and in shock....see RIO)....and which city has the most corrupt partners that will plot and sustain a spin narrative that ... "it's about the children's future, happiness and sharing". (and probably world peace and a world without oil). p.s. the child is typically a poor minority pre-teen who loves to play basketball in a make-shift but colorful back ally court that his community came together to construct out of their love of sharing and caring. There may or may not be rainbow color painted around the court...it's optional.

Paris has got this in the bag.

 

aaaaaaand cue the minority kids...

...as i mentioned .... it's Olympic bidding 101....gotta have it.