Jump to content

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Well, I guess since we have so many experts we should just shut down the forum and allow Miss. Quaker the floor. As clearly anything that challenges her expertise is wrong and anybody who has credible evidence of actually having that said expertise is clearly not credible. Miss. Quakers groupies, however, are credible sources. Haha.

Happy 2017 

Oh snap.. calling me a woman.  I'm so offended.  I guess we know who you voted for for president since you seem to be a big fan of misogyny.  Which is ironic since he's probably not going to help your precious 2024 Olympic bid. (Seriously.. if we're just going to trade insults, at least try to be better at it.  Then again, considering how bad of a troll you are, that's a tall order)

To throw the cheesy reverse psychology bit back at you.. no, please telling us how perfectly awesome everything about LA is and how no other city can match their story.  And that anyone who thinks otherwise needs should find another thread to post in since this is the LA 2024 thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The thing you LA boosters just can't seem to understand is that the IOC only cares about what the host city will do for "the Olympic movement." The sports federations are not interested in urban devel

Sigh! I've tried not to get too involved in the tit-for-tatting in the whole LA debate. And tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and allow that you're a passionate and blinkered supporter of LA

I am struck by the statement that "there is no reason to attack LA." There is no reason to attack any city or any people in any city. This is the horror of terrorism. Whichever city wins any Olympi

Re: 2024, 2028 and Abrahamson debate...

Here is Abrahamson's column from September regarding the topic:  http://www.3wiresports.com/2016/09/15/ioc-la-2024-paris-2028/

Many top Olympic journalists have "credited" him with first discussing the 2024, 2028 idea in the piece above.

With respect to his access to "the inner circles of the IOC", he has been a member of the IOC Press Commission.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever his status as a journo (and i don't think there's been any doubt that of course he's been at the game for a while), the thing is what we've seen of his "coverage" of the race, or at least those ones that have been shared here, have been anything but objective. Very definitely cheerleading the local bid - nothing wrong with that, I suppose, if he's writing for his local hometown audience. Of course local press cheerlead their own bids (Remember El Mundo and the 2020 race, CNN and 2016, the French media and its 'anglo conspiracies' after the 2012 loss - and I can personally remember the fights between the UK and Aussie press in the lead-up to the 2000 vote). That's why anyone looking at any of the races seriously look towards the more impartial, neutral sources.

Edited by Sir Rols
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Whatever his past or track record the pieces we've seen of his are incredibly one sided. But as you say he's writing for his local audience and only a few oddballs on forums like this will read it from outside that core readership.

In a weird way though it's good to read overly optimistic pieces in local papers rather than the opposite, which is what we usually see. Nothing wrong with a bit of drum banging. Doesn't mean we're not going to pull them apart though!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed with Rols and Rob.  I don't doubt Abrahamson's résumé, his qualifications or his credentials.  But clearly his objectivity has to be called into question, and that's not necessarily a bad thing if it's his intention to advocate for LA 2024.  And if he's the guy spurring on the dual awarding 2024/2028 concept and getting the IOC to think about that, good for him.  I'd just be curious to see what happened if the IOC did award both, only went Paris 2024 and LA 2028.  Because I could definitely see his reaction to that being "wait, no, I meant LA 2024 and Paris 2028, this isn't what I wanted!"

But yes, if this guy is banging the drum for LA 2024, let's take his "reporting" with a grain of salt that maybe it's about what he wants to see rather than what he thinks is going to happen.  Again, that's fine, but then let's put this aspect of everything into context and see if the IOC sees it the same way that he does

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, RuFF said:

That, or we could stop trying to discredit the guy and figure out if there is any truth to what he is saying. 

And that's where we depart. Sir Rols, for example, doesn't really know LA by his own admission. And if history is taken into account I run into a wall when pointing out facts about LA because either they are interpreted as meaning something negative about Paris or the belief that there is no meat behind the statement. And given LA's global reach by television or otherwise it's not new or unheard of for people to think LA is something. As Johnathan Gold said, as have many before and likely will after, too.... people from LA are used to having outsiders tell them what they think LA is. 

People from LA are also used to setting that story straight and come September I think LA is going to do exactly that.

You don't point out facts so much as you like to point out perceptions.  Much as you're doing here.  There's usually meat behind your statements about LA.  No one is denying you that.  But that meat tends to get coated in a lot of sauce.  You want to add on top of it the narrative that "outsiders don't really know LA and when we show them what we've got, we're going to surprise them."  Maybe that will happen, but your case for LA from day 1 has been that there are misconceptions of LA and what LA actually is by comparison will look that much more impressive.  You can't control what pre-conceived notions IOC voters do or don't have about LA.  And remember, at the end of the day - as much as I know you hate when this gets brought up - the comparison is not between what LA is and what people think LA is, the comparison is between what LA is and what Paris is.  That's the battle they have to win.

As for Abrahamson.. again, it's not out of line to question his motives here.  Is he reporting what he's hearing within the IOC about the dual vote or is that a suggestion he's offering them?  Is he talking about LA winning 2024 because he thinks that's what the IOC will choose or what he wants to see?  I think that's a valid question here and yea, his lack of objectivity is an issue here.  If that's his angle, then we can treat it as such.  But for me - and it sounds like for Rols and Rob as well - I don't want to conflate his personal preference with that of the IOC if his "reporting" is less about what they are thinking and more about what he is thinking.  Either way, awarding 2024 and 2028 at the same time would almost assuredly mean Paris and LA both getting an Olympics.  Which order they come in would still very much be at the IOC's discretion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RuFF said:

That, or we could stop trying to discredit the guy and figure out if there is any truth to what he is saying.

A big chunk of the discussion in this thread over the past year has been exactly that! Everytime you post one of his articles it's analysed and discussed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Perhaps we have a different perception here. I see every time I post an article by him his credibility is discussed. I don't see what he says being discussed. 

Still, the fact remains that his pieces gain traction. Why? 

Maybe because this is an Olympic bid website and there aren't a ton of stories written about Olympic bidding, so when one does get written we're going to take notice?  Again, his reputation means his stories will gain traction.  He's earned that.  Doesn't mean it shouldn't call into question his intentions and if it reads more like an op-ed piece than investigative journalism, it should be treated as such.  This was the guy that was calling for the USOC to drop Boston and go with LA long before it actually happened.  Good for him that he recognized that a lot earlier than the USOC did, but still, is that reporting from an objective journalist or is it someone with a personal preference pushing for an outcome?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not making any point about whether it'll happen or not, I can see advantages & disadvantages - but I'd like some idea of how the IOC would actually go about the practicalities of a double award. How would they announce that they'd be changing the rules mid-game? What would they do about Budapest? Would the election still go ahead? Could they engineer a tie in Lima to enable them to weasel their way into a double award? I do think that in the particular circumstances of this race & the IOC's current mess, a double award has something to be said for it, but I don't know if it'd be possible even if they wanted to. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, yoshi said:

I'm not making any point about whether it'll happen or not, I can see advantages & disadvantages - but I'd like some idea of how the IOC would actually go about the practicalities of a double award. How would they announce that they'd be changing the rules mid-game? What would they do about Budapest? Would the election still go ahead? Could they engineer a tie in Lima to enable them to weasel their way into a double award? I do think that in the particular circumstances of this race & the IOC's current mess, a double award has something to be said for it, but I don't know if it'd be possible even if they wanted to. 

 

#1 - They will talk to the 3 candidates -- as they are already probably doing.  Why beat around the bush?  

#2 - They already know what the 3 cities can deliver; I am sure they can do an informal straw poll of the members before a formal poll is taken.  From those results (and I am sure Paris is the favorite), they can form their plan.  

#3 - A formal vote will be taken (after all, that is the primary function of the IOC).  Regardless of how the vote turns out; and if Paris and LA are amenable, then they can make a joint announcement.  Budapest is the minnow and newcomer to the Games; they should know and understand where they rank, i.e., that the IOC owes Paris and LA first and more than they owe Budapest.  The IOC can then probably give the next Summer Youth Games to Budapest if they want it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RuFF said:

I don't think I'm disputing this. This is what you are disputing based on what you are perceiving me to say. 

But you're right in that the perception and what is are irrelevant when it comes to the voting members. However, I think and those from LA here would agree, LA has a strong arsenal in order to do that and change perceptions. That has nothing to do with Paris. Also, Abrahamson is opinion. I think that is clear. He is reporting his opinion of how he thinks it should be and why. Obviously somewhere in there is perception. And one could immediately write him off and to a large extent I agree with the general consensus that 2 games being awarded at once isn't going to happen, but there is that undeniable that the story gained traction. Why? If it's a no go why did it gain any traction? Might there be truth to LA's perceived advantage that Abrahamson sees? If indeed his audience is local why is it on gamesbids? You dispute his reasoning and to your credit the IOC may or may not pick up the same "perception". But for those that know LA I feel, and for this I'd refer to ejaycat because I know his long history following the changes in LA on various blogs, that LA has the momentum on its back when it comes to changing that perception. But take the doubt you have even further to LA2024 and their very direct marketing of "The New LA." Have the LA2024 bid team really dropped the ball to the point that they too are trying to sell this story? Why? Why would they do that unless they too felt confident that they could sell this story. That, I think, is where Rols, you and Rob depart. But again, you lose Rols in your argument because he himself is someone who recognizes there may be other things to LA that he did not see before. The stories arealigning here, and you can discredit it till you're blue in the face... but LA2024 is pressing forward. How did LA2024 manage such strong marketing if there is a gaping hole in their story? Or is there a hole at all? 

You're still talking about perceptions, but to me that's neither here nor there.  There's no hole in LA's story, but that story isn't based on pre-conceived notions about what LA is or isn't.  I understand that Los Angelinos may feel a certain way about how outsiders view their city, but I don't think that's what is at play here.  It was discussed here long before LA officially bid for 2024 that 1 of the biggest hurdles they have to overcome is how to differentiate a bid from the one they put forth in 1984, which is still somewhat recent memory by Olympic standards.  IMO, that's the point behind the "New LA" narrative.  Not simply to change the notions people may or may not have about a city that the IOC is already familiar with.  But rather to reinforce that it's a fundamentally different city than the one that hosted the Olympics.

Let me say it again.. I'm not doubting LA's story or their marketing campaign.  I've said repeatedly I think they're doing exactly what they should be doing and can make a good case that this is the right time and place for LA to host an Olympics.  Where you and I differ is what that will mean to the IOC voters.  If they were casting their ballots based on who had the better narrative or the better story to tell, I'd like LA's chances at winning.  But this is the IOC we're talking about.  And even if LA has an outstanding technical bid (which I believe they do) and has an excellent narrative (which I believe they do), that still might not win them the majority if the voters are looking at Paris.  That's why I'm taking what a guy like Abrahamson is saying with a grain of salt.  His "reporting" seems less about his knowledge and his rapport with the IOC and their members and more about his personal preference that he's reporting that the stars are aligning for LA.

You talk about how Rols acknowledges there may be more to LA that he's never seen before.  Does that make LA different than most other major cities in that regard?  I know there's an overall marketing campaign for the city that has nothing to do with the Olympics that underscores that.  I am not - nor have I before - doubted that it exists.  I'm just not as convinced that someone who hasn't been to LA in a number of years is going to go there and discover how different LA is from "perception."  I think where your argument gets fuzzy - and what the LA2024 folks are NOT necessarily doing - is where you're trying to reinforce what people think of LA.  They can't control that, nor should they try.  Their message is about what LA is and how it's changes, not about what LA is compared to what you think it is like all those memes with "What society thinks I do.. What my friends think I do.. What I really do."  In short.. sell LA.  Sell how it's transformed because there's absolutely a lot of substance there.  But don't sell "we're going to set the story straight" as if you're assuming the voters have these incorrect perceptions.  I don't think that wouldn't resonate well with the IOC.  Trust them to see LA for what it is, without the element of the story where you're telling them what they think LA is.  Don't play them like that when it hasn't been 100 years since the Olympics were last in LA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...