Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, RuFF said:

Take a look at the list of venues proposed for LA2024. Which one do you think they would reject and want a replacement for. I'm just curious. 

1.  A new Athletics stadium with a natural floor.

2.  A new football/soccer venue, preferrabl outdoor.

3.  A roofed main natatorium for the races and water polo.  

4. A man-made rowing course  (not one carved from a natural lake).

5.  A world-class indoor veldorome using Brazilian rosewood for the track floor and A/C sets of 8000 for the spectators

5. Closer venues than Long Beach and Perris Lake

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RuFF said:

When is Paris putting out their analysis. 

Don't know.  But this is an LA thread, so this is probably the wrong place to ask.  If only there was a thread dedicated to talking about Paris where one could ask such a question and get an actual answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RuFF said:

They'd also be asking to extinguish the Olympic flame, forever. 

So your opinion is that the IOC needs to choose LA or else the Olympics are completely doomed?  That by selecting Paris over LA, there's no hope left?  Your BFF Alan must be very proud how you're being spoon-fed his bullshit and you're just saying "Mmm, delicious! What a cook!"  I don't think the situation is that dire.  But baron does bring up a good point.  This is not 1984.  The IOC didn't really have a choice then.  Not they do have a choice.  Sport federations and other entities can hold out for whichever of 2 plans they want.  Maybe that is a dangerous game for them to play, but it's not so clear cut as it was before.  That's what LA is up against.  If you want to believe the line that Paris 2024 is going to further the IOC's issues, you might be right.  Doesn't mean that LA is going to come in and be the savior again.  Going to be very difficult for history to repeat itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

So your opinion is that the IOC needs to choose LA or else the Olympics are completely doomed?  That by selecting Paris over LA, there's no hope left? I don't think the situation is that dire.   This is not 1984.  

Right?! Oh the epitome of hypocrisy, but yet the L.A. cheerleaders want to jump all over Paris 2024 by them saying that their plan simply is not available for 2028. At least in Paris' case it's merely about their plan, & not self-righteous bombastic propaganda that "if the IOC is serious about change, then L.A. is the 'only' answer" mumbo-jumbo.

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Your BFF Alan must be very proud how you're being spoon-fed his bullshit and you're just saying "Mmm, delicious! What a cook!

Lmfao - yep, that's the type of reader that I'm sure gets AbraTwatson going. Everytime he regurgitates, there's truff all ready & willing to lap it all up! :lol:

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

And speaking of your hero..

A 2024 dose of — common sense

Pretty much more of the same from him, less anyone was expecting anything different.

Blah, blah, blah - same old, bias spiel. I barely read the damn thing, cuz like his favorite fan, truff, he just spews the same old nonsense over & over, even though all his outrageous claims have all been debunked. I'm sure truff, though, has got to have his hand in his panties over AA's latest, redundant gibberish lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Rio had a second tier velodrome completed in 2007 much like LA's velodrome and had to build a bigger and better one for the Olympics to satisfy the cycling federation.
  • Rio has an existing tennis center for the Rio Open of similar size to StubHub's but had to build a new one in the Olympic Park to please the tennis federation.
  • Rio built a second tier aquatics center in 2007 but this was not good enough for FINA. (the swimming and diving federation)
  • Rio has the Sambadrome for carnival that would have been perfect for the athletes parade, but the IOC likes a stadium for the ceremonies so they had to waste a lot of money converting Maracana Stadium into the ceremonies venue. 

The sporting federations and broadcasters want showcase "world class" venues for the Olympics. They do not care about cost effectiveness.

No one is disagreeing with you that LA's ideas to save money are good ideas. What we are disputing is the idea that the IOC's voters will also love those ideas. Until the IOC voters and financial contributors accept smaller, cheaper and more distant venues Agenda 2020 is just words on a sheet of (virtual) paper.

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RuFF said:

So while Paris is a great choice, this is a pivotal moment for the Olympic Movement. It has to prove something to all the worlds potential bidders, and that's that they can afford and should bid to host the Olympics.

LA won't prove this, it can't. All LA will prove is how to host a Games when you've got most things built. As you (rightfully) boast, LA is perhaps unique in this regard, so who does that help???

I'm not expecting an answer btw, I've asked this question countless times already when the "LA is here to rescue the Games" narrative gets wheeled out, and got no answer so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rob. said:

I'm not expecting an answer btw, I've asked this question countless times already when the "LA is here to rescue the Games" narrative gets wheeled out, and got no answer so far.

And you'll never get that answer, either. Bcuz it's more than likely that even the L.A. camp doesn't believe all that hype bcuz then it would then go against all the L.A. "game changing" narrative. 

And that's precisely what's wrong with this thread (& said particular poster in general), bcuz many of us ask (& have also asked countless times) legitimate questions, & debunked several L.A. arguments, but never get/got honest answers or counter-points (or worse, just get insulted, bcuz like Baron noted, when they're posts get torn apart they take it personal & then just get hostile). Even Rols has had to say "for the umpteenth time already..".

There's just no debating here with said individual, cuz all they see is the L.A. grandiosity (like their favorite agenda-driven "journalist"). And it's been that way since day one since they got here. And that's a big problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

1.  A new Athletics stadium with a natural floor.

2.  A new football/soccer venue, preferrabl outdoor.

3.  A roofed main natatorium for the races and water polo.  

4. A man-made rowing course  (not one carved from a natural lake).

5.  A world-class indoor veldorome using Brazilian rosewood for the track floor and A/C sets of 8000 for the spectators

5. Closer venues than Long Beach and Perris Lake

Actually, I read somewhere that the sailing federation and the IOC were thankful and impressed that for the 1984 Summer Olympics, sailing was held relatively close to the center of things, in Long Beach.  Prior to 1984, you have to go way back to Tokyo 1964 to say somewhat of the same thing, where the sailing events were held at Sagami Bay.  Looking it up, for the summer Games held between 1964 and 1984, the sailing events were FAR; granted, those cities were inland, but still, I thought it was interesting to see where they were held:

1968 Mexico City, sailing at Acapulco

1972 Munich, sailing on the Bay of Kiel, Baltic Sea

1976 Montreal, sailing at Kingston, Ontario

1980 Moscow, sailing at Talinn, Estonia (which of course was part of the Soviet Union back then)

Lake Perris is a better location, I think, than Lake Casitas, which is more remote.  And housing the rowing/canoeing athletes at UC Riverside probably also played a part in choosing Perris over Casitas.  I think I said it before, but I thought it would have been cool if they could have proposed the 1932 rowing venue, Long Beach Marine Stadium, for 2024, but of course now it doesn't meet current Olympic standards.   

Edited by ejaycat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^That's just crazy, cuz L.A.'s "sports zones" aren't THAT spread out like Sydney, Melbourne & Brisbane are. Australia is a continental-size country, with their main cities spread FAR apart. That's like saying why not spread out an L.A. Games with Dallas & Seattle. 

The L.A. 'region' could easily fit ten-times over from what you're describing. And a city like Melbourne is pretty much in the same comfort zone as L.A., where they already have many of the facilities to host already, so they wouldn't need to go to such extremes. Not only that, but such great distances then put other logistical strains on the event, that the cons then start to outweight the pros. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, RuFF said:

One way LA's sport zones could be beneficial is that it shows that over a large region multiple zones could be operated. For example, a zone could be in Melbourne, another in Sydney, and a final  in Brisbane, spreading the burden over a much larger geographical area and maximizing use of existing venues throughout that region. 

right ho

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RuFF said:

One way LA's sport zones could be beneficial is that it shows that over a large region multiple zones could be operated. For example, a zone could be in Melbourne, another in Sydney, and a final  in Brisbane, spreading the burden over a much larger geographical area and maximizing use of existing venues throughout that region. 

Way to further the stereotype that Americans are horrible with geography.

b1ba837f54061bc169b87737b94d1f58.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If 4 hours were an acceptable distance for the IOC, then the whole Northeast corridor of the US -- New York, Washington DC, Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, would be the PERFECT regional setting for an Olympics.  You have 5 world-class cities, including the world center of finance & culture, the national capital, three other historic, quintessentially American cities.  So unless Agenda 2020 will consider that in the future (and it would be so perfect), the best the US can offer for one metropolis, is an LA bid.  Same old, same old. 

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RuFF said:

One way LA's sport zones could be beneficial is that it shows that over a large region multiple zones could be operated. For example, a zone could be in Melbourne, another in Sydney, and a final  in Brisbane, spreading the burden over a much larger geographical area and maximizing use of existing venues throughout that region. 

You can't be serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Oh, and agenda 2020. It specifically allows for multi-city bidding. In the domestic round for 2024 the U.S. San Diego/Tijuana bid latched onto the concept". 

Agenda 2020 'allows' it when it's cohesive enough to do so. San Diego to Tijuana is a mere 20 miles from one another. Not a FAR-flung 555 miles, within a region spanning over 1,000 miles (again, geography seems to elude some people here). 

Even a L.A./San Diego/Southern California concept is more plausible (with perhaps maybe throwing some non-marquee events over to Las Vegas). But once you start to get beyond that, & the cumbersome of having to travel hours on a train (or other methods) to get to your event destination, it then starts to dilude the whole event & experience, especially with the athlete's experience. Which how many times do we hear bids tout "to enhance the athlete experience (including L.A.)".  

Not to mention the extra costs associated with dealing with such distances (which then also starts to eat away at the "cost effectiveness" of such plans. Especially when the argument of bulding infrastructure, like high-speed rail, for the Olympics, even if it's not tied to the budget, is what then starts the negative headlines anyway - see Beijing 2022). People bemoaned when Stockholm 2022 was prosing Are (300 miles away) for the Alpine events. I can just imagine how people would react when having to travel twice that distance (or more) for an Olympic event. So go back to the drawing board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Ruff that Northeast Corridor can really work when no long time ago we have the hugely polarized Stockholm 2022 bid which proposes Are as alpine host resort.

Or San Diego-Tijuana can work perfectly without in consideration both cities are separated by one of the most guarded border barriers of the world and you need to pass to long lines for crossing to San Diego losing time, money and patience (And that's not counting the current issues of internal politics in Washington and the rocky relations between USA-Mexico at this moment). Yeah, that's a paradise for IOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, RuFF said:

Realistically, this could work. Especially if the Northeast corridors Acela was upgraded to support higher speed trains. A sport zone is a sport zone, and in a place like LA you already are seeing the all logistical challenges. 

In the future it wouldn't be far fetched for San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego and Las Vegas to host. In that scenario you could have 4 sports zones. Could CAHSR and XpressWest close that gap? 

And while Australia I can be cast as someone who doesn't know that Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane are far apart on a continent, both Melbourne and Brisbane are within 500 miles of Sydney, making them the perfect distance for high speed rail and potentially closing the gap to as little as 3 hours apart from each other. 

But don't take my word for it, the concept of the Games returning to Australia is already being eliminated, unless, of course, some stupid realizes that Australia is a great big continent... http://gamesbids.com/eng/summer-olympic-bids/future-summer-bids/olympics-not-likely-to-return-to-australia-says-gold-coast-2018-chief/

 

9 hours ago, RuFF said:

Oh, and Agenda 2020. It specifically allows for Multi City bidding. In the domestic round for 2024 the US San Diego/Tijuana bid latched onto the concept. There is plenty of signs indicating if the games continue to increase in size that cities may have to share the flame in order to produce a cost effective event. I don't see why Australia wouldn't look into this concept, or any other city that would like to see the effects of the Olympics while not taking on the whole burden. 

0c4dadd24e24cc7ebc7d9b3ec2fccbbb_know-yo

Aside from all the nonsensical bullshit here, when you read a headline that says "Olympics Not Likely To Return To Australia Says Gold Coast 2018 Chief" and take that to mean "the concept of the Games returning to Australia is already being eliminated," it continues to beg the question of whether or not you're a troll or you are in fact just really that fucking stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, RuFF said:

Realistically, this could work. Especially if the Northeast corridors Acela was upgraded to support higher speed trains. A sport zone is a sport zone, and in a place like LA you already are seeing the all logistical challenges.

The 2020 Olympic Games are being held in Japan: a country with high speed trains. The 2020 Olympics are supposed to be held under the new plan for Agenda 2020. And yet the sporting federations have done everything they can to force events to be held in Tokyo proper instead of places like Yokohama, Izu and Miyagi.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Nacre said:

The 2020 Olympic Games are being held in Japan: a country with high speed trains. The 2020 Olympics are supposed to be held under the new plan for Agenda 2020. And yet the sporting federations have done everything they can to force events to be held in Tokyo proper instead of places like Yokohama, Izu and Miyagi.

And you can also count 2018 and 2022 Olympic Games. South Korea and China have high speed trains and still they haven't proposed spread out for another regions. Hence, in the supposition of RuFF, France would have won over USA, considering the wide network of high speed train, lol. But beyond sailing and football matches, everything comes to Paris urban area, as happened with LA. Spread out is also problematic in logistics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, who can forget 1956 when Melbourne was the main host, but Stockholm hosted the Equestrian events 15,588km (9686 mi) away?  And the subevent (the Equestrian Games) were held in June, giving the whole IOC family some 4.5 months to then travel to Oz in October for the main meet.  This was pre-commercial jet days.  

The subtext of that story was that the IOC and the FEI "punished" Australia for not relaxing its equine quarantine laws by picking the FARTHEST point for the Australian team and horses from Melbourne to travel, (NZ, of course, was even worse.)  It turns out that Australia/NZ had to sell many of their horses in Europe instead of undertaking the trouble and expense of shipping them back to Oz.  So, yes, the horses had their own Olympic "community" experience -- except half a world away from the main event.  :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/26/2017 at 1:19 AM, baron-pierreIV said:

Of course, who can forget 1956 when Melbourne was the main host, but Stockholm hosted the Equestrian events 15,588km (9686 mi) away?  And the subevent (the Equestrian Games) were held in June, giving the whole IOC family some 4.5 months to then travel to Oz in October for the main meet.  This was pre-commercial jet days.  

The subtext of that story was that the IOC and the FEI "punished" Australia for not relaxing its equine quarantine laws by picking the FARTHEST point for the Australian team and horses from Melbourne to travel, (NZ, of course, was even worse.)  It turns out that Australia/NZ had to sell many of their horses in Europe instead of undertaking the trouble and expense of shipping them back to Oz.  So, yes, the horses had their own Olympic "community" experience -- except half a world away from the main event.  :wacko:

Lol that's hilarious! Did they at least get a medal? Or else it would have been worth nothing for Auatralia if they bothered participating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being that this thread, and the 2024 Olympic bidding "excitement" in general, has become moribund (in my opinion anyway), here's a little blurb from LAist:

Dr. Dre Is Now An Olympic Board Member Because This Is Los Angeles

 

drdre.jpg

Dre. (Photo by Jason Kempin/Getty Images)

As Los Angeles continues its bid for the 2024 Summer Olympic Games, the latest members to join the Board of Directors were announced today—this group includes rap icon and vocal California lover, Dr. Dre.

The Compton-born rapper is one of 117 board members in total, which also includes real estate developer Rick Caruso, opera singer and director of the Los Angeles Opera Placido Domingo, music mogul David Geffen and L.A. Unified School District Superintendent Michelle King, among other major figures in the entertainment and business world. That's the L.A. way, baby!

[...]

Link:  http://laist.com/2017/03/30/dr_dre_olympics.php

 

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...