Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This thread is now unreadable.

Rendering of the Olympic stadium (stade de France) and the aquatic center. 

Because Baron.

If Paris, Rome, Berlin or Hamburg and Boston all bid, with Bostin winning, I will have lost ALL faith to the IOC and will have to end my love for the Games. In all seriousness.

You should've lost faith in the IOC in 2005 already. Most French people have.

But well, if you believe in it that much you should get a list ready by 2017, one with all of your favorite places to get drinks & forget...

Link to post
Share on other sites

A much funnier position is to be outside of it all anyway. The IOC's much funnier to control from the inside, but without getting involved in those ruinous, always uncertain olympic bids. Controlled from the inside by our IOC members, and decide the fate of other olympic aspirants. JC Killy was one who understood that, shame he isn't a member anymore, but he did a great job.

France might get something out of it, and there's the pleasure to see them all fight for something that only one will get...And the power to decide.

I'd rather focus on the athletes and on giving them the financial ways to be stronger and stronger. No one truly cares about where the games are held anymore, and most people even forget. It may be something that the older generations have trouble understanding, but among the younger globalized ones, no one really cares whether the games are held in Africa, America or Asia: all of them are in the world anyway. A powerful nation at the olympics, that's the real power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A much funnier position is to be outside of it all anyway. The IOC's much funnier to control from the inside, but without getting involved in those ruinous, always uncertain olympic bids. Controlled from the inside by our IOC members, and decide the fate of other olympic aspirants. JC Killy was one who understood that, shame he isn't a member anymore, but he did a great job.

France might get something out of it, and there's the pleasure to see them all fight for something that only one will get...And the power to decide.

I'd rather focus on the athletes and on giving them the financial ways to be stronger and stronger. No one truly cares about where the games are held anymore, and most people even forget. It may be something that the older generations have trouble understanding, but among the younger globalized ones, no one really cares whether the games are held in Africa, America or Asia: all of them are in the world anyway. A powerful nation at the olympics, that's the real power.

As Britain has shown so magnificently, hosting the Olympics can be the biggest and best impetus to refocus on athletes and results.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Britain has shown so magnificently, hosting the Olympics can be the biggest and best impetus to refocus on athletes and results.

Just a trompe l'oeil. A temporary illusion. As much as I like Britain, their medal count will fall dramatically in Rio in comparison to London.

I'm talking abot long-time efforts, lasting results, and a real commitment for athletes and sport.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should've lost faith in the IOC in 2005 already. Most French people have.

But well, if you believe in it that much you should get a list ready by 2017, one with all of your favorite places to get drinks & forget...

291.jpg

France lost by 4 votes. It might as well have been a coin toss between them and London. If this is about how the media convinced French citizens that Paris was going to win, then you should've lost faith in your media, not the IOC.

Just a trompe l'oeil. A temporary illusion. As much as I like Britain, their medal count will fall dramatically in Rio in comparison to London.

I'm talking abot long-time efforts, lasting results, and a real commitment for athletes and sport.

Spain.. had never won more than 6 medals at an Olympics before 1992. Since then, their medal totals are 22, 17, 11, 20, 18, 17.

Korea.. had never won more than 6 medals at an Olympics before 1984. Won 19 medals in Los Angeles and then 33 in Seoul. Since then.. 29, 27, 28, 30, 31, 28. That's remarkable consistentcy right there.

Sometimes you see last effects in terms of medal totals. But not always. GBR went from 1 gold in Atlanta to 11 in Sydney, 9 in Athens, then 19 in Beijing, and 29 in London. Of course they're going to experience a drop-off to London. Virtually every host country experiences that. But perhaps an Olympics held in Paris would be a boost for sport in France, hard as that may be considering they're constantly in the top 10 of the table of total medals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If Paris, Rome, Berlin or Hamburg and Boston all bid, with Bostin winning, I will have lost ALL faith to the IOC and will have to end my love for the Games. In all seriousness.

Oh diddums.....

You should've lost faith in the IOC in 2005 already. Most French people have.

Oh diddums.....

Just a trompe l'oeil. A temporary illusion. As much as I like Britain, their medal count will fall dramatically in Rio in comparison to London.

I'm talking abot long-time efforts, lasting results, and a real commitment for athletes and sport.

It will drop, but It shouldn't drop dramatically. The reason the UK has shot up the medal table since Atlanta is lottery funding, not because we won the Olympic bid. So no, not a temporary illusion and yes, certainly long-term effort with lasting results.

Of course, after the bid was won in 2005, we then got a boost for elite athletes through extra government funding as well, but that's not going anywhere anytime soon either. GB is the first host nation of a recent modern Games NOT to cut elite sport funding in the years after having hosted.

I think we'll do alright.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a trompe l'oeil. A temporary illusion. As much as I like Britain, their medal count will fall dramatically in Rio in comparison to London.

I'm talking abot long-time efforts, lasting results, and a real commitment for athletes and sport.

Canada in winter sport is another prime example. If you build it, they will come. Britain will likely fall a far bit in medals come next summer, but they will still be in the top 5 or 6 countries. Probably another top 4 performance. Britain has declined in cycling and a few other areas top 4 is still very achievable.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada in winter sport is another prime example. If you build it, they will come. Britain will likely fall a far bit in medals come next summer, but they will still be in the top 5 or 6 countries. Probably another top 4 performance. Britain has declined in cycling and a few other areas top 4 is still very achievable.

It looks like Canada will struggle in 2018, only one gold still in World Championships with only about 30 events to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like Canada will struggle in 2018, only one gold still in World Championships with only about 30 events to go.

Freestyle and snowboard worlds were watered down this year because they were the same week as the X Games. Kingsbury also choked, and he wins every world cup. I think the improvements in cross country and alpine are promising, but yes, we should see a slight decline for 2018.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Over-dramatic a little much are we?

This is why we take your opinions at face value. You keep making this case against Paris bidding. Sometimes it's because of the economic situation. Sometimes it's because the IOC isn't trustworthy. Sometimes it's because 2028 would be better. It's very inconsistent.

Then when you hear about Paris intentions to bid, you push back even further trying to make the case for the United States. How'd that work out for them in 2012 and 2016. I know the circumstances were different then, but the IOC ignored the Untied States before. They could do so again if Paris is in the running.

The Olympics shouldn't exist without the United States? Tell that to NBC paying their billions of dollars and now going on more than 20 years without a Games held in the United States.

I'm not totally against Paris, I just said i'm not for, I think it's not the best moment :

- It's time to comeback to USA.

- French economy isn't very good at the moment.

- Every SoG are a Waste of public money. (IOC should give some guarantee) It's impossible to gain something at the end. French people are not naive about host city.

- The opponent will be strong this time (many part of french citizen don't like the government, they will mix politics and SoG...). Moreover French have a bad opinion about IOC.

- Paris bid will be low cost, IOC don't like low cost bid (Beijing, Sotchi, Pyeonchang.)

- Politics are already disagree about this bid, the French isn't stronger, less than Paris 2012.

But I could be for because :

- The majority of venues are already existing.

- Hambourg isn't very sexy, Italy hosted WoG recently and their economy is worst than France, Boston isn't the stronger bid from USA (NY or Chicago were stronger), Doha couldn't win after Fifa scandal.

- Paris lost 3 times and the last time with only 4 votes less than London

- 2012 Europe, 2016 America, 2020 Asia, 2024 without Oceania and Africa it's Europe turn.

- Paris is a safe place for IOC.

- It's a low cost bid, if IOC want really change their image, they need a bid not too expensive.

Just a trompe l'oeil. A temporary illusion. As much as I like Britain, their medal count will fall dramatically in Rio in comparison to London.

I'm talking abot long-time efforts, lasting results, and a real commitment for athletes and sport.

I agree, it's a temporary illusion. Moreover IOC and some International board helped GB to win some medals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad to see you Tulsa giving positive aspects of this potential bid.

I do think that the IOC is willing to show that Olympics could cost less than what costed the recent Olympics, and this is why Paris, as a safe bid, would also allow somehow to "redeem" the IOC image. After the 2022 WoG disaster....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad to see you Tulsa giving positive aspects of this potential bid.

I do think that the IOC is willing to show that Olympics could cost less than what costed the recent Olympics, and this is why Paris, as a safe bid, would also allow somehow to "redeem" the IOC image. After the 2022 WoG disaster....

I showed only objective arguments. I think the arguments against are more important than for.

I don't want to be naive about IOC, it's always the same members and I don't think they will change about how they choose a city for SoG or WoG, Agenda 2020 it's only to convince more cities to bid but at the end it will remain always the same standards to choose a city. There will have some other Sotchi or Athens host city. IOC doesn't care about low cost bid, they want money, they want expensive bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are the same members, then you can't forget that 50 out of 104 voted for Paris for the 2012 bid...

There sure are many of those still in the IOC, but 12 years are a long time and the "junior" IOC members don't necessarily have a reason to support Paris for nostalgia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There sure are many of those still in the IOC, but 12 years are a long time and the "junior" IOC members don't necessarily have a reason to support Paris for nostalgia.

Here's the question though, and I mostly pose this to Pixie who says that most French people have lost faith in the IOC..

Of those 50 (out of 104) voting members of the IOC - and I know not all of them are still there - is that group more likely or less likely to vote for Paris in a vote for 2024? Stefan, you say those members might not have a reason to support Paris for nostalgia, but if they supported Paris then, who's to say they wouldn't still support Paris now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the question though, and I mostly pose this to Pixie who says that most French people have lost faith in the IOC..

Of those 50 (out of 104) voting members of the IOC - and I know not all of them are still there - is that group more likely or less likely to vote for Paris in a vote for 2024? Stefan, you say those members might not have a reason to support Paris for nostalgia, but if they supported Paris then, who's to say they wouldn't still support Paris now?

Well, my point was that the junior members, those that joined after the 2005 vote, have no such reason. And I don't know how many of those are there now and how many of the 50 Paris voters are still IOC members.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's still Paris no matter what. The City of Lights. Who in their right mind wouldn't want to vote for them in the first place. It's not like London could steal the show again. South Africa is looking lately to get cold feet again. And unless Germany doesn't put up Berlin, I don't see any other big threat to another strong Paris candidacy. Not Boston, not even Rome, especially with their huge economic issues.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, my point was that the junior members, those that joined after the 2005 vote, have no such reason. And I don't know how many of those are there now and how many of the 50 Paris voters are still IOC members.

Even still, regardless of who the specific members of the IOC are, there was support for Paris in 2005. It stands to reason there will still be support for Paris in 2017 (if they do decide to bid) from at least some of the remaining members and perhaps some new ones. So that's certainly a good starting point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even still, regardless of who the specific members of the IOC are, there was support for Paris in 2005. It stands to reason there will still be support for Paris in 2017 (if they do decide to bid) from at least some of the remaining members and perhaps some new ones. So that's certainly a good starting point.

I don't disagree on that. I just wouldn't put too much emphasis on the fact they got 50 votes in 2005 when certainly quite a few of those voters will no longer be IOC members by 2017. A narrative based on "we came close for 2012, so vote for us now" wouldn't really be smart, I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But that doesn't mean that NONE of the new IOC members would vote for Paris... And yes, members who voted for Paris in 2005 might vote for another city this time. No one can predict that...

I read that someone from the committee for Paris 2024 said it's ok now to do such things as proposing IOC voters to vote for, let's say Paris, if the IOC members from France would vote next time for the country those voters are from. Don't know if I made much sense, but I suppose this is how things have been going on for a while. It's just to show that Paris will be having a whole new attitude with this bid. I don't know what to think of all this....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree on that. I just wouldn't put too much emphasis on the fact they got 50 votes in 2005 when certainly quite a few of those voters will no longer be IOC members by 2017. A narrative based on "we came close for 2012, so vote for us now" wouldn't really be smart, I think.

You're right, that's not a narrative, it is a fact. It's not something that Paris has to emphasize. That's already been done for them. Regardless of whether any or all of those 50 members are still with the IOC (although the same argument could be made for the 54 who voted against them), it stands to reason that if that many IOC members liked Paris then, there's a good chance they'll like them now. I know this isn't PC who bid for 3 straight Olympics and went from close call to close call to runaway win, but Paris has also been up against tough competition or tough circumstances in the past. That's less likely to be the case for the 2024 vote. As long as they have a solid bid, narrative is not going to be as important for them.

I read that someone from the committee for Paris 2024 said it's ok now to do such things as proposing IOC voters to vote for, let's say Paris, if the IOC members from France would vote next time for the country those voters are from. Don't know if I made much sense, but I suppose this is how things have been going on for a while. It's just to show that Paris will be having a whole new attitude with this bid. I don't know what to think of all this....

I don't know I like that idea. Look at what's happened with FIFA where vote trading has been a big issue. Besides, let's say I'm an IOC member from Africa. I vote for Paris for 2024 and there's a handshake agreement they'll reciprocate that vote for 2028. Any guarantee they'll follow though? Not really.

That said, Olympic voting does reveal more than a few oddities, especially when a city gets fewer votes in a round than they did in the previous round. Certainly Paris and their committee and organizers need to watch themselves. The last thing they need is to wind up with another close call where a handful of swing votes are what cost them.

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...