Jump to content

Rio Games "critically behind schedule" - IOC


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I hate this forum.

(Reuters) - International Olympic Committee (IOC) vice president John Coates has called Brazil's preparations for the 2016 Rio Games "the worst" in his experience and critically behind schedule, but w

So why is some of the Aquatics Events being held at the Maria Lenk Aquatics Centre, if it's 'Not big enough to meet FINA's demands'. FINA is the governing Body of Swimming, Diving, Water Polo and Synchronised Swimming, so surely if that's the case, none of the events would be held there?

It can host a few, just not all, It's making use of an existing facility. I think they should have just expanded Maria Lenk instead of building a second one.

Most host cities will already have an acceptable golf course... and if they build one, it probably has the best shot at a strong legacy of all venues. .

You have a point...

Link to post
Share on other sites

So why is some of the Aquatics Events being held at the Maria Lenk Aquatics Centre, if it's 'Not big enough to meet FINA's demands'. FINA is the governing Body of Swimming, Diving, Water Polo and Synchronised Swimming, so surely if that's the case, none of the events would be held there?

Tony, get with the program. Different events have different requirements in terms of pools, seating capacity, etc. they are using Maria Lenk as much as the IOC will allow them to, given those requirements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rio actually has three aquatic centres now. They've moved water polo to an existing facility next to Maracana.

And they have four if you include the modern pentathlon pool.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It can host a few, just not all, It's making use of an existing facility. I think they should have just expanded Maria Lenk instead of building a second one.

.

You make it sound so simple. You can't always just make a venue bigger.

It depends on the existing architecture and the surrounding space. If there had been a cost effective way to expand Maria Lenk, I'm sure Rio would have. Based on the existing architecture and limitations of the land, it was more cost effective to build another facility.

Incidentally, LA just proposed a similar solution with diving and water polo and swimming at separate venues, some of which are existing.

Rio's approach to aquatics appears to be as responsible as it can be, considering the IOC's requirements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most host cities will already have an acceptable golf course... and if they build one, it probably has the best shot at a strong legacy of all venues. .

Rio's favelas were supposed to start getting electricity and running water. Instead the city is building a golf course. Doesn't that seem out of whack?

Sure a golf course can deliver a legacy (although it takes up a lot of valuable real estate, harms the environment due to extensive use of pesticides that can seep into the water table and is generally a game reserved for the wealthy). But shouldn't Rio provide electricity and water fir their citizens first? Isn't that a no-brainer?

This is exactly what that article was talking about. The IOC expects hosts to subvert their real civic needs to the Olympic agenda, irrespective of the damage done.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rio's favelas were supposed to start getting electricity and running water. Instead the city is building a golf course. Doesn't that seem out of whack?

Look around Rio. Extreme wealth and luxury sit side-by-side with abject poverty. The city tries to help both. We can debate the rightness or wrongness of that, but that's not really an Olympic debate.

My point isnt that Rio needs a golf course. Just that building a golf course is a lot better than say, a velodrome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the favela infrastructure improvements were too complicated and easy to neglect, the pacification was more critical and taking all the efforts/focus from infrastructure improvements, and still crime rates are increasing in rio and the economy is slowing at this critical time.


rio promised the favela infrastructure improvements and a clean bay.......the ioc was excited

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rio's favelas were supposed to start getting electricity and running water. Instead the city is building a golf course. Doesn't that seem out of whack?

Sure a golf course can deliver a legacy (although it takes up a lot of valuable real estate, harms the environment due to extensive use of pesticides that can seep into the water table and is generally a game reserved for the wealthy). But shouldn't Rio provide electricity and water fir their citizens first? Isn't that a no-brainer?

This is exactly what that article was talking about. The IOC expects hosts to subvert their real civic needs to the Olympic agenda, irrespective of the damage done.

I don't think the IOC expects anything of the sort. It expects the host city to be able to live up to the promises it made in its bid and to be able to provide adequate venues and facilities for hosting the Games. That's all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look around Rio. Extreme wealth and luxury sit side-by-side with abject poverty. The city tries to help both. We can debate the rightness or wrongness of that, but that's not really an Olympic debate.

My point isnt that Rio needs a golf course. Just that building a golf course is a lot better than say, a velodrome.

I agree regarding the velodrome.

But this is an Olympic issue. The IOC markets the Olympic brand as promoting peace, helping youth and bringing sport to all.

Golf is an elitist sport. The IOC is choosing to turn a blind eye to the favelas. They're encouraging Rio to do the same. This is wrong.

What if instead the IOC encouraged improvements to the favelas? That would be a meaningful legacy. Why isn't that type of work a part of the Olympic Games? Wouldn't it make a much more powerful statement to go around the world building up the under privileged than building glamorous white elephants?

Obviously the Games are primarily about sport and venues will always be needed, but there don't have to be so many new permanent ones and they don't have to be so grandiose. A social component could be added to the hosting of the Olympic Games. It could actually make a difference instead if just creating a playground for the ultra rich.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hurricane Sandy caused massive damage just before the New York marathon. They felt it unseemly to tie-up resources hosting a marathon when there were people without power, heat, shelter, clean-water, etc. They cancelled the marathon. Runners, volunteers, officials, etc. spent the day of the marathon working to help people in need.

They *could* do that in Rio. Cancel the games. Divert all resources to helping people in need.

But they won't..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hurricane Sandy caused massive damage just before the New York marathon. They felt it unseemly to tie-up resources hosting a marathon when there were people without power, heat, shelter, clean-water, etc. They cancelled the marathon. Runners, volunteers, officials, etc. spent the day of the marathon working to help people in need.

They *could* do that in Rio. Cancel the games. Divert all resources to helping people in need.

But they won't..

Hurricane Sandy was an unforeseen natural disaster. Rio has experienced nothing of the sort. The city and the country had socioeconomic issues before they were awarded the Olympics (and concurrently, a FIFA World Cup). They have socioeconomic issues during the 7 year lead-up to the Olympics. They'll continue to have socioeconomic issues after the Olympics, and would if there was no Olympics awarded to them. If Rio was committed to improving favelas and helping the poor and needy, they shouldn't have bid for the Olympics in the first place. They thought it was a good idea then. This news about their preparation level aside, somehow I don't think their opinion has been changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree regarding the velodrome.

But this is an Olympic issue. The IOC markets the Olympic brand as promoting peace, helping youth and bringing sport to all.

Golf is an elitist sport. The IOC is choosing to turn a blind eye to the favelas. They're encouraging Rio to do the same. This is wrong.

What if instead the IOC encouraged improvements to the favelas? That would be a meaningful legacy. Why isn't that type of work a part of the Olympic Games? Wouldn't it make a much more powerful statement to go around the world building up the under privileged than building glamorous white elephants?

Obviously the Games are primarily about sport and venues will always be needed, but there don't have to be so many new permanent ones and they don't have to be so grandiose. A social component could be added to the hosting of the Olympic Games. It could actually make a difference instead if just creating a playground for the ultra rich.

They could even turn some of the Venues that aren't needed after the Games into some sort of Youth Centre, that's funded by Charities in Brazil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hurricane Sandy caused massive damage just before the New York marathon. They felt it unseemly to tie-up resources hosting a marathon when there were people without power, heat, shelter, clean-water, etc. They cancelled the marathon. Runners, volunteers, officials, etc. spent the day of the marathon working to help people in need.

They *could* do that in Rio. Cancel the games. Divert all resources to helping people in need.

But they won't..

It doesn't have to be so polarized, i.e. glamour Olympics without any human aid or social improvement versus canceling the Games and devoting all resources to relief.

For Rio, it's too late to change strategy, they just have to drag themselves across the finish line in any way possible.

But it isn't too late for the future. The IOC absolutely could make relief and social projects a part of hosting the Games. The scale of the venues could be reduced. There could be greater acceptance of existing and temporary venues, willingness to do without giant Olympic parks that would make it possible to do things like get water and electricity to people living in favelas. This storyline could play a big role in the PR surrounding the Games and even be featured in some way in the OC. It would be a way the Olympics could actually give something instead of just taking. It would certainly be a better way to act out Olympic ideals.

As I said, it's too late for Rio, but the IOC should learn from this and change course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Athens I am not defending the IOC as much as saying that the IOC is less responsible for the outcomes and failures of an OCOG than you do.

I am not sure who mentioned it but there is an international golf course within 45 minutes of Rio. I also strongly reject the claim that golf is elitist. Golf is one of the most widely played recreational sports in the world. Golf can be as elite as the Masters or as basic as a city owned golf course down the street.

The thing is, once the IOC gives the Olympic contract to a host city, that host city has the IOC by the balls. Vancouver demanded more money from the IOC and got it. Beijing did whatever it wanted.

The federations are also the ones that sign-off on the venue requirements, not the IOC. Yes, some of the federations make far too many demands but others do not make things unreasonable. Federations have asked about using existing venues in other cities, specifically Sao Paolo. I think that is indication enough that the federations when pushed would give in to necessity of the host.

The IOC has never, ever been in a position to pick a truly responsible, innovative, revolutionary type plan. No city has offered it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look around Rio. Extreme wealth and luxury sit side-by-side with abject poverty. The city tries to help both. We can debate the rightness or wrongness of that, but that's not really an Olympic debate.

Then why do you make it an Olympic "debate" when it comes to South Africa. Citing all their social inequalities but just gloss over Brazil's. So why is Brazil allowed a pass on this issue. This seems so contradictory on your part.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite all issues, the games will be made in Rio. Without any "B plan" or more time, what can the do?

If the IOC decides to cancel or postpone the OG, it would be a blow for Rio, Brazil and for the IOC. The Only one thing that they can do is just trust that everything will be right on time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i did forsee this happening during the bidding stage. yet the IOC was adamant having the games in south america. no problem with that, but the problem was timing. with Rio being one of the main cities for the world cup that should've raised a red flag and further pounded them on that and now this is what we get with no plan b. at least athens 2004 had a "plan b" had they failed to meet the guidelines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, what sports/events were added after the bid was awarded: rugby & golf? So anything added...always complicates preparations. That means two NEW federations to deal with -- finding them their new hotel and conference facilities, etc., etc. Was Rio prepared for the added sports??

And ROCOG can always tell the IOC: yes, but our Ceremonies preps are way ahead!! :lol:B)

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

Rio already has golf courses - Itanhangá and Gávea - which were not accepted for the Games. According to Mayor Eduardo Paes speech in a hangout with joournalists last week, the city of Rio negotiated with the private sector to build another field in Barra. The project of 60 million reais will be run by the private sector, due to an agreement the parts signed. This is the same agreement signed for the Athletes Village´s construction. Private iniciative is building the village with no expenses to the city. The apartments will be delivered to their owners only four months after the Paralympics are finished. Much of the Federations concerns about Rio is focused on the size and infrastructure they want to their venues. Mayor said he has had a lot of discussion on these questions because he will not buid venues the city will not use when the Games are over. Tennis Federation for example, wants a 20.000 seats venue. It will be only 10.000, because Rio doesn´t need more than this. He also stated, there are two kinds of Games: the Games which use the city and the Games the city uses to improve the quality of the life of ts inhabitants. He said, Rio chose the second kind. You know something? I think the Mayor is correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree about the World Cup vs Olympics. I think Brazil could have pulled off one of them, but trying to do both two years apart is crazy. That would be a challenge even for France or Japan.

This reminds me a lot of the time when Brazil became the third country in the world to obtain modern battleships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minas_Geraes-class_battleship

It continues to follow the thinking that money spent on infrastructure improvements for use of the Olympics follows two rules, it disappears after the Olympics are over and no one other than the Olympics uses said infrastructure. Please fly to Vancouver and get to downtown without taking a cab or shuttle. How do you get there, oh that's right Olympic infrastructure. The Olympics are like almost all civic projects. They are never or rarely going to be cost neutral or positive. But ask most Londoners if they are happy about the development of brown and gray fields into usable park, housing and entertainment land? Ask South Africans if the infrastructure from hosting the World Cup hasn't provided some positive legacies. Or Tokyo, Seoul, Atlanta, Barcelona and Sydney.

I agree. That said . . .

Vancouver actually started the SkyTrain way before the Olympics. The Expo Line has been around since the 80's, and a new line to the airport would have been built whether or not they hosted the Olympics. I remember it was being talked about way back in 2002 when I lived there.

How much transportation infrastructure is being built in Brazil? It seems like it isn't much: they haven't made any additions to Rio's metro system at any rate. Their main solution to the transportation issue for the World Cup has been to declare three holidays.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC has never, ever been in a position to pick a truly responsible, innovative, revolutionary type plan. No city has offered it.

The IOC consistently chooses the most expensive option over simpler bids that rely on existing venues. They get the type of bids that they encourage. If they rewarded responsible bids that relied on existing/temporary venues, then more countries would submit them and you wouldn't have so many withdrawals, failed referendums, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC didn't pick the most expensive for 1996, 98, 00, 02, 10, 12 or 20. So its not always. And like I said, the IOC has only been given the exact same template again, and again and again. No one has tried anything new because it is the exact same consultants and advisers every cycle.

Edited by faster
Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC didn't pick the most expensive for 1996, 98, 00, 02, 10, 12 or 20. So its not always. And like I said, the IOC has only been given the exact same template again, and again and again. No one has tried anything new because it is the exact same consultants and advisers every cycle.

London was easily the most expensive proposal. And Tokyo was only a bit behind the price tag for embattled Istanbul.

I still can't believe you're defending the IOC. The consultants and advisers advise the bids based on the IOC's voting habits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

London was easily the most expensive proposal. And Tokyo was only a bit behind the price tag for embattled Istanbul.

I still can't believe you're defending the IOC. The consultants and advisers advise the bids based on the IOC's voting habits.

I'm not defending anyone. If I recall Moscow's bid was the most expensive. I preferred Paris for the sustainability of their bid. I supported Salzburg and Munich. Yes I supported Tokyo but there is still substantial reuse in Tokyo's plans.

I am just saying that there are two sides to every coin and to this only one city has seriously pushed the envelope in their bid and that is Oslo.

Speaking privately to Rols I mentioned that I would love to see the German Olympic Committee challenge some of Bach's statements and present a Cologne-Dortmund-Dusseldorf clustered bid. Of course if that ever did come up people on here would be screaming about travel times, the 'Olympic atmosphere' and other nonsense.

I want 4 sports to be cut, I want all the useless 'universality' spots that generate thousands of additional athletes that have no business being in competition to be cut. I don't support the inclusion of golf. But I also see that the IOC is not to blame for the grandiose ambitions of developing countries.

You and FYI are the ones that claim the IOC will accept a paired down, more simplistic Games so that they can finally go to Africa. If that holds true for Africa it stands to reason that it would have held true for Brazil and South America. Brazil chose to go grandiose, big and ridiculous. I really don't think athletes or federations care if their venue cost 20 million or 200 million, they care that it is complete, meets international standards and provides the basis for good competition.

Edited by faster
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...