Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sir Rols

Rio 2016 Was “Marvelous,” Depending On How You Do The Math

Recommended Posts

The Rio Olympic Games ended with an energetic, international Samba party that will be unforgettable for athletes, Olympic fans and many others alike.  And, depending on how you like to do the math – they were a success. It wasn’t an easy road for the Rio organizers, one that took them from the Bella Centre […]

View the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as we can't comment on Rob's newswire articles now, I thought I'd repost this here where we can.

 

Good summation Rob! fair across all points. And liked your conclusion:

Quote

 

The wrong message to take from the Rio 2016 experience would be that the IOC made the wrong choice in selecting a host – that it should play it safe in the future.  Despite the struggle, the Games ignited sport not only in Brazil, but across South America where the Games were staged for the very first time.  Teams across the continent were warmly welcomed by the Brazilians, even rivals Argentina received loud cheers at the Opening Ceremony.

The Games are designed to be shared, and Rio proved that even developing nations can, and should be considered to do the job, if the focus remains on sport.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC made their own bed when choosing Rio to go ahead of Doha, despite Doha scoring higher. The IOC should have had both of them go through and simply eliminated them both for Tokyo. Rio would bid again for 2020, much stronger and perhaps might not be in this mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lord David said:

The IOC made their own bed when choosing Rio to go ahead of Doha, despite Doha scoring higher. The IOC should have had both of them go through and simply eliminated them both for Tokyo. Rio would bid again for 2020, much stronger and perhaps might not be in this mess.

But when Rio submitted its bid, back in 2008, it was much stronger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Lord David said:

The IOC made their own bed when choosing Rio to go ahead of Doha, despite Doha scoring higher. The IOC should have had both of them go through and simply eliminated them both for Tokyo. Rio would bid again for 2020, much stronger and perhaps might not be in this mess.

What difference would that have made? Sochi's been the problem that scared everyone off. London or Rio didn't do that. I doubt Rio would have been any better four years later. Choosing Tokyo for 2016 would have only perhaps made Beijing 2022 even more likely.

It's the winters that are the mess for the IOC. For the summers they have four pretty good options to choose from for 2024 (with at least two of those being very good).  

Oh - I see you said Rio was "this mess". Speak for yourself. I don't think it was or is.

F*ck it.Who knows what I'm trying to answer? That's the trouble when one tries to work through your usual "why do it logically when you can make it far-fetched and complicated" reasoning.

Edited by Sir Rols

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lord David, are you forgetting Tokyo had barely 45% support for their 2016 bid?

Yes, good article from Rob.....hard to disagree with any of it (though I was watching from my armchair or bed so obviously got a different perspective from those actually there!).

Edited by Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I think I need a for more days for a final verdict on these games.

But one thing I think about for a few days is what would the most people say about his Olympics if they would have been staged after the Beijing games and not after the London games? Maybe London raised the bar too high and with it all our expectations? I think we all would judge Rio better, if we had the (too) perfect Beijing games in mind and would compare the somehow cold atmosphere from Beijing to the vibrant, more grounded and more human version of the games we saw in Rio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

Oh - I see you said Rio was "this mess". Speak for yourself. I don't think it was or is.

Perhaps "mess" was too harsh. I commend Rio and Brazil for their efforts and acknowledge that they won when things were on a high, the country was progressing forward and things were mostly economically stable, but these games perhaps  show that it might not come to a developing nation, not for a long time.

Let's see how the Paralympics go, if they ever happen at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Daze said:

Well I think I need a for more days for a final verdict on these games.

But one thing I think about for a few days is what would the most people say about his Olympics if they would have been staged after the Beijing games and not after the London games? Maybe London raised the bar too high and with it all our expectations? I think we all would judge Rio better, if we had the (too) perfect Beijing games in mind and would compare the somehow cold atmosphere from Beijing to the vibrant, more grounded and more human version of the games we saw in Rio.

Whilst I have been critical about the Rio games and am on record as stating that I'd prefer them to fail in order to trigger a root-and-branch reform of the Olympic Movement (just like the failures of the 1972, 1976 and 1980 paved the way for a new era - albeit under Mr Samaranch and with incalculable consequences that last to this day), I think that Rio did what it could do within the capacity that it possessed. The Brazilian people, including the volunteers (I'm sure there are truant volunteers elsewhere, too) deserve praise for making the best of a bad situation. That said - yes, Rio struck me as warmer than the perfectionist show of lights, sound and ill-considered legacy-free buildings approved by the Communist Party mandarins in Beijing. I still remember the thinly veiled nationalism and militarism on display during segments of the Opening Ceremony. Despite my misgivings, I prefer an imperfect and heart-filled Rio to Beijing's soulless, deferential ultra-perfectionism.

2 hours ago, Lord David said:

The IOC made their own bed when choosing Rio to go ahead of Doha, despite Doha scoring higher. The IOC should have had both of them go through and simply eliminated them both for Tokyo. Rio would bid again for 2020, much stronger and perhaps might not be in this mess.

The Brazilian politicians (including Rio's mayor) responsible for the delivery of sky-high promises and expectations (for instance, regarding housing and opportunities for the poor) are an entirely different kettle of fish altogether. The problems were visible prior to and well after Rio got the nod from the IOC session in Copenhagen: Would they have justified a move away from Rio and the transition to a new host city or an emergency host? That's the crux of the whole issue, and comparing the possible candidates that would have been on offer, I'm not sure that any of them would have been problem-free: London delivered an amazing Olympic Games, but the shift towards post-Games legacy mode (including the dismantling of facilities) would have rendered the British capital highly unlikely as an emergency host. Especially with a fiery debate re: Brexit splitting the UK down the middle, I'm genuinely unsure whether Brits would have been as enthusiastic about a 2016 re-hosting. So, that possibility would have already been remote.

Each of Rio's competitors in the 2016 race had problems that, in hindsight, would have posed their own challenges. Madrid is the capital of a great sports country, Spain, which also finds itself in the midst of a constiutional crisis and economic problems due to its Eurozone membership (the latter factor will likely doom Rome's bid for 2024), may very well have had other things on its mind that hosting the IOC. Chicago? Sure, technically (in terms of security, technology and institutional experience with Olympics in 1984 and 1996) probably quite capable of hosting the Games, but there was a substantial lack of support even back in the days of the Daley administration trying to push through Chicago. Add to that the political tensions, a highly contentious open-seat presidential election, the reluctance of US federal and state governments to foot the bill for any Olympic Games in the United States and the racial undertones of many social debates, and you would have had the recipe for some problems. Debilitating? Probably not, and I think that, on balance, Chicago would have hosted memorable Olympic Games, with a reasonable level of technical skill.

Doha? Not so much. The temperature issue would have nipped any application in the bud, but let's suppose the men in Lausanne had picked Doha: first, you would have had universal revulsion, comparable to the dubious choice for Qatar 2022. Second, the inevitable question of security would have arisen: Does the IOC really want to host Summer Olympics in such an instable part of the world. The rhetoric about the IOC being a global movement is all warm and fuzzy, but when the chips come down, we all prefer a location not a flight hour away from war, mass murder and ecclesiastical fascism. Third, the temperature issue would have rendered Doha in the traditional summer window a very daring choice (and that's not meant in a good way). Finally, what about such things like gay rights, well, human rights in general - and comparably trivial issues like purchasing alcohol, dancing, dress for the athletes. Would there be exemptions for female athletes in terms of their dress? Finally, Qatar (with all due respect) has no Olympic tradition (trying hard as they might to buy athletes from poorer countries and have them acquire citizenship, a troubling trend btw) and made no notable contributions to the Olympic Movement. So yeah, a non-starter. That leaves Tokyo, and the IOC consciously went against it.

Or rather, it decided to go with the New Frontier argument: Rio wasn't perfect, and unlike some of my fellow forum members (many of whom I like and respect), I don't think that Rio was anywhere near the standard for a skilled organization of the Olympic Games. Conversely, it was not an utter disaster either and several issues were exaggerated. The media also failed to take the opportunity to really discuss the substantive issues (the sources of the excessive scope of the Olympic Games, the old-boy networks preventing an effective fight against doping). The Brazilian people are not to be blamed for this - but their leaders are, as is an IOC that has failed to help fund the infrastructure that it demands of its Host Cities. I agree with Rols that the Summer Olympics have a secure future for the 2024 and possibly the 2028 round as well. The Winter Olympics, however, may need to return to the Lillehammer formula in order to move away from the urban cold of Torino and the gigantism of Sochi. Here's hoping Pyeongchang isn't too excessive.In the long run, the IOC needs to surely reform in order to make sure that public disillusionment with its scandals, condescending behaviour towards Host Countries, corruption & doping in sport, and mollycoddling of dictatorships does not start affecting the viabiity of the Olympic Games.

We will see a successful US bid (and with France's security and economic issues increasing under President Hollande, this may very well already happen in time for the 2024 decision) and, if we're lucky, a great bid from Canada (Vancouver, Toronto?). I'd like to say that Germany could be hosting in the next generation - but given our public scepticism and revulsion at the IOC, I really have my doubts. Northern European countries like Denmark etc seem too small under the current IOC programme, and we can safely discount the likes of authoritarian Hungary, Poland etc. If Southern Europe drifts ever-closer to economic crisis, what is left in the democratic world? New Zealand is too small; I'd like to see Australia re-host the Olympic Games, but I'm not sure how strong the taste for that is in Melbourne or Sydney; South Africa may be a country the IOC might be wary of after Rio, let alone India (which has wisely refrained from attempts to bid and is only now getting on course for real change). So, unless the IOC changes, it may very well have to arrange itself with authoritarian regimes - which would expose the Games to abuse and instrumentalization by dictators. Surely, that would be the long-term threat to the summers after 2024/28.

That's why the IOC needs to start acting now to downsize the Olympics, go easy on the self-referential celebration, contribute to infrastructure funding and start paying its way to neutralize the arguments against the Olympic Games. Otherwise, the Olympic Movement will indelibly destroy a great product.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

What difference would that have made?

F*ck it.Who knows what I'm trying to answer? That's the trouble when one tries to work through your usual "why do it logically when you can make it far-fetched and complicated" reasoning.

Lmfao - yep, that's what you get when one tries to debate with - it's   all about the "flashy bid books" boy! :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×