Moved 2022 before its to late.

[Rob2012]

9 hours ago, Australian Kiwi said:

Tokyo was underscored by hope and togetherness. Beijing is isolated and alone. 

That's a pretty good summary actually.

[Australian Kiwi]

On 11/23/2021 at 9:45 PM, stryker said:

Unfortunately, I think this will eventually fizzle about much the like the Kashoggi situation with Saudi Arabia. It will be brought up in the media from time to time, but there will not be any serious retribution for China over this. For instance, if China wants to throw its hat in the ring for 2036 or something like the World Cup, the current situation with Peng is not going to doom any bids. I predict once the Olympics get going in Beijing it will be glossed over even more by the likes of the IOC. I also expect that in the lead up time to the Olympics very explicit instructions will be given to participating athletes regarding what they can and cannot say in China and I'm sure part of that warning will be that Peng is not up for discussion or protest.

In terms of where this leaves the IOC, it's a black mark on an already poor public relations perception. It confirms what many have said for years, the IOC pays lip service when it comes to human rights. The likes of Bach, Coates and the rest of the crew could honestly care less.

This is the problem with Agenda 2020. 

If Shanghai jumps in now and does everything right, of course it will tick every box and be technically sound. On what basis can the IOC turn it down? Not every Agenda 2020 'preferred candidate' will be as benevolent as Brisbane. What the rigidness of Agenda 2020 fails to capture is optics and mood - something only an IOC vote with multiple options could hope to mitigate. Case in point is the select of Sydney over Beijing in 1993 with Tiannamen Square so fresh in people's minds.  

[Quaker2001]

12 hours ago, iceman530 said:

I dunno, never underestimate an authoritarian state with an ego.  

And hell, if they can get through an Olympics with literal concentration camps in the background and disappearing a national sports figure, they can pretty much host again thinking its not gonna get any worse than that.  Or maybe they think they could get away with more?  Shanghai 2036 here we come

4 hours ago, Australian Kiwi said:

This is the problem with Agenda 2020. 

If Shanghai jumps in now and does everything right, of course it will tick every box and be technically sound. On what basis can the IOC turn it down? Not every Agenda 2020 'preferred candidate' will be as benevolent as Brisbane. What the rigidness of Agenda 2020 fails to capture is optics and mood - something only an IOC vote with multiple options could hope to mitigate. Case in point is the select of Sydney over Beijing in 1993 with Tiannamen Square so fresh in people's minds.  

Particularly on a website decided to Olympic host bidding, let's not be ignorant to history here.  We didn't get another Olympics in Beijing because they ticked boxes or because the IOC really wanted to partner up with a communist country.  There were more than a few cities interested in bidding for 2022.  The IOC scared nearly all of them off, in large part because of the recency of Sochi and their massively expensive Olympics, but also because of the miles long list of demands the IOC wants to impose on the host city/country.  We know pretty definitively that's why Oslo dropped out, which is a shame, because that would have likely been another amazing Olympics.

So that left the IOC with a giant douche and a turd sandwich in Beijing and Almaty.  And it was a 44-40 final vote.  If just 3 Beijing voters have a change of heart that day, we're not having this discussion (although we're probably having a different discussion as it relates to Kazakhstan).  The moral of the story here being that let's not paint a picture of the IOC that they were really gung ho to return to Beijing and to partner with China.  Nearly half of the IOC voters didn't want that, and I'm sure in hindsight, many of those 44 who advocating for Beijing probably regret that decision.

We all know the IOC wants to play it both ways.. when things are good, they'll claim credit for the Olympic movement.  When they aren't good, they'll avoid any notion that they can do anything for the cause of human rights.  That all said.. Shanghai 2036?  No shot after the trail of bad press the IOC is going to leave in their wake here, unless China does a complete 180 in the next decade, and we all know that's not going to happen.  As the story goes and what we saw with 2032 is that the IOC only needs 1 willing partner that they want to work with.  And then they can ignore the rest for whatever reason they want.  Literally the only way Shanghai is even a thought in their minds would be for no other cities to be interested, which undoubtedly would include a lot of begging from the IOC for someone to come in and save their collective asses.

As for Agenda 2020.. the whole purpose of that direction for the IOC isn't to find an ideal candidate, but rather for cities to be more open and less rigid about what they are allowed to offer up.  If Italy offered up their Milan-Cortina bid for 2006 with venues spread over the country, they probably wouldn't have won.  But in the age of agenda 2020, they get consideration they wouldn't have 2 decades ago.  Agenda 2020 doesn't help a city like Shanghai if China can't help themselves and will spend extravagant amounts of money to make it happen.  That's literally the antithesis of what Agenda 2020 is supposed to be about.

The silver lining for the IOC is that once they're through this fiasco, they have 4 future hosts locked in with France, Italy, the United States, and Australia.  It's been a long time since the future Olympics calendar hasn't included the likes of a China or a Russia or a new frontier country like Brazil.  So they have an opportunity to salvage their reputation if 2 years is enough time before Paris for the world to forget everything that's happened in the last 20 months.  Easier said than done, but that's why if we're talking about future summer hosts, the time for that discussion is likely years down the road

[iceman530]

yeah my 2036 was rather tongue-in-cheek on Shanghai, especially if Beijing goes as well as we all anticipate it to.  Even if Russia is STILL prohibited from bidding for the 2036 games, Madrid drops out because of the track stadium situation, and London just flat out drops interest, we still have Istanbul and Budapest as the kids in the front of the classroom waiving their hands for the teacher enthusiastically saying "ooooo, oooo, pick me, pick me!"  So yah, probably not China.

 

Post 2040 though?  Probably fair game.  

[Karenina]

8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

 

The silver lining for the IOC is that once they're through this fiasco, they have 4 future hosts locked in with France, Italy, the United States, and Australia.  It's been a long time since the future Olympics calendar hasn't included the likes of a China or a Russia or a new frontier country like Brazil.  So they have an opportunity to salvage their reputation if 2 years is enough time before Paris for the world to forget everything that's happened in the last 20 months.  Easier said than done, but that's why if we're talking about future summer hosts, the time for that discussion is likely years down the road

And they'll get either Japan or the USA to save their bacon for the 2030 & 2034 WOGs before they go with Lviv (let's be real, that Spanish bid is DOA and the likelihood of a German WOG bid is next to nil), so they'll be fine for the next dozen years.  The IOC will be in much better shape, I expect, by Paris when they need to start really looking at the options available for a 2036 host.

[Quaker2001]

2 hours ago, Karenina said:

And they'll get either Japan or the USA to save their bacon for the 2030 & 2034 WOGs before they go with Lviv (let's be real, that Spanish bid is DOA and the likelihood of a German WOG bid is next to nil), so they'll be fine for the next dozen years.  The IOC will be in much better shape, I expect, by Paris when they need to start really looking at the options available for a 2036 host.

They might get Japan.  That's not a given.  Salt Lake getting an Olympics in the 2030s is a virtual certainty.  If the USOPC had their way, it would be for 2034, but obviously that presumes the IOC has a 2030 host.  We'll see what the Japanese appetite is for another Olympics so soon after Tokyo, and I imagine more than a few people will be watching Beijing in a couple of months to see how that goes, know that it'll be an unusual Olympics for a number of reasons.

Hard to imagine any cities emerging for either of those 2, particularly if the IOC is looking at more backroom deals.  We'll see how things look 2.5 years from now when hopefully for the IOC that the "genocide games" as some want to call them is a distant memory and they're only looking ahead at a brighter future.  I'm sure there's some sentiment within the IOC to just these Olympics over with and hope they can move on.  But like I said, all the IOC ever needs is 1 willing and capable partner every 4 years.  They haven't failed at that yet, so there's little reason to think they're in grave danger at any point in the foreseeable future.

[stryker]

As far as Shanghai goes, if the competition is the likes of India, Jakarta, Istanbul, and Doha then Shanghai has the inside track for 2036. I don't see any bid from China beating a credible bid out of Westrn Europe such as London or Madrid or a Russian bid. China is still a safe bid in the eyes of the IOC.

And yes, the IOC just needs one "credible" partner though one's definition of credible can vary. Beijing was viewed as the more credible candidate over Almaty. The IOC is approaching that with the 2030 race because the only credible candidate on solid ground is Salt Lake City and it's been discussed at length that SLC wants 2034. The question then becomes what compensation is the IOC willing to pay to ensure they have SLC as a host city for 2030 if necessary.

[iceman530]

2 hours ago, stryker said:

As far as Shanghai goes, if the competition is the likes of India, Jakarta, Istanbul, and Doha then Shanghai has the inside track for 2036. I don't see any bid from China beating a credible bid out of Westrn Europe such as London or Madrid or a Russian bid. China is still a safe bid in the eyes of the IOC.

And yes, the IOC just needs one "credible" partner though one's definition of credible can vary. Beijing was viewed as the more credible candidate over Almaty. The IOC is approaching that with the 2030 race because the only credible candidate on solid ground is Salt Lake City and it's been discussed at length that SLC wants 2034. The question then becomes what compensation is the IOC willing to pay to ensure they have SLC as a host city for 2030 if necessary.

Respectably, despite Erdogan's most valiant efforts, I don't think Istanbul is in the same breath of India, Jakarta, or Doha...........yet.  He is absolutely doing his best, though.  When I visited Istanbul in 2017, the Lira was at about 4.7 to the dollar compared to its traditional 3.5 at the time.  Now it's at what......13.5?  How the hell has no one deposed Erdogan over that alone?  I woulda thought he would have been overthrown at 8.  I think Istanbul is above the "China Line", but it is probably the city that is closest-to that is above it.  Just my two cents.  

[stryker]

53 minutes ago, iceman530 said:

 How the hell has no one deposed Erdogan over that alone?  I woulda thought he would have been overthrown at 8.  I think Istanbul is above the "China Line", but it is probably the city that is closest-to that is above it.  Just my two cents.  

Well, there was the failed coup in 2016. I would assume he's largely staffed key military posts with loyalists since then. Back to Beijing, I raised this in another thread but could the omicron variant be the wild card in all this. Already there is talk of the NHL pulling out but I think that has more to do with the proximity to the NHL All-Star Game. Today it was reported that Switzerland is requiring mandatory 10-day isolation periods for a number of delegations such as the UK, the Netherlands, and Belgium just to name a few putting the winter universiade in Lucerne in question. If omicron spreads like wildfire as some have predicted, it will be interesting to see what China's reaction is in relation to the Olympics. I don't think a postponement is possible at this point nor do I see a cancellation, but I could envision a scenario where China alters covid protocols for the Olympics to which the IOC would be able to do nothing. Cases have already appeared in the "closed loop" during test events which is unacceptable given China's zero covid policy.

[Quaker2001]

5 hours ago, stryker said:

As far as Shanghai goes, if the competition is the likes of India, Jakarta, Istanbul, and Doha then Shanghai has the inside track for 2036. I don't see any bid from China beating a credible bid out of Westrn Europe such as London or Madrid or a Russian bid. China is still a safe bid in the eyes of the IOC.

And yes, the IOC just needs one "credible" partner though one's definition of credible can vary. Beijing was viewed as the more credible candidate over Almaty. The IOC is approaching that with the 2030 race because the only credible candidate on solid ground is Salt Lake City and it's been discussed at length that SLC wants 2034. The question then becomes what compensation is the IOC willing to pay to ensure they have SLC as a host city for 2030 if necessary.

Again, let's remember how close that vote was.  44-40.  That's how close the IOC to picking Kazakhstan over China.  And like I said earlier, I wonder how many of those 44 would vote differently if they have to do it over.

Any future bid from China unless there's a massive political shift there, is a last ditch option.  Just like it was for 2022 when the only other option was a much smaller nation with a lot of question marks with their government.  I know we like to use the word "credible" around here a lot, but if the IOC is going to pick a city out of thin air and ignore everyone else, then how "credible" a city is might not mean much anymore.  Along those lines, if we're talking about how much would it cost to get Salt Lake to take 2030.. could ask the same question about Sapporo.  What would the IOC offer them to appease their concerns and get them for 2030 so they didn't have to pay off the USOPC again and then they're set for 2034

[Quaker2001]

1 hour ago, stryker said:

Well, there was the failed coup in 2016. I would assume he's largely staffed key military posts with loyalists since then. Back to Beijing, I raised this in another thread but could the omicron variant be the wild card in all this. Already there is talk of the NHL pulling out but I think that has more to do with the proximity to the NHL All-Star Game. Today it was reported that Switzerland is requiring mandatory 10-day isolation periods for a number of delegations such as the UK, the Netherlands, and Belgium just to name a few putting the winter universiade in Lucerne in question. If omicron spreads like wildfire as some have predicted, it will be interesting to see what China's reaction is in relation to the Olympics. I don't think a postponement is possible at this point nor do I see a cancellation, but I could envision a scenario where China alters covid protocols for the Olympics to which the IOC would be able to do nothing. Cases have already appeared in the "closed loop" during test events which is unacceptable given China's zero covid policy.

No shot there's a postponement.  Even less of a shot there's a cancellation.  I agree that COVID protocols could change and make it tougher for athletes to make it in and out of China, but the fact we're so much further along when it comes to vaccination and detection of the virus since Tokyo helps a lot.  We all know that China has tight restrictions when it comes to COVID, but they're going to have to take a long look at how they want that to work once 3,000 athletes and all the volunteers, media, and support staff are in whatever Olympic "bubble" they have set up

[stryker]

12 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Along those lines, if we're talking about how much would it cost to get Salt Lake to take 2030.. could ask the same question about Sapporo.  What would the IOC offer them to appease their concerns and get them for 2030 so they didn't have to pay off the USOPC again and then they're set for 2034

Sapporo? How bout he IOC foots the bill. That might work. 

It's now official. The winter universiade has been cancelled over the new quarantine requirements. Let the speculation on Beijing begin. 

Mike Rowbottom: Lucerne 2021 is off - will Omicron impact Beijing 2022? (insidethegames.biz)

 

 

[Quaker2001]

44 minutes ago, stryker said:

Sapporo? How bout he IOC foots the bill. That might work. 

It's now official. The winter universiade has been cancelled over the new quarantine requirements. Let the speculation on Beijing begin. 

Mike Rowbottom: Lucerne 2021 is off - will Omicron impact Beijing 2022? (insidethegames.biz)

No, let the speculation on Beijing end.  I have a better chance of qualifying for the Olympics than the Olympics do of being postponed.  Tokyo was held during a surge.  So you can be certain that China will do the same, even if they have major COVID protocols or vaccine requirements in place that make participation difficult for some.  Yes, we can talk about what those protocols might be, but let's not pretend for a split second that Omicron is a threat to the Olympics.

[stryker]

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

No, let the speculation on Beijing end.  I have a better chance of qualifying for the Olympics than the Olympics do of being postponed.  Tokyo was held during a surge.  So you can be certain that China will do the same, even if they have major COVID protocols or vaccine requirements in place that make participation difficult for some.  Yes, we can talk about what those protocols might be, but let's not pretend for a split second that Omicron is a threat to the Olympics.

Going back to a previous post, I said there's no chance of a postponement or a cancellation. Of course the WOGs are on a much bigger level than the winter universiade. I do speculate that we could see China tighten the screws as far as covid protocols go. I'm predicting the NHL will likely withdraw its participation. So far China is in a wait and see mode with regards to omicron. If this variant can evade existing vaccines or spreads faster than delta, then I would expect China to double down on its zero covid policies. If it's not, then I suspect the existing protocols will remain the same. 

[Quaker2001]

2 minutes ago, stryker said:

Going back to a previous post, I said there's no chance of a postponement or a cancellation. Of course the WOGs are on a much bigger level than the winter universiade. I do speculate that we could see China tighten the screws as far as covid protocols go. I'm predicting the NHL will likely withdraw its participation. So far China is in a wait and see mode with regards to omicron. If this variant can evade existing vaccines or spreads faster than delta, then I would expect China to double down on its zero covid policies. If it's not, then I suspect the existing protocols will remain the same. 

No shot.  They had a revised schedule back in August that they could switch to if they decided not to have the Olympic break on the schedule.  That break is now 2 months away and we're already into the season.  There's much more to lose by skipping the Olympics than there is to gain considering they will have trouble filling that void.  It was one thing in 2018 when they had a full slate of games going on during the Olympics and NHL fans could ignore what was going on in Korea.  Too late in the game to have that be the case now.

Omicron is a new thing, but I'm less than convinced that it's going to be a major issue, especially for those who are vaccinated.  Maybe I'm wrong, in which case G-d help us all.  But China is going to do everything they need to in order to ensure the Olympics go off successfully.  Where that meshes with a desire to maintain a zero Covid policy remains to be seen.

[Karenina]

I'll be interested to see what China does regarding the agreement they've made with the IOC to allow any minors who aren't eligible for vaccines in their own countries yet (eg. Russia) to compete in the Olympics.  A decision to not allow minors would eliminate several of the top women's figure skaters - Anna Shcherbakova, Kamila Valieva, Maiia Khromykh and Alexandra Trusova (her status is currently unknown - she had to pull out of her 2nd GP event due to a stress fracture in her foot).  There are also some Russian snowboarders who are under 18 who were cleared to compete in Beijing.  I'm not sure if there are athletes in other countries who are also potentially affected.

[StefanMUC]

If Russia‘s Sputnik wonder is no good for minors, then they can get other vaccines which have been cleared months ago already. If in their nationalist pride, they only take Sputnik, tough luck.

BTW: the regions with lowest vaccination/highest infection rates in Germany now are almost identical with our winter sports centres. I assume our athletes are vaccinated as they are travelling, but they may well be contact persons of infected by early February. The currently headless chicken DOSB doesn‘t seem to worry yet about that…

[Rob2012]

 

[Quaker2001]

That's not good for the IOC.  Because now the narrative will be that they need to act and pull business from China.  And we all know they're not going to do that.  Not at least for the next 4 months

[StefanMUC]

13 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

That's not good for the IOC.  Because now the narrative will be that they need to act and pull business from China.  And we all know they're not going to do that.  Not at least for the next 4 months

A little fictious scenario in two press releases from Lausanne.

#1 "The IOC cannot comment on any action an organisation which is not recognised by the IOC as an international sports federation is taking. The IOC calls for respect of Ms Peng's privacy at this stage."
#2 "The IOC is happy to see that preparations for the upcoming XXIV Olympic Winter Games in Beijing, China are progressing very well. The IOC President Thomas Bach (Fencing, 1976) is very much looking forward to meeting President Xi again very soon."

 

[ulu]

After the Chinese WTA tournaments being cancelled two years in a row and dismal attendance every year before that this seems like a very convenient out for the WTA. The previous WTA CEO really gambled too big on developing tennis in China leaving the current CEO with a big mess.

[Quaker2001]

16 minutes ago, StefanMUC said:

A little fictious scenario in two press releases from Lausanne.

#1 "The IOC cannot comment on any action an organisation which is not recognised by the IOC as an international sports federation is taking. The IOC calls for respect of Ms Peng's privacy at this stage."
#2 "The IOC is happy to see that preparations for the upcoming XXIV Olympic Winter Games in Beijing, China are progressing very well. The IOC President Thomas Bach (Fencing, 1976) is very much looking forward to meeting President Xi again very soon."

#1 is pure BS, we know that.  They'll happily claim that they can influence geo-politics when it suits them.  Again, I get that Peng is looking for privacy, but the IOC who conducted that interview in private maybe isn't the ones who should be implying "we got to talk to her, you don't"

20 minutes ago, ulu said:

After the Chinese WTA tournaments being cancelled two years in a row and dismal attendance every year before that this seems like a very convenient out for the WTA. The previous WTA CEO really gambled too big on developing tennis in China leaving the current CEO with a big mess.

I was thinking the same thing.  A lot of people seem to want to praise the WTA for pulling out of China, but perhaps they shouldn't have been in China in the first place

[StefanMUC]

The low attendance may be one thing, but there seems to be significant sponsoring money from China involved which is certainly not making this convenient for the WTA.

And it‘s good if they own their past misjudgements and are now willing to take a more firm actions. Others should follow that example (but won‘t).

[Ikarus360]

I know someone probably said this already but screw the IOC and screw Thomas Bach. Part of me hopes things get even worse so they're finaly completely cornered and forced to make changes if they want to survive in the current era.

[Quaker2001]

1 hour ago, Ikarus360 said:

I know someone probably said this already but screw the IOC and screw Thomas Bach. Part of me hopes things get even worse so they're finaly completely cornered and forced to make changes if they want to survive in the current era.

Things got worse in 2015 which is why we have an Olympics upcoming in Beijing.  One would have thought that's where they felt cornered and were forced to make changes, but it didn't really happen.  Now, they have 4 future hosts lined up and all they ever need is 1 willing city that wants to host their even to think that everything is okay.  All things considered, things are better now than they were a few years ago.  Remains to be seen how quickly the IOC and the world can move on from the fallout of having an Olympics in China, but the silver lining for anyone involved will always be "it'll be better with Paris and Milan-Cortina"