Jump to content

Moved 2022 before its to late.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 646
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It feels like I subscribed to a newsfeed from a local paper in South Queensland.

Here's the issue the IOC has right now and I've seen some people echo this on Twitter... The IOC wants to play it both ways.  I am sure that they will gladly push the narrative this summer - assu

Nikki Haley talking about “upholding America’s guiding principles” on Faux News is absolutely hysterical! Considering that’s not what they were doing at all when they were peddling the big, fat lie fo

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

In all the interactions I've had with him in this thread, if tough to tell if that's what he wants or if he just likes to let his imagination run wild and come up with extreme scenarios because he's bored.  Because he's argued before (tough to tell if he seriously believes it or not) that we could see massive boycotts of next year's Olympics and it would fracture relationships between the IOC and various NOCs and it could lead to the end of the Olympics altogether!  

I know this site has become more about wild speculation than actual news, but that's GamesBids for you.

As you can see I'm new to the thread and haven't gone back and read up on everything. As I've said,  I still have long memories of 1980 - as part of that I won't use the B word.  To me it is a "forced non-participation"  or "forced withdrawal" of/by the NOC.  I guess in my idealized world, the role of an NOC is to prepare and enter teams at the Games, not string them along and then refuse to send them.

This idea that a massive forced withdrawal by NOCs will end the Olympics and that might be a good thing is also an idea that was put out in an op-ed in the Washington Post about 3 ago and I believe referred to on this thread.

     

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Triplecast said:

As you can see I'm new to the thread and haven't gone back and read up on everything. As I've said,  I still have long memories of 1980 - as part of that I won't use the B word.  To me it is a "forced non-participation"  or "forced withdrawal" of/by the NOC.  I guess in my idealized world, the role of an NOC is to prepare and enter teams at the Games, not string them along and then refuse to send them.

This idea that a massive forced withdrawal by NOCs will end the Olympics and that might be a good thing is also an idea that was put out in an op-ed in the Washington Post about 3 ago and I believe referred to on this thread.

     

I like calling it "forced non-participation," makes it sound a lot more about the athletes rather than the NOC or the nation trying to make a political statement on their behalf.

I think what will eventually happen is that athletes will participate, but that politicians and other dignitaries who might otherwise attend the Games will skip it.  That's the best of both worlds IMO.. sends a message that they don't endorse China, but don't take it out on the athletes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

I like calling it "forced non-participation," makes it sound a lot more about the athletes rather than the NOC or the nation trying to make a political statement on their behalf.

I think what will eventually happen is that athletes will participate, but that politicians and other dignitaries who might otherwise attend the Games will skip it.  That's the best of both worlds IMO.. sends a message that they don't endorse China, but don't take it out on the athletes.

https://timesofsandiego.com/sports/2021/02/26/biden-mulls-beijing-olympic-boycott-would-doom-san-diego-medal-favorites-white-humphries/

Press in the USA seem to be reading the white house statement as if Biden might recommend a full boycott.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s not what I read. All Psaki said was that ‘there hasn’t been a a final decision made on that’. And that ‘of course, we would look for guidance from the U.S. Olympic Committee’. So I don’t see how that translates to Biden “mulling” a boycott.

Biden has far more important things to deal with right now - like, oh I don’t know, seeking to get another Coronavirus relief package passed in the Senate, & going to hard hit Texas after their devastating cold weather disaster last week (since obviously ditzy Ted Cruz does’t care about his home state), than to be thinking at all about the Beijing Winter Olympics, much less a boycott ATM.

I think that Psaki‘s second sentence is the clue here. That they’ll seek the “guidance” of the USOC to determine anything. And I’m sure that the USOC will tell them to tread carefully on this one. They’ll remind the administration (something that escapes the Republicans right now, I’m sure), that the U.S. has it’s own summer Olympics in 6 years time, & that any U.S. led boycott of Beijing 2022 will undoubtedly be retaliated by the Chinese to boycott the Los Angeles 2028 Games.

It’ll be tit-for-tat, just like it was in 1980 & 1984. Just what L.A. (& the IOC, & the sponsors) would want, another (pointless) boycotted Games to their Olympic roster. The USOC will resist any boycott calls, no matter how much the (hypocritical) Republicans will squawk about one. The only way a boycott happens, as I mentioned yesterday, is if China does something really stupid between now & next January. Otherwise, all this is just noise coming from self-absorbed, minor-league politicians.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, REDWHITEBLUE24 said:

https://timesofsandiego.com/sports/2021/02/26/biden-mulls-beijing-olympic-boycott-would-doom-san-diego-medal-favorites-white-humphries/

Press in the USA seem to be reading the white house statement as if Biden might recommend a full boycott.

Key word in that sentence.. "might"  Also might that Biden might NOT recommend a full boycott. 

Wouldn't read much into what the "press in the USA seem to be reading" considering this once again seems spurred on by Nikki Haley's comments.  The Biden administration isn't going to make some sort of unilateral decision the way Carter did in 1980.  Jen Psaki has made it clear that they're going to work with the USOPC, who has already made it clear they're opposed to a boycott, let alone one that's forced upon them.

Do this thread a favor and stop reading into everything what you want to see and hear.  Because if you're looking for confirmation bias, chances are you're going to find confirmation bias!  And it borders on trolling at this point (not to mention abject ignorance about what's really going on)

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, FYI said:

That’s not what I read. All Psaki said was that ‘there hasn’t been a a final decision made on that’. And that ‘of course, we would look for guidance from the U.S. Olympic Committee’. So I don’t see how that translates to Biden “mulling” a boycott.

Biden has far more important things to deal with right now - like, oh I don’t know, seeking to get another Coronavirus relief package passed in the Senate, & going to hard hit Texas after their devastating cold weather disaster last week (since obviously ditzy Ted Cruz does’t care about his home state), than to be thinking at all about the Beijing Winter Olympics, much less a boycott ATM.

I think that Psaki‘s second sentence is the clue here. That they’ll seek the “guidance” of the USOC to determine anything. And I’m sure that the USOC will tell them to tread carefully on this one. They’ll remind the administration (something that escapes the Republicans right now, I’m sure), that the U.S. has it’s own summer Olympics in 6 years time, & that any U.S. led boycott of Beijing 2022 will undoubtedly be retaliated by the Chinese to boycott the Los Angeles 2028 Games.

It’ll be tit-for-tat, just like it was in 1980 & 1984. Just what L.A. (& the IOC, & the sponsors) would want, another (pointless) boycotted Games to their Olympic roster. The USOC will resist any boycott calls, no matter how much the (hypocritical) Republicans will squawk about one. The only way a boycott happens, as I mentioned yesterday, is if China does something really stupid between now & next January. Otherwise, all this is just noise coming from self-absorbed, minor-league politicians.

I'm guessing you figured this one out already, but as this site has been filled with "boosters" in the past before for a particular city, consider REDWHITEBLUE a "booster" for a boycott.  He'll share any story that hints at the possibility of a boycott and read into it that it's going to happen because he thinks it will.

And yes, totally agree on Psaki and the USOPC.  There will be a dialogue there, but it sounds like Biden and company will be listening more than they'll be talking.  I'm guessing the USOPC will tell them something along the lines of "we encourage you to speak out against China, but leave us out of it."  Either way, the notion that Republicans will try to pressure them is ridiculous.  As if Nikki Haley squawking on social media (as opposed to actually trying to do something meaningful) will persuade them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FYI said:

That’s not what I read. All Psaki said was that ‘there hasn’t been a a final decision made on that’. And that ‘of course, we would look for guidance from the U.S. Olympic Committee’. So I don’t see how that translates to Biden “mulling” a boycott.

...it translates to "mulling" a boycott because when asked before they said they were not considering it.........not they say a decision has not been made........that is a change in posture.

 

p.s. i think ted cruz is actually pretty pro-texas :lol:

Edited by paul
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

I'm guessing you figured this one out already, but as this site has been filled with "boosters" in the past before for a particular city, consider REDWHITEBLUE a "booster" for a boycott.  

Lol, yeah, I figured RWB24’s agenda here. And I usually ignore it. (& funny how you should mention the city booster part too, since there’s another clan of those in the ‘32 forums right now, lol). 

But what gets me in these latest ones, is the quotes/interviews from Republican members about a boycott bcuz “it’s the right thing to do”. Like they even know what that means. Especially these last couple of months, when most of them have been doing the WRONG thing. So it’s very nauseating, to say the least.

48 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Either way, the notion that Republicans will try to pressure them is ridiculous.  As if Nikki Haley squawking on social media (as opposed to actually trying to do something meaningful) will persuade them.

I never even heard of Nikki Haley until just a couple of months ago. Hence the minor-league reference. All she’s interested in, is running for president in 2024 (just like Cruz & Hawley, another couple of sleazy winners there :rolleyes:).

And I thought the snub that she got from cheetah man, of all people, a couple of weeks ago was just hilarious! She wants to ride both sides of the fence (much like McConnell :rolleyes:), & then start to lean towards the side that she thinks will score her the most political points. She’s nothing but a two-face twat (& doesn’t really care about China’s internal troubles, only herself & her political ambitions), & surely she’ll fall flat on her face because of it come 2024. The big cheetoh will make sure of it! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, paul said:

...it translates to "mulling" a boycott because when asked before they said they were not considering it.........not they say a decision has not been made........that is a change in posture.

Well, if that’s how you want to it read it, then so be it. But again, Psaki said that they’ll follow the “guidance” of the USOC. And the USOC is against any boycott.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FYI said:

Well, if that’s how you want to it read it, then so be it. But again, Psaki said that they’ll follow the “guidance” of the USOC. And the USOC is against any boycott.

         ......id agree with that. The USOC and IOC don't really have any discretion when it comes to self preservation

Link to post
Share on other sites

^Plus, maybe that’s left to interpretation, since things can change. As I’ve been saying all along, if China does something really, REALLY stupid before February 2022, then a boycott could/would then be fully warranted (much to RWB24’s glee). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, paul said:

...it translates to "mulling" a boycott because when asked before they said they were not considering it.........not they say a decision has not been made........that is a change in posture.

It's not a change in posture at all.  Psaki was first asked about it 2 weeks into Biden's presidency.  They hadn't thought about it because they had no reason to (and I have a feeling it wouldn't have come up then if not for the ridiculous story about Florida offering to host the Olympics this summer).  Now they've probably thought about it a little bit, not because it's a pressing issue, but because Psaki wants to be somewhat prepared in case it got brought up again.  Like last time, it's only a topic of discussion because a Republican politician wants to rabble-rouse a little.

The odds of a boycott haven't substantially changed in any way because of how the last month has played out.  "they were not considering it" means they hadn't taken a side yet.  "they say a decision has not been made" also means the exact same thing, that they haven't taken a side.  The only difference is maybe they've thought about it a little and as the article noted, had some discussions with the USOPC.

This is one of those things that needs to play out in real time.  Whether or not the United States boycotts the 2022 Olympics is not a decision that's going to be made until much later this year.  A reporter asking on February 3rd if the Biden administration has taken a position is at best shoddy journalism, and at worst a political hit job.  The USOPC clearly has given some thought to this one, as they should since this has been on their radar for awhile now.  Give politicians time to consider an issue rather than to assume that 5 minutes after they start "mulling" it that our instant gratification culture demands an immediate answer (looking at you REDWHITEBLUE on that one).

Link to post
Share on other sites

.....yes, well.......ok then, it's settled........they don't know what their position is and cannot take a side until consulting with the USOPC to decide what message they can reveal about what they believe in. Not mad at them........perfectly expected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, paul said:

.....yes, well.......ok then, it's settled........they don't know what their position is and cannot take a side until consulting with the USOPC to decide what message they can reveal about what they believe in. Not mad at them........perfectly expected.

No one should be mad at the Biden administration in relation to this.  They have a zillion things going on.  That certain politicians want them to take a hard stance on China is understandable and acceptable.  But I think we can forgive Biden's press secretary (who is holding a regular briefing to answer questions unlike the last administration) for not being prepared with fully formed answers to any and every question.

In time, I'm sure Biden and his advisors will give some thought to this time and be able to articulate what they believe.  The time to take a hard stance is months away, particularly since until August, the Beijing Olympics are not yet the next Olympics to be held.

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

Well, if that’s how you want to it read it, then so be it. But again, Psaki said that they’ll follow the “guidance” of the USOC. And the USOC is against any boycott.

For how long through - the sponsors are now being targeted - USOC might find it's commercially more viable to boycott.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, REDWHITEBLUE24 said:

For how long through - the sponsors are now being targeted - USOC might find it's commercially more viable to boycott.

I received a fundraising letter from USOPC a couple of days ago.  Right now, I'm  considering saying to them in response (in the prepaid envelope) that I'm withholding my contribution for now until there is clarity on Beijing first, as I give you money to send a team, not to not send a team.  Mostly, I fear them getting rolled again, as they were in 1980.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The USOPC will never willingly boycott any Games. They were bludgeoned into it in 1980. The US has been the IOC's sugar daddy for a long time, but China is a threat to that so any boycott based on commercial considerations is absolute nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, REDWHITEBLUE24 said:

For how long through - the sponsors are now being targeted - USOC might find it's commercially more viable to boycott.

No, they won't.  Pretty sure that the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committe would find it more commercially viable to compete in the Olympics rather than to not compete in them.  Sponsors are going to point their ire towards China, not the US.  This feels a lot like how the anti-Kaepernick crowd swore they'd never buy another product from a company that supported the NFL.  Then forgot to do that

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BTHarner said:

The USOPC will never willingly boycott any Games. They were bludgeoned into it in 1980. The US has been the IOC's sugar daddy for a long time, but China is a threat to that so any boycott based on commercial considerations is absolute nonsense.

It's a somewhat valid argument to talk about their funding, but again, I can't see a scenario where the USOPC thinks they're better off skipping out on the Olympics than to participate in Beijing with whatever flak may come their way.  There's an Olympics coming here in 7 years, so in time, sponsors will undoubtedly be interested in being a part of that effort.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

No, they won't.  Pretty sure that the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committe would find it more commercially viable to compete in the Olympics rather than to not compete in them.  Sponsors are going to point their ire towards China, not the US.  This feels a lot like how the anti-Kaepernick crowd swore they'd never buy another product from a company that supported the NFL.  Then forgot to do that

Western companies are being targeted for their Olympic links either direct or indirect.

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...