The New Norm

[stryker]

On 2/12/2022 at 8:34 AM, AustralianFan said:

Actually the Future Host Commission does most of the work, not the IOC Executive Board.

However the Future Host Commission was stacked with Bach loyalists so it will not make decisions outside of the tactic approval of Bach and the Executive Board

[AustralianFan]

IOC Members Election Commission - click here to learn more

The mission of the IOC Members Election Commission (formerly the Nominations Commission) is to propose and implement a new targeted recruitment process of IOC Members as per recommendation 38 of Olympic Agenda 2020.

This will enable the IOC Session to be composed of Members with different sets of skills and knowledge while ensuring the necessary balance in terms of gender and geography.

The responsibilities of the IOC Members Election Commission are to:

• Propose a new targeted recruitment process to the IOC EB and IOC Session;
• Prepare profiles and propose candidates in order to achieve a diverse and balanced membership of the IOC;
• For each candidature, provide a written report to the IOC Executive Board;
• Gather all useful information on the candidates, including career and sports activities;
• Verify the eligibility, origin and admissibility of each candidature and, if necessary, the candidate’s status as an active athlete or the function to which the candidature is linked;
• In evaluating candidatures linked to a function within an IF or NOC, take into consideration whether a candidate’s respective IF or NOC has an athletes’ commission which is compliant with the applicable regulations of the IOC, and that such IF or NOC is compliant with the Olympic Charter and the World Anti-Doping Code.

[AustralianFan]

2 hours ago, stryker said:

However the Future Host Commission was stacked with Bach loyalists so it will not make decisions outside of the tactic approval of Bach and the Executive Board

That’s your opinion to which you are entitled.

In the end, opinions are not evidence.

[AustralianFan]

Future Host Election from Candidate to Host City - IOC - click to learn more

New approach to future host elections

The revolutionary new approach to electing hosts for Olympic Games and youth Olympic Games results in significant cost savings for potential hosts, as well as more sustainable projects and master plans.

Click here to view >>  The Approach to Olympic Host Elections - IOC

[Sir Rols]

1 hour ago, AustralianFan said:

In the end, opinions are not evidence.

Neither are press releases

[AustralianFan]

The New Norm Plan - click to learn more

Olympic Games: From six recommendations to implementation

In 2014, the IOC Session gave unanimous approval to Olympic Agenda 2020, providing the strategic direction for a major review of all aspects of organising the Olympic Games – from candidature to Games delivery through to legacy – adding up to a fundamental rethink for future Olympic Games.

Of the 40 recommendations within Olympic Agenda 2020, six focused on aspects of the organisation of the Olympic Games;

1. Shape the bidding process as an invitation
2. Evaluate bid cities by assessing key opportunities and risks
3. Reduce the cost of bidding
4. Include sustainability in all aspects of the Olympic Games
5. Reduce the cost and reinforce the flexibility of Olympic Games management
6. Maximise synergies with Olympic Movement stakeholders

[stryker]

2 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

 

That’s your opinion to which you are entitled.

In the end, opinions are not evidence.

Wrong you should look at the names. It's been well documented in the media the Future Host Commissions are made up of close Bach confidantes.

Saying that's an opinion is the equivalent of saying Joe Biden's cabinet is made up of people who operate entirely independent of him.

If you study your history you will know the IOC is run very much like a political entity.

 

 

[Gonzo]

On 2/13/2022 at 9:11 AM, Sir Rols said:

But the process that got it there has clouded it’s win in suspicion and innuendo, both here and the wider media.

If John Coates didn't exist, Brisbane would not be hosting 2032 it is as simple as that

Biggest corrupt process in the history of the IOC is/was the "New Normal"

[Australian Kiwi]

1 hour ago, Gonzo said:

If John Coates didn't exist, Brisbane would not be hosting 2032 it is as simple as that

Biggest corrupt process in the history of the IOC is/was the "New Normal"

Precisely. It only slipped by because Brisbane is 'friendly' and will undoubted host a great Olympics.

But that's not the point.  It's that the process was stitched up and has been compromised. 

[AustralianFan]

5 hours ago, Gonzo said:

If John Coates didn't exist, Brisbane would not be hosting 2032 it is as simple as that

Biggest corrupt process in the history of the IOC is/was the "New Normal"

 

3 hours ago, Australian Kiwi said:

Precisely. It only slipped by because Brisbane is 'friendly' and will undoubted host a great Olympics.

But that's not the point.  It's that the process was stitched up and has been compromised. 

That’s your opinion to which you are entitled.

But, opinions are not evidence.

[Circle]

I was thinking over the weekend about the current state of the IOC and the new way they will choose host cities. 

The reason being that everyone I've spoken to recently, find it inexcusable that the Olympic Winter Games are currently being held in China, with all the human rights issues associated with the political regime there.  It reminds me of Sochi 2014, when people were raising similar issues, but this time the sentiment seems a lot stronger.

Now of course this is only people that I have spoken too, so it maybe won't be a true representation, but it seems to me that the Olympic brand is now tarnished with its association with political regimes that in no way observe or uphold human rights etc. 

As the IOC (or their Executive body) will now have a greater ability to discreetly turn away candidates and approach their preferred hosts, will this mean that they can steer clear of such regimes as mentioned above?  

[AustralianFan]

On 2/13/2022 at 11:36 PM, Australian Kiwi said:

AustralianFan - its kind of alarming how much you veer so naturally into gaslighting in defence of something that (seemingly) has so little impact on your life. It's a scary personality trait. All the links, bold titles, etc.

 

There, there ….. now don’t be scared of characters on a page,  they won’t hurt you, it’s just font.   

Now try and go back to sleep Australian Kiwi

 

 

[AustralianFan]

33 minutes ago, Circle said:

I was thinking over the weekend about the current state of the IOC and the new way they will choose host cities. 

The reason being that everyone I've spoken to recently, find it inexcusable that the Olympic Winter Games are currently being held in China, with all the human rights issues associated with the political regime there.  It reminds me of Sochi 2014, when people were raising similar issues, but this time the sentiment seems a lot stronger.

Now of course this is only people that I have spoken too, so it maybe won't be a true representation, but it seems to me that the Olympic brand is now tarnished with its association with political regimes that in no way observe or uphold human rights etc. 

As the IOC (or their Executive body) will now have a greater ability to discreetly turn away candidates and approach their preferred hosts, will this mean that they can steer clear of such regimes as mentioned above?  

Incorrect.   Beijing 2022 was selected in 2015 under the old broken system.

The very first Host selected under the New Norm selection system was Brisbane 2032 who was voted in on 21 July 2021.

The second Host selected under the New Norm selection system will be for the 2030 Winter Olympics and which is expected some time in the next 6-12 months or so.    

 

[StefanMUC]

LOL

I hear UN will establish 21 July as International New Norm Day because if the outstanding significance that day has for John Co…for humanity.

[AustralianFan]

53 minutes ago, StefanMUC said:

 

I hear UN will establish 21 July as International New Norm Day 

The facts remain.

Beijing 2022 was selected in 2015 under the old costly broken system.

Brisbane 2032 was the first Host voted in under the New Norm selection system in 2021.

The 2030 Host will be the second selected under New Norm.

[Sir Rols]

10 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

That’s your opinion to which you are entitled.

But, opinions are not evidence.

That’s all irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if there’s evidence or not. It doesn’t even matter if the process was indeed clean. 

The fact of the matter is that because the process is so secretive and un-transparent, it creates a climate where ANY host choice, no matter how laudable, can be viewed with suspicion. Not to mention if a less popular choice got in. Can you imagine if St Petersburg was chosen in future (“oh, that’s a farce and all down to Bach being Putin’s bitch”) or Madrid/Barcelona-Pyrenees (“that’s just JAS Jr calling in favours”). No matter how laudable Brisbane’s win may have been, or whether its win was clean or not, it’s selection has been tainted.

Serious question - Why exactly are you so defensive of “New Norm”? Why is it so good (beyond delivering a host you are very pleased with)? I’ve yet so see any real arguments anywhere about how good it is.

Edited February 14, 2022 by Sir Rols

[Australian Kiwi]

10 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

 

 

That’s your opinion to which you are entitled.

But, opinions are not evidence.

If opinions are 'entitled' (thanks!) then why do you aggressively shout down and gaslight any challenging point of view? It seems you're incredibly agitated by any discussion on the matter (the whole purpose of a discussion forum). 

[FYI]

The thing is, this thread wasn't put up for the sake of "entitled opinions", but rather just to merely grandstand. When it starts off with "where members can 'learn' & fact check" everything they want to know about "new norm" (101), it basically renders this thread more of a so-called classroom, & much less about a discussion. Where the "teacher" only wants to "teach", & not much else. So it's basically a moot thread.

[stryker]

4 hours ago, Circle said:

I was thinking over the weekend about the current state of the IOC and the new way they will choose host cities. 

The reason being that everyone I've spoken to recently, find it inexcusable that the Olympic Winter Games are currently being held in China, with all the human rights issues associated with the political regime there.  It reminds me of Sochi 2014, when people were raising similar issues, but this time the sentiment seems a lot stronger.

Now of course this is only people that I have spoken too, so it maybe won't be a true representation, but it seems to me that the Olympic brand is now tarnished with its association with political regimes that in no way observe or uphold human rights etc. 

As the IOC (or their Executive body) will now have a greater ability to discreetly turn away candidates and approach their preferred hosts, will this mean that they can steer clear of such regimes as mentioned above?  

Actually the IOC under the so-called New Norm which has failed the WOGs might be even further enticed into going back repeatedly to the likes of China and Russia. The reason? No referendums. Totalitarian governments can spend what they want and go over the top with preparations without regard to a budget.

 

[Australian Kiwi]

1 hour ago, stryker said:

Actually the IOC under the so-called New Norm which has failed the WOGs might be even further enticed into going back repeatedly to the likes of China and Russia. The reason? No referendums. Totalitarian governments can spend what they want and go over the top with preparations without regard to a budget.

 

Precisely this. 

The New Norm doesn't really matter that much (it is the Olympics after all)- however the doing away of transparency wide voting is regressive and is a page out of the China / Russia playbook. Why on earth would a city or government put energy into a process that could have the goal posts changed at any moment? Other potential candidates were genuinely blindsided by the elevation of Brisbane. 

It's like completely abolishing US elections and installing a committee to elect a president (instead of solving the root cause of the problem). 

[AustralianFan]

Like it or not like it.

It’s the way Games are selected now.

You might not like it, or you might not mind it. 

But that’s what we have got.

[Sir Rols]

27 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

Like it or not like it.

It’s the way Games are selected now.

You might not like it, or you might not mind it. 

But that’s what we have got.

That doesn’t mean it can’t be discussed or criticised or its flaws pointed out.

What’s the point of a thread on the “New ab-Norm” otherwise?

[AustralianFan]

No-one is stopping anyone from giving their opinions.

Like it or not like it.

It’s the way Games are selected now.

But that’s what we have got.

 

[AustralianFan]

2 hours ago, stryker said:

Actually the IOC under the so-called New Norm which has failed the WOGs might be even further enticed into going back repeatedly to the likes of China and Russia. The reason? No referendums. Totalitarian governments can spend what they want and go over the top with preparations without regard to a budget.

 

Incorrect.   There has not been a Winter Games yet selected under New Norm.

2030 will be the first Winter Games selected under it.

 

[AustralianFan]

3 hours ago, Australian Kiwi said:

If opinions are 'entitled' (thanks!) then why do you aggressively shout down and gaslight any challenging point of view? It seems you're incredibly agitated by any discussion on the matter (the whole purpose of a discussion forum). 

That’s your opinion.

But, opinions are not evidence.