# The general Olympic thread



## Ioannes_ (Jun 12, 2016)

*25 Years Barcelona 92*

*Today we commemorate in Spain, the 25th anniversary of the Opening Ceremony of the Olympic Games of Barcelona 92*, without a doubt, one of the best in history.








*When the Olympic spirit served to regenerate a city and a country:*









*The best Olympic games in history:*


----------



## Nacre (May 9, 2016)

It is worth mentioning that Barcelona's Olympic games were also very expensive. But the city spent the money on infrastructure and tourism improvements rather than spending billions of Euros on security costs.


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

Nacre said:


> It is worth mentioning that Barcelona's Olympic games were also very expensive. .


And WHAT Olympic Games have *not been expensive*?? :nuts:


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

Ioannes_ said:


> *The best Olympic games in history:*



The outdoor diving platform for Barcelona 1992 with the city view was great and unique. That venue also probably cost less than the large enclosed swim buildings that have been created for most other games. 

Another example that money ain't everything.

However, 1992 was when cirque-du-soleilized foo-foo-faw-faw first made an appearance at a summer Olympic ceremonies. Not to mention a WTF?!---HUH?! fashion runway show inserted into part of the event. 

It has been downhill ever since then. 

Oh, well.

Anime, flying cars and cutesy-cutesy in 2020!!


----------



## Paolo98.To (Feb 9, 2014)




----------



## Ioannes_ (Jun 12, 2016)

Nacre said:


> It is worth mentioning that Barcelona's Olympic games were also very expensive. But the city spent the money on infrastructure and tourism improvements rather than spending billions of Euros on security costs.


Do not confuse expense with iversión: today Barcelona is one of the main cities of Europe and the most visited. Faces and insignificant for the city, because they did not contribute anything to the pockets of the CIO: Beijing, Athens, Rio and London.

There will be no more cities that take advantage of an Olympics than Barcelona. Now it is an exclusive right of rich cities: London, Paris, Los Angeles: Melbourne, Berlin 2036 ..... and nothing new anymore.



By the way,* the CIO videos are not seen*: this is the "Olympic spirit" of the International Olympic Committee: rights, rights, money, money, rights and trade ... as in ancient Greece ...

London
Rio
Beijing
Paris 2024
Los Angeles 2028
Melbourne 2032
Berlin 2036
Beijing 2040 ...


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

Other firsts in 1992: First time an Olympic opening ceremony ended in total darkness. Also the first time the field of the stadium, instead of being kept as a simple lawn, was covered with a carpet or vinyl tarp. Not eco-friendly! But an unnecessary time to install and a waste of money. A waste that doesn't even end up looking all that good. 

But the people in charge of one games apparently like to follow the people in charge of another games. Even when an idea is very "what the hell?!": 

1992:






2012:


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Five Years Ago today began the most fantastic month of sport this country has ever seen. Can't believe how quickly the times goes!











And as a bonus, a rare appearance of a photo of RobH on SSC:


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

great seat, only on the wrong side of the pitch :colgate:


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

...


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

Right now, there are almost 30 sports in the Summer Olympics, and some of those events will require specially-built facilities that a host city will have no use for after the Games, like baseball, canoe-slalom, and swimming. I have been thinking about reducing the number of sports in the Summer Games to 16 to 20 in an attempt to reduce long-term costs for future host cities. Some sports federations aren't going to be happy about being dropped from the Olympics, though. This would reduce the need for such specially-built facilities, even though those future host cities will always be stuck with the cost of upgrading their existing facilities to meet Olympic standards.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Jim856796 said:


> Right now, there are almost 30 sports in the Summer Olympics, and some of those events will require specially-built facilities that a host city will have no use for after the Games, like baseball, canoe-slalom, and swimming. I have been thinking about reducing the number of sports in the Summer Games to 16 to 20 in an attempt to reduce long-term costs for future host cities. Some sports federations aren't going to be happy about being dropped from the Olympics, though. This would reduce the need for such specially-built facilities, even though those future host cities will always be stuck with the cost of upgrading their existing facilities to meet Olympic standards.


The trend does seem to be toward larger cities and perhaps to private funding as well unless a strong showing of low expenditures can be shown.

Bach has proposed a sort of counseling approach where the IOC will contact and give guidance on whether a city has a reasonable chance or needs to think more about the longer term. Those with reasonable chances will be given specific guidance on what is needed and help developing the skill set.

The point here is to cut-off bids with no current chance; and then make sure that there are a few cities with high potential of being selected. I suspect that multiple selections will be made at one time when it is clear that cities are ready or nearly so.

As a practical matter, some large cities may always be ready. It's a matter of whether they are interested in doing it again.

You already hear rumblings from Brisbane, Toronto, Barcelona, Milan, India, Germany for 2032. Some of these look like candidates for thinking about further out, changes in approach, developing some serious numbers, etc.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

pesto said:


> The trend does seem to be toward larger cities and perhaps to private funding as well unless a strong showing of low expenditures can be shown.
> 
> Bach has proposed a sort of counseling approach where the IOC will contact and give guidance on whether a city has a reasonable chance or needs to think more about the longer term. Those with reasonable chances will be given specific guidance on what is needed and help developing the skill set.
> 
> ...


And Malaysia is now in as well. Can Madrid and one or more Arab states be far behind? That would be 8 cities vying for maybe 2 Games (2032 and 2036). With selection at least 8 years away, it's time to start counseling.


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

If the North Rhine-Westphalia bid gains any traction in the next 6-8 months, and it has more than a 65% popular support, I think that will be the one to beat for 2032.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Knitemplar said:


> If the North Rhine-Westphalia bid gains any traction in the next 6-8 months, and it has more than a 65% popular support, I think that will be the one to beat for 2032.


Could be. But isn't it scattered all over the map? What happened to compact, readily accessible Games?


----------



## CxIxMaN (Jun 12, 2009)

pesto said:


> And Malaysia is now in as well. Can Madrid and one or more Arab states be far behind? That would be 8 cities vying for maybe 2 Games (2032 and 2036). With selection at least 8 years away, it's time to start counseling.


Malaysia is keen but we do not want to jump in hosting prematurely. We do have some facilities existing already esp from commonwealth

Our sports minister said we need to focus on the athletes winning hold first


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

CxIxMaN said:


> Malaysia is keen but we do not want to jump in hosting prematurely. We do have some facilities existing already esp from commonwealth
> 
> Our sports minister said we need to focus on the athletes winning hold first


Seems to make sense. First develop popular support through strong performances. Then, with IOC advice, develop quality facilities as they are needed (no white elephants) and develop the skill to operate them to international standards. 

Meanwhile develop the media and PR skills to market the Games and put together a financial revenue and expense model that can pass careful auditing and scrutiny for being realistic.

Then you start working seriously with the IOC about what needs to be shaped up and how you compare with the competition.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Which makes me wonder why the Malaysian government seems so reluctant to support a Commonwealth Games bid within the newly refurbished sports park region. It would seem the perfect stepping-stone and test of their capabilities (I know they hosted 1998, but that's quite a long time ago now).


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

I have a feeling that after the disaster that was Rio de Janeiro 2016 (in addition to the cost overruns that have affected the past few Olympicses), Tokyo (2020), Paris (2024), and Los Angeles (2028) will be the saviors of the Olympic Movement.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Jim856796 said:


> I have a feeling that after the disaster that was Rio de Janeiro 2016 (in addition to the cost overruns that have affected the past few Olympicses), Tokyo (2020), Paris (2024), and Los Angeles (2028) will be the saviors of the Olympic Movement.


Well, Tokyo promises to be the biggest financial disaster since Sochi and the story surrounding its major stadiums, distance to some venues and nuclear waste have been less than was hoped for. So it's up to Paris and LA. 

Admittedly, it's easy to find problems with the LA Olympics already (traffic, homeless, violent crime, etc.) and I'm sure it will hit the papers over and over. So it will take some serious PR to keep the image polished.

I won't talk about Paris because they are kind of thin-skinned. :lol:


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

/\/\ That's what happens when sports originated in another (western) culture are imposed upon a totally alien culture. 

But I am most curious to see how the deep 3-level understage of the Bird's Nest Stadium pitch now looks. Oh, I guess it will see some use come February 2022.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

I don't think it's western vs. non-western at all. The same problems occurred in Athens, Brazil and even major European cities.

The root cause is the desire of authoritarian leaders to show-off their power, and the power of construction and hospitality companies to manipulate democratic governments. A hint comes from the fact that opposition is generally grass-roots and focuses on wasteful spending of public money (SF, Boston, Hamburg, Rome, Budapest, etc.).


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

I think it is.

OK, Anglo-Saxon preferences over more global tastes.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Knitemplar said:


> I think it is.
> 
> OK, Anglo-Saxon preferences over more global tastes.


London has had the problem of what to do with a major unnecessary Olympic stadium and other substantial expenses. I don't see the Anglo-Saxon issue there.

The real winners are those who already have economically viable stadiums, housing and other facilities in place and therefore treat the WC or Olympics as being in the normal course of renting out their facilities on a short-term basis. Minimal capital risk.


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

pesto said:


> London has had the problem of what to do with a major unnecessary Olympic stadium and other substantial expenses. I don't see the Anglo-Saxon issue there.
> 
> The real winners are those who already have economically viable stadiums, housing and other facilities in place and therefore treat the WC or Olympics as being in the normal course of renting out their facilities on a short-term basis. Minimal capital risk.


You don't get what I mean. 85% of the sports on the Olympic slate were developed and codified by peoples of northern Europe and North America (hence, most are of Anglo-Saxon origins) which benefit athletes of Anglo-Saxon (or Causasian) builds. Rowing, swimming, volleyball, most of Track & Field, etc., etc., were codified and put in the Olympic slate by people of northern European heritage -- hence, you have venues like the white-water rafting one in Beijing, beach volleyball venues in Athens, Beijing, etc., etc. -- venues which the sports where the Caucasians dominate but are NOT relevant to the local populaces to use. 

Hopefully, the IOC's Agenda 2020 will address that disconnect and try to resolve it. That's what I meant by "Anglo-Saxon preferences." -- NOT where they were or ARE staged.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Knitemplar said:


> You don't get what I mean. 85% of the sports on the Olympic slate were developed and codified by peoples of northern Europe and North America (hence, most are of Anglo-Saxon origins) which benefit athletes of Anglo-Saxon (or Causasian) builds. Rowing, volleyball, most of Track & Field, etc., etc., were codified and put in the Olympic slate by people of northern European heritage -- hence, you have venues like the white-water rafting one in Beijing, beach volleyball venues in Athens, Beijing, etc., etc. -- venues which the sports where the Caucasians dominate but are NOT relevant to the local populaces to use.
> 
> Hopefully, the IOC's Agenda 2020 will address that disconnect and try to resolve it. That's what I meant by "Anglo-Saxon preferences." -- NOT where they were or ARE staged.


Not sure about Anglo-Saxon builds but for sure the IOC should try to avoid the building of stadiums with no continuing use. The most obvious way is to go to cities that already have the facilities.

Track events, soccer, basketball, the marathon and other big draws have more than their share of Germans, Southern Europeans, Africans and Asians.


----------



## Nacre (May 9, 2016)

Knitemplar said:


> You don't get what I mean. 85% of the sports on the Olympic slate were developed and codified by peoples of northern Europe and North America (hence, most are of Anglo-Saxon origins) which benefit athletes of Anglo-Saxon (or Causasian) builds.


There is no evidence that northern Europeans have an advantage in a sport just because they invented it. Take a quick look at the ethnic makeup of the NBA or the top athletes in badminton, for example.

Indoor sports are more popular in China than outdoor sports due to culture and climate. It has nothing to do with some kind of genetic unsuitability.


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

Nacre said:


> There is no evidence that northern Europeans have an advantage in a sport just because they invented it. Take a quick look at the ethnic makeup of the NBA or the top athletes in badminton, for example.
> 
> Indoor sports are more popular in China than outdoor sports due to culture and climate. It has nothing to do with some kind of genetic unsuitability.


Yeah, yeah. NBA - African-AMericans are the exemption. #1 - To begin with, they were big and burly when they were unwillingly taken from Africa. ANd then of course, with the abundant American diet -- LIKE nearly all American born-children of hyphenated-Americans, they have gotten even bigger. Duh.

Badminton is one of those added sopwith sports, along with judo, taekwondo, etc., etc., which were added so that the Asian countries could take home some medals.

But I am talking about the CORE Olympic sports from 1896 to probably the mid-50s -- sports which favored the bigger Euro builds. 

Well, anyway, I see it differently. We will probably never agree. SO I stand by my assertion; and you're free to agree or not. I really don't care.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Knitemplar said:


> Yeah, yeah. NBA - African-AMericans are the exemption. #1 - To begin with, they were big and burly when they were unwillingly taken from Africa. ANd then of course, with the abundant American diet -- LIKE nearly all American born-children of hyphenated-Americans, they have gotten even bigger. Duh.
> 
> Badminton is one of those added sopwith sports, along with judo, taekwondo, etc., etc., which were added so that the Asian countries could take home some medals.
> 
> ...


Hopefully this discussion is over for good. :lol:


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

It's simple. Building sports venues that wont have local use is obviously the problem, all concentrated in one place.

The genius about Los Angeles was (and will be) that they used existing USED facilities. 
The velodrome at UC Dominguez Hills
The pools at Long Beach
Etc.
Etc.

Now, for some sports like white water rafting....one has no choice....unless there's a river near by.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Kenni said:


> It's simple. Building sports venues that wont have local use is obviously the problem, all concentrated in one place.
> 
> The genius about Los Angeles was (and will be) that they used existing USED facilities.
> The velodrome at UC Dominguez Hills
> ...


Yes. It's kind of amazing when you see even places like Paris, London and Tokyo having to spend 10B or more to build white elephants that would never have been built otherwise just to host the Olympics, while LA is spending peanuts. And what they do spend is private, so you KNOW that it isn't being taken straight from the taxpayer and into the hands of the construction companies.


----------



## Nacre (May 9, 2016)

It's not really genius so much as it the wisdom of making lots of lowball offers and refusing to compromise on your city's interests.

Rio already had an existing velodrome, aquatics center, a tennis complex that hosts a high level tournament, etc and wanted to use those facilities instead of building new venues for 2016. But the sporting federations demanded new venues and Brazil gave in to their demands for the sake of hosting the Olympics.

LA has bid for the Olympics many more times than any other city (11 for LA vs 8 for Rome), and the IOC has chosen them when it is desperate. It's worth noting that _Los Angeles has never actually won a bidding competition_. They have earned the right to host by default three times.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Nacre said:


> It's not really genius so much as it the wisdom of making lots of lowball offers and refusing to compromise on your city's interests.
> 
> Rio already had an existing velodrome, aquatics center, a tennis complex that hosts a high level tournament, etc and wanted to use those facilities instead of building new venues for 2016. But the sporting federations demanded new venues and Brazil gave in to their demands for the sake of hosting the Olympics.
> 
> LA has bid for the Olympics many more times than any other city (11 for LA vs 8 for Rome), and the IOC has chosen them when it is desperate. It's worth noting that _Los Angeles has never actually won a bidding competition_. They have earned the right to host by default three times.


"The best bid we have ever seen." (2024 IOC Technical Comm. re LA bid)

You will recall the situation: FIFA was politically forced to choose Paris in spite of it serious problems (the IOC review of the Paris bid highlighted security issues, 10B plus losses and exaggerated public support).

They looked at the likely 2028 bidders (Milan, Madrid, Brisbane, Toronto) and saw guaranteed losses, and public outrage in some cities. So they said “Change the rule and choose LA now.”

You’re right, not so much genius as common sense. Cleaning up after the parade.


----------



## Nacre (May 9, 2016)

pesto said:


> "The best bid we have ever seen." (2024 IOC Technical Comm. re LA bid)


Again, though, that's not due to the superlative intelligence of the organizers but rather the fact that UCLA and USC have huge dormitories and athletic complexes. Every other city in the world has tried to use existing facilities. Moreover LA is absolutely not the best bid they've ever had: LA won't build a new aquatics center, the velodrome is pretty mediocre compared to Olympic standards, the new renovations of the coliseum will result in lots of restricted view seats, etc.

It's the sporting federations that have pushed cities to build palatial new venues rather than the stupidity of host cities. If it came down to an actual vote FINA's IOC members would refuse to vote for LA unless they built a new aquatics center, for example. Where LA deserves credit is in both refusing to give in to the demands of the sporting federations and refusing to give up on trying for the Olympics.


----------



## scolls (Mar 26, 2009)

The best bid we have ever seen is also the only bid they saw. Los Angeles has a knack for winning the games when nobody else wants them.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Nacre said:


> Again, though, that's not due to the superlative intelligence of the organizers but rather the fact that UCLA and USC have huge dormitories and athletic complexes. Every other city in the world has tried to use existing facilities. Moreover LA is absolutely not the best bid they've ever had: LA won't build a new aquatics center, the velodrome is pretty mediocre compared to Olympic standards, the new renovations of the coliseum will result in lots of restricted view seats, etc.
> 
> It's the sporting federations that have pushed cities to build palatial new venues rather than the stupidity of host cities. If it came down to an actual vote FINA's IOC members would refuse to vote for LA unless they built a new aquatics center, for example. Where LA deserves credit is in both refusing to give in to the demands of the sporting federations and refusing to give up on trying for the Olympics.


First of all, the city is only tangentially involved. This is a private bid and major portions will be in Long Beach, Santa Monica, Inglewood, Pasadena and several other cities. 

More importantly, you don't really grasp what a "bid" is. It's not just facilities (although LA has the best ever, see the quotes below). It's experience in putting on world events, proper security, public support, city support, PR and marketing skills (recent Olympics have been disasters in marketing to a young demographic), a reviewed and audited financial plan that is likely to result in a substantial profit, buildings that will last and be used (this is the 3rd Olympics for the Coliseum).

From ESPN, The Guardian, USA Today:

“The commission members were almost ecstatic about the level of the venues that they’ve found and that they’ve seen and that they’ve been able to meet those people that manage those venues,” said Patrick Baumann, chair of the IOC’s evaluation commission. “It goes from spectacular venues to impressive venues to mind-flowing venues to incredible venues. That certainly is an incredidbly positive thing. And it’s positive because we’ve been able to really see them.”
---------
“This visit has certainly confirmed our opinion that Los Angeles has developed an excellent proposal and probably, given the facilities that are available here and what is already ready, seven years of lead time is a luxury here in this city,” said Baumann. “We’ve seen excellent venues, including legacy venues from the 1932 and 1984 Games. And those venues remind us that smart planning leads to great Olympic legacies.’’
---------
“Los Angeles is already a great Olympic city, but after these three days, we now realize that was an understatement.”

I could add a dozen more from Baumann and others.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

scolls said:


> The best bid we have ever seen is also the only bid they saw. Los Angeles has a knack for winning the games when nobody else wants them.


Better to say LA wins when the other bidders bomb out and the Olympics needs someone solid to take over.

Many wanted the 2028 Olympics. The outlook was (likely) Milan, Madrid, Toronto, Brisbane and maybe some others. After looking at these cities (10's of billions of costs, non-existent facilities, vocal opposition, facilities spread over hundreds of miles, etc.) the rules were changed and LA chosen (with huge payments given to them for the inconvenience).


----------



## scolls (Mar 26, 2009)

pesto said:


> Better to say LA wins when the other bidders bomb out and the Olympics needs someone solid to take over.
> 
> Many wanted the 2028 Olympics. The outlook was (likely) Milan, Madrid, Toronto, Brisbane and maybe some others. After looking at these cities (10's of billions of costs, non-existent facilities, vocal opposition, facilities spread over hundreds of miles, etc.) the rules were changed and LA chosen (with huge payments given to them for the inconvenience).


All the cities for 2024 withdrew their bid except for Paris and Los Angeles. They didn't bomb out. Literally no one bid in 1984 except for Tehran. No one wants the games anymore. With Paris hosting 2024, it looked like no one want the 2028 other than Los Angeles. Los Angeles wasn't even the first choice for the United States. Los Angeles got the US nomination after Boston withdrew their bid.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

scolls said:


> All the cities for 2024 withdrew their bid except for Paris and Los Angeles. They didn't bomb out. Literally no one bid in 1984 except for Tehran. No one wants the games anymore. With Paris hosting 2024, it looked like no one want the 2028 other than Los Angeles. Los Angeles wasn't even the first choice for the United States. Los Angeles got the US nomination after Boston withdrew their bid.


Hamburg, Budapest, Rome and Boston bombed out. They each failed to get public support from their own citizens. This is as "bombed out" as you can get.

2028 looked to have a surfeit of Olympics bids. There was active talk from Milan, Madrid, Brisbane and Toronto and I would guess that a couple more would have emerged. But, as the IOC effectively indicated there was little chance that they were going to get a bid competitive with LA.


----------



## scolls (Mar 26, 2009)

pesto said:


> Hamburg, Budapest, Rome and Boston bombed out. They each failed to get public support from their own citizens. This is as "bombed out" as you can get.
> 
> 2028 looked to have a surfeit of Olympics bids. There was active talk from Milan, Madrid, Brisbane and Toronto and I would guess that a couple more would have emerged. But, as the IOC effectively indicated there was little chance that they were going to get a bid competitive with LA.


Again, they withdrew their bid because they didn't want the Olympics. I guess I don't know what you mean by bombed out, but the cities withdrew because their citizens didn't want the Olympics. There was little chance any city other than Los Angeles would want them in 2028.


----------

