Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does Rio have the infrastructure to host the OGs?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Does Rio have the infrastructure to host the OGs?

    We already know from Atlanta what some politicking can do to land the OGs. But nothing Atlanta had can compare to having Pele backing you. I have to wonder if the IOC members haven't been overwhelmed by having the honor of meeting Pele. Atlanta was worried about some housing projects around Georgia Tech making the city look bad. But these were nothing compared to the slums of Rio. I think Buenos Aires and Santiago would be better choices in SA to host the OGs than Rio. Does Rio have the infrastructure to host the Games? It wasn't too long ago that a chunk of cement at Maracana Stadium broke loose during a soccer match. This is also the same stadium where patrons urinate in the concourses during soccer matches. I cannot believe the IOC would even consider this city for the OGs.

  • #2
    Rio will have the same checks and balances as any other city which wins the bid. I'd like to see them hosted in South America and Africa before too long.

    I don't think there's any need for an American or Spanish host city in the near future.

    Comment


    • #3
      Agree with second post. No need for yet another USA city to host the OG (and I am sure Chicago could provide the best of accomodations and venues). The OG is not (or should not be) about best venues and athletes' villages and whatever but about bringing us all together, about hospitality, honest competition and universal fellowship. Hosting the games in SA or Africa may accomplish one of the above a little bit better because it will prove that the OG are and should be for everyone to have the honor to host. The athletes are only going to be there for few days so I am sure they can put up with some inconveniences.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Does Rio have the infrastructure to host the OGs?

        Originally posted by BillVol
        Atlanta was worried about some housing projects around Georgia Tech making the city look bad. But these were nothing compared to the slums of Rio.
        ...
        Does Rio have the infrastructure to host the Games? It wasn't too long ago that a chunk of cement at Maracana Stadium broke loose during a soccer match. This is also the same stadium where patrons urinate in the concourses during soccer matches.
        Urination in soccer grounds is not pleasant but common enough behaviour. The concrete falling is far more worrying as are the shanty towns of Rio.

        I think there's a lot of goodwill for Rio. Like the previous posters said, after 107 years since the first OGs, it's about time they were hosted in SA or Africa. I'm sure Chicago would put on a fantastic games, but it's time to move things around a little and it's time for the Southern Hemisphere to host the Games again.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Does Rio have the infrastructure to host the OGs?

          Originally posted by BillVol
          We already know from Atlanta what some politicking can do to land the OGs. But nothing Atlanta had can compare to having Pele backing you.
          And having Michael Jordan, Oprah, and the man of the moment, President Obama, splash their faces over the Chicago bid isn't 'politicking'? I believe Rio has just employed tactics that their competitors have been using all along. Plus, I think you underestimate the ability of the 13-person IOC panel to be objective and not to be fazed by whatever has-been/celebrity is being pushed in front of them. Meeting Pele would be an unforgettable experience, I'm sure, but with the controversies Beijing was enveloped in, I'm sure they'll be looking more closely at other criteria.

          Does Rio have the infrastructure to host the Games? It wasn't too long ago that a chunk of cement at Maracana Stadium broke loose during a soccer match.
          Did Beijing have the infrastructure to host last year's games 6/7 years prior? No, but they built it. Plus, Brazil is hosting the 2014 World Cup, so part of the infrastructure (Hotels, Transport, etc) will be in place.

          And, come on, that Maracana Stadium example is lame. Unless there's a widespread cement crumbling problem across Rio, I think you've isolated one incident and tarred the entire city's infrastructure with the same brush.

          This is also the same stadium where patrons urinate in the concourses during soccer matches. I cannot believe the IOC would even consider this city for the OGs.
          Your claims regarding slums et al. are legitimate (not that inner city Chicago is a haven), but you want to punish the entire bid because individuals are urinating in the concourse? And you're serious? [/quote]

          Comment


          • #6
            The Olympic Spirit is about bringing the Games to the people, not the people to the Games; there's this whole (important) bit about improving human race, strengthening human understanding and friendship among people which is now being touched on, but which was ommitted in the original post.

            Here's a rhetorical question: Does an athlete gain a better appreciation of the Games (and, ultimately of themself) from the observation tower in the Sears Tower or from the drive past shantytown to/from the Olympic Village?

            Comment


            • #7
              Exactly what have shanty towns got to do with hosting the OG ??

              they have time to build amazing venues, great transport and an Olympic village that could then perhaps be used to house those that live in shanty towns.

              as far as i'm concerned it can only be Rio and i will lose a lot of respect for the OG movement if it goes anywhere else
              i deserve extra credit

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by mump boy
                Exactly what have shanty towns got to do with hosting the OG ??
                Nothing, in-and-of-themselves. That's part of the point. As part of the Olympic experience, however, they can have a greater meaning.

                Comment


                • #9
                  They already have a first rate track stadium in place. It was used for the Pan-American Games two years ago. And unlike Chicago's proposed stadium, there are no plans to tear this one down after the Games.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Right now on GamesBids the bidindex has Tokyo #1, Rio #2, Madrid #3, and Chicago last at 4th

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Chicago is going to get it.

                      Rio is hosting WC 2014, and the egos of the IOC is not going to let a third world country have both in 2 years. China just had it so forget Tokyo. And Madrid after London? A Spanish dream. Especially with an economy so far in the dumps that it makes the US's look like it was at the peak of the 1990's

                      If McCain had won Chicago would be a long shot. But with Obama, who is Mr. Popularity in the World now, Chicago is it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Conor Dary
                        Rio is hosting WC 2014, and the egos of the IOC is not going to let a third world country have both in 2 years.
                        US got both within a two year period.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          So did Mexico, although in that case, the Olympics came first.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Daisy
                            Originally posted by Conor Dary
                            Rio is hosting WC 2014, and the egos of the IOC is not going to let a third world country have both in 2 years.
                            US got both within a two year period.
                            As I said, a Third World Country. West Germany also hosted both in 72 and 74. But FIFA wanted the US to host it in 94 to increase their marketing base. Pure economics. Same with Atlanta.

                            Besides WC94 was in the entire US, while the Olympics were only in Atlanta. The equivalent would be if all of South America were to host the WC, while Rio did the Olympics.

                            The argument I hear about Rio getting it, is they deserve it, or it would be nice if they got it.
                            Nice thoughts, but not what drives the IOC.

                            Besides we have a new observation deck.

                            http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009 ... tower.html

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by tandfman
                              So did Mexico, although in that case, the Olympics came first.
                              True, but the economics of sport in the 1960's is almost nil compared to the big bucks nowadays.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X