International Olympic Committee News

[rybak 3,217]

50 minutes ago, phelps said:

what a disaster! 

 

the Olympics are dead and gone 

 

no one of these people are a good choice...they will all destroy the Olympics

 

the minimum damage might be Samaranch Jr., but the others...OMG!!!     

I cant see how Coventry or Coe can destroy Olympics more than Bach did it...

[heywoodu 15,135]

53 minutes ago, rybak said:

I cant see how Coventry or Coe can destroy Olympics more than Bach did it...

No single person can destroy the Olympics. The only thing that might happen is a certain category of changes which some people agree with and others don't. People are often a bit prone to overreacting, I think (me very much included, I know ).

[JoshMartini007 2,536]

Honestly, as long as the best continue to compete and humans remain interested in sport, the Olympics will continue to be one of the top events in the world.

 

So unless the IOC president decides to piss off the athletics, swimming, and gymnastics federations to the point they want to create a rival Olympics or they force only amateur athletes to compete life will go on.

[Federer91 2,793]

A list of proposals, that each candidate has suggested would be appreciated (if there are any so far) 

[NearPup 3,045]

25 minutes ago, Federer91 said:

A list of proposals, that each candidate has suggested would be appreciated (if there are any so far) 

Given the announcement says they are all going to present their program in camera (behind close doors) to the IOC... I'm not expecting a lot of transparancey.

[NearPup 3,045]

I think there is a lot of doomerism in this forum, there are a lot of deep, big issues with the Bach era IOC, but there have been big, deep issues with every era of the IOC.

 

Bach did lead some changes that were hard and necessary. His authoritarian and secretive style is the most concerning thing about his tenure.

[phelps 7,674]

2 hours ago, NearPup said:

I think there is a lot of doomerism in this forum, there are a lot of deep, big issues with the Bach era IOC, but there have been big, deep issues with every era of the IOC.

 

Bach did lead some changes that were hard and necessary. His authoritarian and secretive style is the most concerning thing about his tenure.

no, it's that fuckin' agenda 2020 (and following), that fuckin' gender equality, the fact that they got rid of iconic events (and made some more of them just ridiculous), the senseless mixed events (most of them, at least) and the fact that they filled the schedule with an unacceptable amount of non-sports  

[NearPup 3,045]

Just now, phelps said:

no, it's that fuckin' agenda 2020 (and following), that fuckin' gender equality, the fact that they got rid of iconic events (and made some more of them just ridiculous), the senseless mixed events (most of them, at least) and the fact that they filled the schedule with an unacceptable amount of non-sports  

God forbid the Olympics get dragged into the 21st century.

 

There are a lot of bad changes that the Olympic champion in Fencing has made. But cutting the hosting costs (the IOC just cannot afford another disastrous series of white elephants like Athens 2004 and Sochi 2014 left behind), modernizing the Olympic program and, yes, focussing on gender equality are all reforms that were needed.

 

How those reforms were made I have a lot of issues with, but I really think you need to have your head in the sand to believe those reforms were optional. If anything it took the IOC too long to prioritize those things.

[phelps 7,674]

1 minute ago, NearPup said:

God forbid the Olympics get dragged into the 21st century.

 

There are a lot of bad changes that the Olympic champion in Fencing has made. But cutting the hosting costs (the IOC just cannot afford another disastrous series of white elephants like Athens 2004 and Sochi 2014 left behind), modernizing the Olympic program and, yes, focussing on gender equality are all reforms that were needed.

 

How those reforms were made I have a lot of issues with, but I really think you need to have your head in the sand to believe those reforms were optional. If anything it took the IOC too long to prioritize those things.

some things need to be done, but this IOC found the way to do them in a wrong way (not starting a long list of mistakes here)

 

p.s. I will always repeat that: gender equality does mean that men and women must have the same range of opportunity and the same treatment/respect, not that they must have the exact same number of athletes in all the disciplines (and have exactly the same disciplines) in the Olympic schedule

[Monzanator 4,502]

3 hours ago, NearPup said:

I think there is a lot of doomerism in this forum, there are a lot of deep, big issues with the Bach era IOC, but there have been big, deep issues with every era of the IOC.

 

Bach did lead some changes that were hard and necessary. His authoritarian and secretive style is the most concerning thing about his tenure.

 

Hosting Olympic Games isn't an honor anymore. The old fashioned bidding contests are dead. Democracies are no longer willing to spend money on the "show" unlike the Middle East gulf moguls plus China. It is what it is. Professional sports is business now and it has to invest money from somewhere to make a profit later. We can mock how NBC dictates the swimming programme with finals in the morning local time but that also falls into "authoritarian" style of organzing these Games. And it will only get worse as the big pockets will only have more influence going forward. There will come a time when Bach won't be viewed as the worst anymore because just when you think it can't get any worse, it can and probably will