Quaker2001

Who is Paul Askew and why do we put that much stock into 1 post on IG that we're assuming she committed suicide? Especially if he's going to mention USATF in that post since there seems like there's an accusation there and not provide much additional context. I have a feeling we'll find out more in time, but for now, let's not jump to the conclusion that this was suicide just because 1 random post on IG said so

No cause of death has been mentioned. Suicide has not been brought up, so not sure why you would jump to that conclusion

I have seen it before and I think this would be a great addition to the Olympics. Not like they need a big fancy permanent venue for it, either. They probably don't have the appropriate international organization to make it happen, but I like the idea

The United States government does not have oversight over the USOPC. Nor do they provide funding. The USOPC changed their bylaws after 1980 so they wouldn't be forced into a boycott by the President. It's their stated mission to send athletes to the Olympics. So there is no shot of a boycott, yes in large part because they known the NBC money and the exposure that comes along with it is too big. Besides, Jimmy Carter has said in hindsight it was a making to boycott 1980. I can't imagine anyone would want a repeat of that for 2024.

I said to someone on Twitter.. creative teams for TV networks will have some fun with these. Might not be the most useful to identify what sport they're all for, which will be unfortunate for people on the ground in Paris

Not the whole world, but seems like there's more than a few countries who don't like the IOC's decision on this one. And considering there hasn't been a Russian flag at the last 3 Olympics, it's not like this isn't without cause. Their NOC was banned for a state-sponsored doping scandal, and then after they used the last Olympics to begin an invasion on Ukraine, the IOC is looking for pathways for them to be allowed back in? That's not living in an echo chamber. That's acknowledging the reality of the situation. Yes, I'm aware that not everyone feels the same way and that the population outside the Western world is bigger than the majority of the Americas and Europe that is calling for the ban. That all said.. this is the IOC we're talking about. They claim to advocate for human rights, but then they say they're apolitical when it's not convenient for them. They are trying to be accommodating for Russian athletes (some of whom would undoubtedly return home with a Z displayed on their clothing), and yet they'll shame other countries who push back against that decision and who might threaten to boycott. This is the state of the Olympics these days. The problem remains that the Olympic movement is under the control of an organization of corrupt autocrats who don't realize how much they are disliked throughout much of the world. I'm not rooting for them to go down because that would be a shame for sport and for the athletes. But until they have that realization of the Olympic brand being tarnished, perhaps to the point it can't be repaired, there's no catch all solution for this.

The IOC doesn't want to listen to outside opinions. And Bach doesn't want to get on the bad side of leaders like Putin in case he needs him to host an Olympics. I think the biggest mistake was being so openly public about wanting to include the Russians in Paris, in whatever form that would take. I've see a lot of sentiment on social media that people will tune out the Olympics if Russia is there. I know I'm not taking that tact, but we saw it happen with China. It would be a shame if we had another Olympics clouded by politics, but sadly that's the road we're headed down. And there's really not much of a way around that problem so long as Russia continues their offensive in Ukraine

Don't know if Thomas Bach or anyone at the IOC will take note of this, but it's an interest change of position for Anne Hidalgo.. Paris Mayor Against Russian Athletes Competing In 2024 Olympics 'While War Goes On'

And also, the Mets have a lot of players participating, so it wouldn't surprise me if someone got in his ear and told him it would be smarter if he was in camp with them. Not that he's playing for a job or anything like that now that he has his contract

My thoughts exactly. A lot of nations - again, this one in particular - will express their dissatisfaction with the IOC, but I don't believe for a second they'll withhold athletes from competing.

We'll see how serious these threats of a boycott are. There's a lot of time before things start to get serious in the ramp up to Paris 2024. I can promise you that for any notions about the United States boycotting, the USOPC will stand pretty firm that they plan on sending athletes to Paris. However they have to message that to avoid making it seem like they're supportive of the IOC's decision

For all the times that the IOC has claimed to advocate for human rights (and then not advocate for human rights when they claim they can't actually change the world), the course of the war probably will not be affected by whether or not there are Russian athletes competing in Paris. That said, there is definitely an argument that their presence there will be used as a propaganda tool to support the war. So I can fully understand why there's no good solution here

It doesn't matter how many nations boycott. What matters is the money. If the United States were to boycott (which they won't.. the USOPC changed their bylaws after 1980 to largely detach themselves from government involvement so the president wouldn't have the authority that Carter did to force their hand), then the IOC doesn't get their TV money from NBC. That's what would cripple them. But that's not going to happen. The USOPC exists to send athletes to the Olympics and NBC will want the show to go on.

NBC messed up big time with Tokyo because they were touting Peacock as their big new streaming service, but didn't really advertise the fact they'd only have coverage of certain events. And some of the live events they did have were on the free version rather than the subscription service. Plus, I interacted with some people that weren't aware that every event could be live streamed through their app if you have a cable subscription. They fixed that for Beijing. All of the streaming was there, so you get everything with the basic subscription tier. I remember back in the day the thinking was "wouldn't it be great if NBC had a pay-per-view where you could get all the Olympics." Well, that's exactly what we have now. For $5, sign up for Peacock for the month and cancel right after. Sure, technically that's a paywall, but that's an unbelievably good deal for the country that once put a $125 price point on the Olympics Triplecast. Looking forward to clapping back at the "it's the Olympics, they should be free" crowd next summer when they're complaining that $5 is too expensive. For.. the.. entire.. Olympics!

I've heard a lot about this arrangement for the past few Olympics and sorry to hear for European fans of the Olympics that it's continuing. Apologies on behalf of an American company that is doing this all to you. I guess for some it's a good thing, but definitely not in certain countries where there used to be much better coverage. And I'll say this on behalf of 1 of the few Americans who doesn't detest NBC's coverage of the Olympics.. we don't have it as bad as many people would have you believe. Yes, NBC's coverage is full of commercials and sticks with certain athletes sometimes ignoring the rest of the world. But we have everything streamed and it's all under 1 umbrella. So if you know what you're looking for and are willing to deal with a poorly designed interface to access those streams, it can be a very pleasant experience

Kinda feels like they may have done that to stagger the women's 400m and the 400 hurdles. But yea, that's definitely going to cause issues for countries who have athletes in the finals that would normally run in the prelims for the relay

Wow, would not have guessed that either. Looks like the top ranked teams are #21 and #43. Although that's with a limited number of tournaments played, so they'll be able to jump up the rankings as they start playing more

Similar to Tokyo, there was all sorts of fear-mongering that the Olympics were going to become a mass super-spreader event and it was irresponsible to hold it in the first place. With both Olympics, there was news of positive cases (and especially in the case of Beijing, about all the prevention and containment measures), but the competition was largely unaffected and every event was held to completion. That was no small feat especially with Tokyo before vaccinations were as readily available. No question the Beijing games were almost completely devoid of any real joy. Who knows what it would have looked like if not for COVID and China did get to put their best foot forward

Again, it's the same story with the Olympics. Speaking of Brazil, remember in 2016 when everyone was scared that Zika was going to be a major problem or that the water quality in Rio was going to make everyone sick? Actually, most people probably don't because no one talked about it after the Olympics, especially since it was a non-issue. In the lead-up to the 2022 Olympics, a lot of people were talking about human rights issues in China. Since February, I can probably count on 1 hand the number of times I've seen any mention of the Uighurs. I guess that stopped being a think after China was out of the spotlight. So yes, it'll be the same deal here. About 5 minutes after the World Cup ends, no one is going to care about Qatar anymore. Migrant worker deaths will be yesterday's news. People who are in an uproar over these things will move onto some other political issue. And the cycle will start over again until the next host country starts getting talked about.

It's a lot like the Olympics that way. All we ever hear about in the lead up to the games is negative media stories. For Beijing 2022, those all got amplified. But once the Olympics started, the focus was rightfully on the athletes and the competition. I'm sure that will happen to a large extent here. There's a lot of down time between matches though, so I'm sure we'll still hear a lot from fans who are on the ground in Qatar, especially if they're unhappy with their experiences there

Well, still a lot closer than Tahiti is to Paris

A lot of these "interested parties" will move further into the process and some will undoubtedly drop out once they realize what is required to host an Olympics. No, Seoul is not a no brainer by any stretch of the imagination. We'll see how much support the Germany bid has (and remember it's Rhine-Ruhr, not specifically Berlin). Yes, it's possible we're headed towards a future where only a handful of countries can host the Olympics. Given the IOC's requirements, a lot of that is on them, but at least hopefully this "new norm" version of thinking will make it easier

What a crying shame that Canada, a country with some of the most deep-rooting winter sports traditions, has now put 2 cities forwarded in consecutive cycles and had to abandon both.

Good draw for . Most of the tougher teams are on the Australia side of the bracket and they get the New Zealand half.

It's a fair point. I know volleyball is a lot like tennis that way where a match can be relatively short or run really long. I'm old enough that I remember volleyball in the Olympics before rally scoring, so I can only imagine how long some matches took then. And I do remember the start of some matches from Tokyo delayed because the previous match ran long. So if that's no longer an issue, then perhaps this has some value, even if it means fewer games being played