Up your's from the International Olympic Committee
Momets ago the International Olympic Committee, after hearing a US pitch for the 2016 Summer Games which included a speech by President Barak Obama, rejected Chicago as a site for the Olympics.
Not just rejected, but rejected soundly announcing that Chicago was eliminated in the first round of voting having gotten the fewest number of votes. The two finalist cities as I write this are Madrid, Spain and Rio de Janeiro Brazil. Given the extraordinary lengths that the US delegation went to including the speeches by the President and First Lady I am a little stunned that Chicago was so roundly rejected as a site. It would seem to warrant at least some greater consideration since since many of the venues needed for an Olympics already exist in Chicago and the greater Chicago area. Recent Olympics have all come under scrutiny for going over-budget and creating chaos because the infrastructure of the cities that have hosted them are over-burdened by the crowds which show up for the games.
So, did the IOC basically take an opportunity to, with the President of the United States barely out of the building, say "Hey, fuck you America!"? Or, maybe the IOC members, a bunch of dried out old gas bags, figure it will be easier for them to get laid in Spain or Brazil (Good luck in Brazil, despite the legendary easiness of women in Rio that country is devoutly Catholic and the easy women turn out to be mostly visitors).
Whatever the case this sits badly with me. First the Olympics are supposed to transcend politics. President Obama probably should never have gone and just left it to Oprah and maybe his wife to make a sales pitch. But the leader of a country pitching on behalf of their country is not without precedent, it worked out for Tony Blair and England and probably helped tip the 2012 Games to London, so his pitching on the part of the United States while risky to his personal prestige (something he cannot afford right now) is not unusual.
No, I think the IOC is going to have to make itself accountable as to not only why they chose the city the will select, but why Chicago and the Chicago area did not measure up. For me, I think the IOC's decision was at least partially politically motivated. I think they saw an opportunity to show up the leader of the free world and make him look like some pathetic beggar.
I think the US should abandon hopes of getting the Olympics in this half of the century, at this point I think a lot of energy and money is being spent on getting this event back to the United States when clearly the appetite for bringing the Games back to the US is not here. Whatever the case, let's not pretend that this process is not politically influenced and (as has been shown in the past) corrupt and lets just put this event back into some sort of perspective. The Olympics are now more of a brand than a sporting event, they are a giant commercial in which the participants are not paid and have been so wrapped in controversy with countries doping young kids and paying off judges that it's value as a test of the best athelets in the world has been diminished.
Not just rejected, but rejected soundly announcing that Chicago was eliminated in the first round of voting having gotten the fewest number of votes. The two finalist cities as I write this are Madrid, Spain and Rio de Janeiro Brazil. Given the extraordinary lengths that the US delegation went to including the speeches by the President and First Lady I am a little stunned that Chicago was so roundly rejected as a site. It would seem to warrant at least some greater consideration since since many of the venues needed for an Olympics already exist in Chicago and the greater Chicago area. Recent Olympics have all come under scrutiny for going over-budget and creating chaos because the infrastructure of the cities that have hosted them are over-burdened by the crowds which show up for the games.
So, did the IOC basically take an opportunity to, with the President of the United States barely out of the building, say "Hey, fuck you America!"? Or, maybe the IOC members, a bunch of dried out old gas bags, figure it will be easier for them to get laid in Spain or Brazil (Good luck in Brazil, despite the legendary easiness of women in Rio that country is devoutly Catholic and the easy women turn out to be mostly visitors).
Whatever the case this sits badly with me. First the Olympics are supposed to transcend politics. President Obama probably should never have gone and just left it to Oprah and maybe his wife to make a sales pitch. But the leader of a country pitching on behalf of their country is not without precedent, it worked out for Tony Blair and England and probably helped tip the 2012 Games to London, so his pitching on the part of the United States while risky to his personal prestige (something he cannot afford right now) is not unusual.
No, I think the IOC is going to have to make itself accountable as to not only why they chose the city the will select, but why Chicago and the Chicago area did not measure up. For me, I think the IOC's decision was at least partially politically motivated. I think they saw an opportunity to show up the leader of the free world and make him look like some pathetic beggar.
I think the US should abandon hopes of getting the Olympics in this half of the century, at this point I think a lot of energy and money is being spent on getting this event back to the United States when clearly the appetite for bringing the Games back to the US is not here. Whatever the case, let's not pretend that this process is not politically influenced and (as has been shown in the past) corrupt and lets just put this event back into some sort of perspective. The Olympics are now more of a brand than a sporting event, they are a giant commercial in which the participants are not paid and have been so wrapped in controversy with countries doping young kids and paying off judges that it's value as a test of the best athelets in the world has been diminished.
Comments