Toronto 2024 Olympic Bid (Dead)

[FNTS]

I read Five Ring Circus a couple of weeks ago while I was on vacation, and what a waste of time it was (I got it from the library, so at least I didn't spend any money on it). It was all hyperbole and it read like a horror novel, if you're easily scared. I looked for more info online on a number of topics it presented, and the same way of telling half truths and providing short sighted studies, while at the same time willfully ignoring longer term research, was used to advance the writer's agenda. The longest study on tourism presented covered a period of two years. There wasn't a single table, not even one, that would have helped compare data, and for instance Barcelona was almost entirely, and conveniently, ignored (check the index, it's on Google Books, Barcelona is mentioned ONCE). And I'm a big time lefty pinko socialist, but that guy was just coockoo. The book's main source of quotes was a book called "Welcome to the Terrordome" (try to picture a "terrordome", might that be a hyperbole maybe?). Trust me, I wanted to be enlightened, I wanted to be shown I was wrong, or at least to have a more rounded and balanced picture of the subject, but if the author was trying anything other than preaching to the choir of Olympic haters, he didn't succeed. You can't present clearly incomplete information like that to people expecting them to be persuaded, you either aren't interested in persuading them, or you don't have any respect for them in the first place.

The same thing happened to me with the article you linked to, about London's and NYC's tourism, I'm not saying that the guy who did the research the article was based on had his numbers wrong (even if Andrew Lloyd Webber says they were*, at least about theatre attendance), they might be right, what I'm saying is that it doesn't provide context, because once again, context and unbiasedness don't sell. As soon as I saw the table I thought "so what's the usual ratio of tourists between them?", and the fact that that number wasn't provided was an immediate red flag. That's something that I encounter most of the time when you or some other people in this forum present information, there are OBVIOUS comparisons that can be made, but they never are, because context is something that doesn't excite the furibund. I can't tell you how much time I've wasted online checking info that was misleading and incomplete. Furthermore, and we've talked about this before, nobody spends 15 billion dollars for two weeks of tourism, but they do it for the long lasting legacy after the games, so please don't fragment the discussion.

* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19162268

 

[TOperson]

I read Five Ring Circus a couple of weeks ago while I was on vacation, and what a waste of time it was (I got it from the library, so at least I didn't spend any money on it). It was all hyperbole and it read like a horror novel, if you're easily scared. I looked for more info online on a number of topics it presented, and the same way of telling half truths and providing short sighted studies, while at the same time willfully ignoring longer term research, was used to advance the writer's agenda. The longest study on tourism presented covered a period of two years. There wasn't a single table, not even one, that would have helped compare data, and for instance Barcelona was almost entirely, and conveniently, ignored (check the index, it's on Google Books, Barcelona is mentioned ONCE). And I'm a big time lefty pinko socialist, but that guy was just coockoo. The book's main source of quotes was a book called "Welcome to the Terrordome" (try to picture a "terrordome", might that be a hyperbole maybe?). Trust me, I wanted to be enlightened, I wanted to be shown I was wrong, or at least to have a more rounded and balanced picture of the subject, but if the author was trying anything other than preaching to the choir of Olympic haters, he didn't succeed. You can't present clearly incomplete information like that to people expecting them to be persuaded, you either aren't interested in persuading them, or you don't have any respect for them in the first place.

The same thing happened to me with the article you linked to, about London's and NYC's tourism, I'm not saying that the guy who did the research the article was based on had his numbers wrong (even if Andrew Lloyd Webber says they were*, at least about theatre attendance), they might be right, what I'm saying is that it doesn't provide context, because once again, context and unbiasedness don't sell. As soon as I saw the table I thought "so what's the usual ratio of tourists between them?", and the fact that that number wasn't provided was an immediate red flag. That's something that I encounter most of the time when you or some other people in this forum present information, there are OBVIOUS comparisons that can be made, but they never are, because context is something that doesn't excite the furibund. I can't tell you how much time I've wasted online checking info that was misleading and incomplete. Furthermore, and we've talked about this before, nobody spends 15 billion dollars for two weeks of tourism, but they do it for the long lasting legacy after the games, so please don't fragment the discussion.

* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19162268

So you read one book and one article, which means you haven't read ALL of the evidence provided, yet you claimed that various explanations were not provided in ANY of the evidence. How would you know without actually reading it?

For that matter, how can one book or article provide ALL of the context re: the Olympics, whether for or against them? The Olympics are too big for that. Is there any book that does so, anywhere?

I think you misunderstood the purpose of The Five Ring Circus. It was to discuss how the Olympic scam went down in Vancouver, not to provide a definitive analysis of the costs and benefits of every Olympics and finally answer the question: are the Olympics worth it to host cities? Other researchers have analyzed the games that way, and concluded: NO. And I've posted links to some of that research.

I think it's ironic that you use terms like "Olympic haters" and "coockoo" while accusing Olympic opponents of hyperbole. Like the Olympics are not hyperbolic? Hello - the ritualistic opening ceremonies, complete with the Nazi torch and flame, the amped-up drama of slow-motion replays and close-ups on athletes' faces, the nationalistic palaver about "our" performance. That's hyperbole on steroids.

It's also funny that you dismiss research as "misleading and incomplete" when the research you have provided on this thread consists of one table that had only one or two Olympic host cities during the study period, and NO context for the table whatsoever. I don't remember - did you cite the source at all?

I'm also fairly sure that the NYC study did make use of usual tourism numbers, but anyway, if you look at my original comment on it, it was that NOT hosting the Olympics did NOT hurt NYC. I believe one of the goals of the research was to assess what NYC "lost" by not hosting the games, by comparing NYC to London during the same period, NOT to assess whether London's tourist numbers were up or down. (It's already been determined that they were down.)

As for "the long-lasting legacy after the games", again and again we've seen that the legacy never materializes. Even in the case of Barcelona, the legacy is debatable.

 

[Red October]

the ritualistic opening ceremonies, complete with the Nazi torch and flame,

...really... You're going to associate an event that had already been going on for 35 years before the Third Reich (and going back 2600 years to the ancient games) with the Nazis, and you're trying to say you (and Olympic haters) aren't full of hyperbole?

There is no possible response to that besides quoting it for emphasis on it's ridiculousness.

 

[Thanos]

Hello - the ritualistic opening ceremonies, complete with the Nazi torch and flame, the amped-up drama of slow-motion replays and close-ups on athletes' faces, the nationalistic palaver about "our" performance. That's hyperbole on steroids.

Please clarify this for me? I'm really curious to know what's going on in that deranged head of yours?
If you want you can come with me next summer to Greece and I'll take you for a few Olympics history lessons.

 

[TOperson]

...really... You're going to associate an event that had already been going on for 35 years before the Third Reich (and going back 2600 years to the ancient games) with the Nazis, and you're trying to say you (and Olympic haters) aren't full of hyperbole?

There is no possible response to that besides quoting it for emphasis on it's ridiculousness.

The Olympic torch and flame thing really was invented by the Nazis.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...zi-origins-of-the-olympic-flame-relay/257002/

Also, I'm not the one doing the associating. The IOC has apparently decided to keep this bit of Nazi ritual. That's on them. Which means they are the ones doing the hyperbole. It's not hyperbole to point it out.

And I never said either way if I or other "Olympic haters" were "full of hyperbole". I was pointing out the contradiction in FNTS's accusations.

So, now that I've verified the Nazi connection and clarified that I never made a claim about whether I'm "full of hyperbole", there is no obstacle to your responding to my other points.

 

[ChesterCopperpot]

The flame was first used in the 1928 Olympics - the torch relay was brought in for the 1936 Olympics

 

[TOperson]

Please clarify this for me? I'm really curious to know what's going on in that deranged head of yours?
If you want you can come with me next summer to Greece and I'll take you for a few Olympics history lessons.

Obviously the slow-mo replays and close-ups never happened in the ancient Olympics. Not to mention the sappy TV profiles about athletes and their families and their struggle to "achieve their dream" etc. The torch relay really was invented by the Nazis. Did each of the ancient Olympics have its own theme song? Did the athletes have special uniforms? Was a special Olympic flag passed around?

All the ritualistic stuff really has nothing to do with athletic competition. The whole thing could be presented in a much more low-key, straightforward way, more like how local sports are covered on TV. So what is the purpose of all the drama, ritual, imagery, music, etc? To play on people's emotions, make them feel that this event is important, sacred, etc, when really it's just an athletic competition (with admittedly spectacular athletes, but it's not like anyone's curing cancer with this thing). That's hyperbole.

 

[TOperson]

Some hyperbole from the Olympics haters at the LSE:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2012/07/25/olympic-cost-overrun-jennings/

 

[TOareaFan]

All the ritualistic stuff really has nothing to do with athletic competition. The whole thing could be presented in a much more low-key, straightforward way, more like how local sports are covered on TV. So what is the purpose of all the drama, ritual, imagery, music, etc? To play on people's emotions, make them feel that this event is important, sacred, etc, when really it's just an athletic competition (with admittedly spectacular athletes, but it's not like anyone's curing cancer with this thing). That's hyperbole.

To create an event that has commercial value around the world and generates the sort of interest ratings that make broadcasters pay very large amounts of money to cover them and, thus, offset a cost of the events themselves....perhaps?

Just wondering, do you apply the same "we should only do things the way the ancient Greeks did them" to all aspects of your life?

 

[TOperson]

To create an event that has commercial value around the world and generates the sort of interest ratings that make broadcasters pay very large amounts of money to cover them and, thus, offset a cost of the events themselves....perhaps?

Just wondering, do you apply the same "we should only do things the way the ancient Greeks did them" to all aspects of your life?

1) I never said the modern Olympics should be conducted like the ancient ones. I was responding to Thanos's earlier remark, in which he/she mentioned ancient Olympic history. I don't think I mentioned the ancient Olympics at all until then.

2) Yes, and how do you create an event with commercial value? Especially when so many other distractions are on offer? By getting people to believe it matters. The games are full of sports that hardly anyone follows the rest of the time, so it's not like the general public actually cares about them. But hype it up for months beforehand, start it up with a massive previously-secret spectacle, and those eyeballs will come. It's pretty standard in this culture to use marketing and advertising to get people to buy/pay attention to stuff they don't need or is a waste of time and so on. The TV rights and sponsorships etc don't cover the cost of the games though. That gets split up mainly between the IOC and the local organizing committee. The public pays like 90% of the costs through taxes. Which is another reason for the propaganda - to get the public to swallow that big bitter pill.

 

[Thanos]

The torch relay really was invented by the Nazis.

Torch relays were a religious ritual in ancient Greece. It's a part of Greece's history. If you have no clue what you're talking about then don't speak.
The Olympic flame was always a part of the Olympics dating back to ancient Greece. And the torch relay was always a part of Greek history. Thought the relay was not a part of the Olympics.

 

[TOperson]

Torch relays were a religious ritual in ancient Greece. It's a part of Greece's history. If you have no clue what you're talking about then don't speak.
The Olympic flame was always a part of the Olympics dating back to ancient Greece. And the torch relay was always a part of Greek history. Thought the relay was not a part of the Olympics.
Seriously, you're an a**hole.

"Though propagandists portrayed the torch relay as ancient tradition stretching back to the original Greek competitions, the event was in fact a Nazi invention, one typical of the Reich's love of flashy ceremonies and historical allusions to the old empires."

from

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...zi-origins-of-the-olympic-flame-relay/257002/

which is based on

http://www.amazon.com/The-Nazi-Olym...8155/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336661835&sr=8-1

Sure, I'll buy that the ancient Greeks lit flames and carried them around. I don't claim to be an expert on Greek history. But the fact remains that the Nazis started up this whole torch relay thing in the modern games, purely for propaganda purposes.

It's especially off-putting that the IOC has kept this ritual, given this history:

"The first torch manufactured was used to ignite a new furnace for the production of long-range Krupp canons." Krupp's rapidly expanding artillery production would be crucial for early Nazi military successes, and would be staffed in part by slave labor, later including female Jewish prisoners trucked from Auschwitz..."

Ugh. Can't they come up with something else?

Anyway, the origins of the torch relay don't have anything to do with my objection to a Toronto Olympics. My objections have to do with the huge costs, questionable benefits and development processes (which I've already discussed a lot upthread so I won't repeat it here).

 

[TOareaFan]

1) I never said the modern Olympics should be conducted like the ancient ones. I was responding to Thanos's earlier remark, in which he/she mentioned ancient Olympic history. I don't think I mentioned the ancient Olympics at all until then.

2) Yes, and how do you create an event with commercial value? Especially when so many other distractions are on offer? By getting people to believe it matters. The games are full of sports that hardly anyone follows the rest of the time, so it's not like the general public actually cares about them. But hype it up for months beforehand, start it up with a massive previously-secret spectacle, and those eyeballs will come. It's pretty standard in this culture to use marketing and advertising to get people to buy/pay attention to stuff they don't need or is a waste of time and so on. The TV rights and sponsorships etc don't cover the cost of the games though. That gets split up mainly between the IOC and the local organizing committee. The public pays like 90% of the costs through taxes. Which is another reason for the propaganda - to get the public to swallow that big bitter pill.

The London 2012 budget (not the original one but the one they ended up going with) showed cost of the games was £9.35 billion (they ended up coming in a bit under that).

So, if the tax payer "pays like 90% of the costs through taxes"....where do these revenues (from the same budget) go?



£1.5 billion from a special Olympic National Lottery game. (yes, these are taxpayers but they volunteered to pay).
£560 million from IOC television and marketing deals.
£450 million from sponsorship and official suppliers.
£300 million from ticket sales.
£60 million from licensing.

That is nearly a third of the £9.35 billion....right there.

As for the balance, yes there is a cost of "doing things"....in a democracy, people collectively decide if those costs are worthwhile. I spent the entire duration of the games in the UK....in cities and towns outside of and far away from London.....places where you would expect the highest level of discent about spending the money (ie. National taxes used to fund a party in London).....not once did I hear a complaint....not in the media (local or national).....not on the buses or trains I was riding....not in pubs I visited...nowhere. People were enjoying the show/party that their nation was puting on in their Capital.

So, is it still a waste of taxpayer money if the taxpayers think it is worthwhile?

 

[Thanos]

Anyway, the origins of the torch relay don't have anything to do with my objection to a Toronto Olympics.

Then don't bring it up. And i did offer to give you a lesson.

So, is it still a waste of taxpayer money if the taxpayers think it is worthwhile?

Well according to his previous post, that's why we have a democracy. If majority says ok then surely he must be willing to accept that. But then again he has been bouncing back and forth on every topic.

 

[TOperson]

The London 2012 budget (not the original one but the one they ended up going with) showed cost of the games was £9.35 billion (they ended up coming in a bit under that).

So, if the tax payer "pays like 90% of the costs through taxes"....where do these revenues (from the same budget) go?



£1.5 billion from a special Olympic National Lottery game. (yes, these are taxpayers but they volunteered to pay).
£560 million from IOC television and marketing deals.
£450 million from sponsorship and official suppliers.
£300 million from ticket sales.
£60 million from licensing.

That is nearly a third of the £9.35 billion....right there.

As for the balance, yes there is a cost of "doing things"....in a democracy, people collectively decide if those costs are worthwhile. I spent the entire duration of the games in the UK....in cities and towns outside of and far away from London.....places where you would expect the highest level of discent about spending the money (ie. National taxes used to fund a party in London).....not once did I hear a complaint....not in the media (local or national).....not on the buses or trains I was riding....not in pubs I visited...nowhere. People were enjoying the show/party that their nation was puting on in their Capital.

So, is it still a waste of taxpayer money if the taxpayers think it is worthwhile?

Can you provide a source for those figures?

As for your final question, there have been a lot of complaints in Britain about London 2012 for years now, it's well-documented in the media and online. So it's highly debatable whether the taxpayers thought it was worthwhile. By the time the games actually rolled around, there wasn't much they could do about it anyway. Your experience does not necessarily reflect the views of the population. (Just like if someone came to Toronto for a couple weeks and didn't happen to hear any complaints about Ford, it doesn't mean that all Torontonians approve of him.)