Suppose They Gave an Olympics and Nobody Came...

Ladskater · Jan 26, 2006

According to the news reports the Olympic games are starting in Turino Italy in about two weeks and Olympic fever is at a low eb. Could it be the cost of mounting the games? Perhaps the residents of Torino are anticipating the huge bill they will be stuck with after the games.

With the 2010 Games looming here in BC we are already aware of the huge costs to tax payers. The Vancouver Olympic committee has informed us the 2010 games are already over budget. That does not bode well with the locals. It leads me to wonder:

Are the Oympics really necessary?

I vote, no, we can find better ways to spend our tax dollars. We have homeless people needing shelter; roads and bridges that are outdated and can't handle our high volume of traffic; hospitals are undertaffed. The list goes on and on. For the two weeks we will be hosting the Olympics and the huge tax bill we will be stuck with, it's hardly worth it.

Mathman · Jan 26, 2006

On the financial side, sometimes a big event like this leads to new construction and renewal projects that benefit a community for years to come. For example, my home town of Spokane hosted a Worlds Fair in the 1970s. In connection with this gala they put a lot of effort into cleaning up polution in the Spokane River and in delveloping the Riverfront as a showcase for the city. Although expensive, I think most residents are glad they did it.

I do, however, think that the Olympics are gradually fading in interest and importance as a sporting event, especially the Winter Games. Each sport can hold it's own world championship. The Olympic spirit is more about rah-rah patriotism and which country can win more medals than its rivals. This seems a little old-fasioned in the modern world.

JMO.

MM

Ladskater · Jan 26, 2006

Mathman, yes, some construction and road improvements have certainly been put on the agenda and some have already begun, but when the games finally are over, we British Columbians don't want to be stuck with a huge bill. Most British Columbians won't even be attending the games - especially the events held at Whistler - too far, too expensive. Figure skating may fare better as it will be held in Vancouver, probably at GM place.

I agree with your points on the Oympic spirit and patriotism. That seems to be what it is mostly about. At the same time, it's hard to gloat over winning medals when not 50 paces from the event there are people on the street going without.

I think the Olympics the Greeks initiated are a far cry from the Olympics we know today.

ATW27 · Jan 27, 2006

Mathman said:
The Olympic spirit is more about rah-rah patriotism and which country can win more medals than its rivals. This seems a little old-fasioned in the modern world.

JMO.

MM

I thought that the Olympic Spirit, and the Olympic Movement, was all about the countries of the world putting aside their differences and coming together for two weeks in the name of friendly competition. At least, that's what they mean to me. Yes, with all the judging scandals, and athletes of certain nations refusing to compete with athletes from another nation and all, I know some would say "Friendly compeitition? Ha!" But you could argue that it's the squeeky wheel that gets the most oil.
And you could also say that I'm being a little ideolistic, but I'd say being cynical or skeptical won't get us anywhere, either.

Andy W.

julietvalcouer · Jan 27, 2006

Not to sound cynical, but the people who are on the street will still be there, Olympics or no. Down on this side of the border, anyway, the more money the government spends on those sorts of problems, the worse they become. Not having the Olympics isnt' going to solve any problems. There will always be poor and needy people, unless we adopt the most ruthless controlled breeding program in history and find ways of eliminating those already in need that would make Stalin blanch.

Are the Olympics necessary? No. (Though I honestly think it's the summer games thare are more pointless--who actually cares about things like decathalon? At any time of year?) Are they a nice thing to have? Sure. Sports that don't get much exposure get exposure, atheletes who are never going to get multi-million dollar sports contracts get some recognition. I mean, if you want to talk about wastes of money, let's talk professional team sports. Massive subsidies to build stadiums, even for teams that can't win and draw miniscule audiences, overpaid doped-up played with criminal records, and when was the last time an Olympic result incited a literal riot? No, eliminating professional sports wouldn't eliminate poverty or suffering, either, but I can see a lot more grounds for dumping those than the Olympics.

Mathman · Jan 27, 2006

julietvalcouer said:
Not to sound cynical, but the people who are on the street will still be there, Olympics or no.

Here in Detroit, on Super Bowl Sunday the city government is hosting a big Super Bowl party for all the homeless people downtown. They will go to the shelter, get a free meal, watch the football game on a big TV, and have a bed to sleep in overnight. (They have to go in the back door, however, because we do not want any lines of people in front of the building, who could be seen by out-of-town folks visiting for the game. That, after all, would defeat the party's whole purpose.)

The next day -- sorry, party's over.

Ptichka · Jan 30, 2006

1. Ladskater, there are always more judicious ways of spending taxpayers' money, but it doesn't mean it's always better. The argument you site against the Olympics is the same one that has been used against funding for art and science. Should we really send a man to the moon when we have so many homeless? Should we have expensive fireworks when there are people without medical insurance? And, according to Laura Bush, why should we spend taxpayers' money on stem cell research when we don't know if the will really provide cures for all those deseases?

2. Olympics should certainly be seriously re-organized. Winter Olympics have never been as popular as the Summer ones (one reason for separating them into different years), but by now it has indeed become a monster. It's much like what's happening with the UN - it's wonderful to consider everyone equal and try to please every country, but at some point you just have to stop. Also, it's great to have a woman's version to almost every sport, but in some cases it's plain silly. I for one support Rogge's attempts to cut down the number of sports in the Olympics (such as eliminating baseball and softball, thus eliminating the need to build special field for those sports).

R.D. · Feb 4, 2006

julietvalcouer said:
Not to sound cynical, but the people who are on the street will still be there, Olympics or no. Down on this side of the border, anyway, the more money the government spends on those sorts of problems, the worse they become. Not having the Olympics isnt' going to solve any problems. There will always be poor and needy people, unless we adopt the most ruthless controlled breeding program in history and find ways of eliminating those already in need that would make Stalin blanch.

Are the Olympics necessary? No. (Though I honestly think it's the summer games thare are more pointless--who actually cares about things like decathalon? At any time of year?) Are they a nice thing to have? Sure. Sports that don't get much exposure get exposure, atheletes who are never going to get multi-million dollar sports contracts get some recognition. I mean, if you want to talk about wastes of money, let's talk professional team sports. Massive subsidies to build stadiums, even for teams that can't win and draw miniscule audiences, overpaid doped-up played with criminal records, and when was the last time an Olympic result incited a literal riot? No, eliminating professional sports wouldn't eliminate poverty or suffering, either, but I can see a lot more grounds for dumping those than the Olympics.

ITA...all the way. The Olympics may not be NECESSARY (well, what is, except maybe for one's basic needs?!) but I think they are nice to have. The Summer games were the original. If it were up to me, I would cut down on the number of sports- take out the less popular ones. I probably would also go back to having the summer AND winter games every four years (with the summer games first and then the winter games that year). As a matter of fact, I wouldn't mind at all if the Winter Games were discontinued. The Summer games to me are where all the excitement is. Seriously, the only event I care about (and have ever cared about) at the Winter Games is the ladies' figure skating event. That's it.

Mathman · Feb 4, 2006

Red Dog said:
As a matter of fact, I wouldn't mind at all if the Winter Games were discontinued. The Summer games to me are where all the excitement is. Seriously, the only event I care about (and have ever cared about) at the Winter Games is the ladies' figure skating event. That's it.

I agree. There is already a world figure skating championship, so what's the point? And for people who do like ski jumping and all the rest, those sports have their own championship events, too.

So I say, give Michelle the gold medal in Torino and call it a day. :laugh:

MM

R.D. · Feb 4, 2006

Mathman said:
I agree. There is already a world figure skating championship, so what's the point? And for people who do like ski jumping and all the rest, those sports have their own championship events, too.

yeah...at the same time, however, I wonder how the athletes of those winter sports would feel if such an action were taken. I mean, you have young and up-and-coming figure skaters with the ultimate dream- to go to the Olympics. They watch their favorite skater on TV and then want to be like them. But two years later, their ultimate dream is crushed forever- the Games won't even be held any more!

R.D. · Feb 4, 2006

to get to the heart of the question, though, the Olympics only seem to be an issue in the host cities. Everyone else seems to be in the spirit. The Greeks and now the Italians don't REALLY seem to want them. I say they should go to a city whose citizens and politicians will welcome it with open arms. Of course, there will always be that nagging and depleting factor of COST.

JMO

Mathman · Feb 4, 2006

Red Dog said:
yeah...at the same time, however, I wonder how the athletes of those winter sports would feel if such an action were taken. I mean, you have young and up-and-coming figure skaters with the ultimate dream- to go to the Olympics. They watch their favorite skater on TV and then want to be like them. But two years later, their ultimate dream is crushed forever- the Games won't even be held any more!

The ultimate dream of any athlete should be to win the World Championship of their sport. Think about it. There are 6,590,289,430 people in the world (I just looked it up), and you are THE BEST! How's that for a dream come true?

That way, four times as many skaters can realize the ultimate dream.

MM

Ptichka · Feb 5, 2006

Red Dog said:
to get to the heart of the question, though, the Olympics only seem to be an issue in the host cities. Everyone else seems to be in the spirit. The Greeks and now the Italians don't REALLY seem to want them. I say they should go to a city whose citizens and politicians will welcome it with open arms. Of course, there will always be that nagging and depleting factor of COST.

In 2004, Boston hosted the Democratic National Convention. As you can imagine, with Kerry, the native son, being the one nominated people seemed to get rather excited about it. However, when the DNC actually came to Boston, it was a very different story. Tons of businesses had to close because of security concerns. We only think of of "businesses" such as restaurants, bu that's only a small part; of example, my hairdresser had to close down his salon for the week because it was basically impossible for half his clients to get there anyway. Highways were closed. Several subway stations were closed. It took people hours to get to work. Boston had to pay for all the extra police. People lost money. Bostonians hated it!

All I'm trying to show here is that hosting a big event is very difficult, and once you're confronted by the specifics you get a very different view of it.

tripleflutz · Feb 6, 2006

The Olympics has become a overhyped monster. It overshadows and draws attention away from the regular competitions and championships and soaks up a great deal of the money that could be better spent supporting sports.

In addition, when the IOC decided to let the WTA, NHL, and NBA send their professional players to compete it became obvious that it was all about TV money, not fair competition. But at the same time the ISU, with the IOCs blessing, keeps all the skaters in servitude by calling them "amateur" rather than pros.

The entire Olympic movement is TV money, politics, dishonestty and corruption, and does far more harm than good to sport. Sports would be much better off if the Olympic movement was completely abolished and the money lavished on it was spread around among the individual sports through their federations.

As far as figure skating is concerned, the abolition of the Olympics would make the World Championship the premier event and also loosen $peedy's.death grip on the sport. For without IOC backing $peedy and the ISU would be vulnerable to the sort of rebellion we saw with the short lived World Skating Federation.. An organization like the WSF could have held their own World Championships to compete with the ISU, were it not for the IOC backing $peedy, and the ISU as the sole governing body of all skating. So it must be said that the IOCs present stance is dishonest and very harmful to figure skating, because it leaves fuigure skating in the clutches of $peedy and his followers.

JonnyCoop · Feb 6, 2006

Ladskater --

I was thrilled when Vancouver got the 2010 Games because I absolutely love the city and think it's one of the most beautiful in the world (tho I would like to come up there sometime and NOT freeze my butt off from all the breezes coming off the bays!! :laugh:

); plus I think one of the reasons that the Calgary games hold such a place in many Olympic fans' hearts is because of that wonderful Canadian hospitality.

However -- I can certainly understand your point of view. Those who actually LIVE there are the ones who have to put up with it. I remember going up to Vancouver -- I believe it was Labor Day Weekend -- and there was a serious auto race going on all weekend; you could hear it all over the West End and downtown, etc, etc. It was down by the waterfront. I was told by a resident that the government (I can't remember if he said city or provincial) actually PAID for the hotel accomodations of the residents of those fancy waterfront highrises in the neighborhood if they wanted to get away from the noise for the weekend. Does this sound about right? Any chance they'd do it for anyone wishing to escape Olympic chaos?

anything_for_skating · Mar 18, 2006

OK, I voted for "yes,they are very important" but there is one thing to add to it:
Olympics should not be given to countries where people "have nothing to eat"

Suppose They Gave an Olympics and Nobody Came...

Are the Olympics Really Necessary?

Yes, they are very important

No, Tax payers money could be spent better

Indifferent

Ladskater

~ Figure Skating Is My Passion ~

Mathman

Ladskater

~ Figure Skating Is My Passion ~

ATW27

julietvalcouer

Mathman

Ptichka

Forum translator

R.D.

Mathman

R.D.

R.D.

Mathman

Ptichka

Forum translator

tripleflutz

JonnyCoop

anything_for_skating

Similar threads

Connect with us