10 arrests made for planning Terrorist attacks during the Olympics

soooo can we cancel yet? maybe schedule it in a nice third world shithole like Syria or Iraq hell at this point I'll take North Korea and Kim Jong Un.

At 7/22/16 04:47 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: 10 arrests made for planning Terrorist attacks during the Olympics

soooo can we cancel yet? maybe schedule it in a nice third world shithole like Syria or Iraq hell at this point I'll take North Korea and Kim Jong Un.

At this rate, host it in 1984's Oceania.

Always a damn controversy regarding where the Olympics are located.

I'm looking forward to seeing how Michael Phelps performs. Other than that there's really no event in particular that I am interested in.

For once I think I'll actually watch them. Not to mention I'll finally put the follow thread button to good use

Olympic athletes are already complaining about the housing in Rio

leaking pipes open and shorting electrical bad plumbing. Brazil is becoming more third world every day!

At 7/25/16 11:35 AM, Amaranthus wrote: >Implying you've even read it.

It's required reading in a lot of US English classes. That or Animal Farm.

To contribute to the thread... I have to say I'm less then enthused with the Olympics. Any events I should pay attention to?

At 7/25/16 11:38 AM, someaveragechap wrote:

At 7/25/16 11:35 AM, Amaranthus wrote: >Implying you've even read it.

It's required reading in a lot of US English classes. That or Animal Farm.

To contribute to the thread... I have to say I'm less then enthused with the Olympics. Any events I should pay attention to?

I'm a runner and a swimmer, so i'll definitely pay attention to those events.

At 7/25/16 11:38 AM, someaveragechap wrote:
To contribute to the thread... I have to say I'm less then enthused with the Olympics. Any events I should pay attention to?

I usually don't watch and only pay attention to the medal count and watch the highlights of the good stuff but this year I will watch far more closely because I want to see how Rio is going to fuck this up more than it already has.

Apparently the area where the water events are now TOXIC even pictures with bodies (possible NSFW even though NYTIMES)

looks like Russia got a shit ton of its athletes banned.

The Olympics start on Friday and experts are recommending that visitors to Rio should avoid putting their head under water.

Boy, this is gonna be a shitshow! :D

Olympic sailing ramp in Rio de Janeiro collapses next to toxic bay!

jesus it's like the perfect shitstorm @ZJ

Rio travelers who ingest water risk 'getting violently ill,' says expert says, Olympic Organizer getting put on blast about toxic water,

Seems like the 2016 Olympics will be the most questionable Olympics since the 1936 Olympics.

Gas Leaks, Fires, Thieves: Australia Is Having a Bad Time at the Olympics

apparently people are stealing shit and fucking with the Australian Team.

Apparently the US mens and woman's basketball teams will be living on a cruise ship and not Rio's shit housing.

If you thought the water wasn't safe, the sand on the beach isn't either!

Rio military police beefs up Olympic security presence by a third

I'm late to this party, but at the invitation of @Tony-DarkGrave, here i am. I think he'll be sorry, as he was unaware that on the rare occasion i do participate in a thread, my replies are longer than my... well, they're long. I'll be bumping a few replies from the very beginning of the thread, for which i apologise in advance.

A couple of disclaimers first:
1) An explanation is not a defence, otherwise, every History teacher you've ever had qualifies as a nazi - they have to be able to explain the nazi regime to you, which doesn't mean they want to kill jews. None of my comments should be viewed as a defence of this clusterfuck.
2) There will be things that i am disqualified from commenting on due to the idiosyncrasies between my country and theirs. Suffice it to say that having a millenium head-start on civilization and being surrounded by similarly advantaged neighbouring nations means that i don't get to talk shit about a nation whose infrastructure, economy, society, and even language it was the responsibility of my nation to incept.

So here we go.

At 6/30/16 02:37 PM, FinaLee wrote: I heard the sprinters are going to be faster than ever this year. They've had a lot of practice running away from the mosquitos.

A mugging joke would've been a bit sweeter here.

At 6/30/16 03:10 PM, orangebomb wrote: It feels like the controversy has overshadowed the Games from both the Zika virus and all the stories about political corruption, sewage and stuff. Of course, they had those problems in 2014, and the World Cup went pretty well.

No they didn't, and no it didn't. (continued below)

At 6/30/16 03:54 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

why would you let a second borderline third world country host the olympics when it was obvious they wouldn't be able to pull it off? (...) If they were smart just stop Rio and send it over to London they still have most of their shit in place.

Although many of the issues interfering with these Games are chronic, some of them didn't exist at the time of the decision to host them, such as the Zika virus, the oil price crash resulting from the Iranian embargo lift - much of Brazil's trade is oil-based - or the governmental collapse, both of which exacerbated, at least by indirect influence (increasing public unrest, which then directly influenced) some of the existing chronic issues, such as crime, spitefully low quality construction standards, small- and mid-level corruption, etc. The big selling points of major sporting events is a short- and mid-term tourism boom, along with all the associated secondary and tertiary economic effects, and a purported infrastructural revolution. The latter does sometimes happen, like in Beijing, and sometimes doesn't happen, like in Rio. So far, completely new structures of use to the public are: one metro line. All other structures are either refurbished (Maracanã and Maracanãzinho, for example) or of no true public value. Treating 80% of sewage before it's dumped into Guanabara was something that the public works minister said with a face of pride, right before they found a woman's severed foot and hand right next to the beach volleyball venue. (there is also a hubris issue, continued bellow)

At 6/30/16 08:06 PM, Sekhem wrote: you forgot to mention that the olympics loves kowtowing to shitty regimes like nazi germany and now china
i mean, taiwan literally has to compete as CHINESE TAIPEI for fear of angering china if they were allowed to compete as taiwan

Sports fans like myself sometimes suffer from a hubris phenomenon where the influence of sport is hyperevaluated. It amounts to psycho-emotional masturbation, that "the [insert Major Sporting Event] can be a great force for peace". At most, it can be a great propaganda opportunity, either internal or external, or, in the case of the US, an opportunity to sell sponsorships for fucking everything. If anything, if the Organizations put their money where their mouth is regarding their secularism (like a "separation between sport and state"), it'd be a nudge in the right direction regarding tolerance - your Taiwan example being a good one. China can then either remove itself from the games and lose one of its only intercultural exchange spotlights or be less picky about another nation's name. Sadly, FIFA is money, and the IOC is like that initial song from that godawful Lego Movie: Everything is Awesome!

At 6/30/16 08:21 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: do you not know what second world and third world mean

I understand where you're coming from, but the definition has been reajusted to depict developments (in both senses of the word) regarding the nations previously and currently seen as first- vs third-world. For example: the original definition meant that Sweden was a third-world country, not having chosen a side between the USA or USSR. It's now mainly an expression of developmental level: developed - developing - underdeveloped.

At 6/30/16 09:03 PM, Neoncrotch wrote: I thought they had this last year? wtf

The World Cup and the Olympics are different things. The 2014 World Cup was held throughout Brazil. The 2016 Olympics will be held in Rio de Janeiro.

At 7/1/16 12:11 PM, Haggard wrote: I really don't know why anyone in Rio thought it was a smart move to host olympic games so short after hosting the world cup in Brazil (...)

FIFA and the IOC do not like each other at all, to the point that the Olympics' football tournament isn't considered an official FIFA event, resulting in Olympic football teams having great difficulty convincing pro football clubs to release some of their players to go to the Olympics. The two organizations most likely don't communicate too well. As for Brazilian intra-governmental communication, if there was any, it was most likely a deliberate attempt to hedge bets, "if we don't get one, we might get the other, at least". A third possibility is that after one decision was made, the other Organization decided "hey, we can save some cash by taking advantage of the infra-structure erected for the other event".

And now for something completely similar.

At 8/2/16 12:27 PM, Amaranthus wrote: tiago you fucking cunt how am i supposed to read all that

Like this

At 8/2/16 12:21 PM, C-Hawk wrote:

At 7/1/16 12:11 PM, Haggard wrote: I really don't know why anyone in Rio thought it was a smart move to host olympic games so short after hosting the world cup in Brazil (...)

FIFA and the IOC do not like each other at all, to the point that the Olympics' football tournament isn't considered an official FIFA event, resulting in Olympic football teams having great difficulty convincing pro football clubs to release some of their players to go to the Olympics.

Another reason might be that olympics are held when regular seasons already have started in most countries. Plus, the FIFA doesn't want IOC football to rival the WC (understandable).
However, IOC football has the reglementation of only allowing a selected few above 22 (or was it 23? Something like that) year old players to take part in the tournament, so "the best" players aren't even available.

At 8/2/16 12:21 PM, C-Hawk wrote: Although many of the issues interfering with these Games are chronic, some of them didn't exist at the time of the decision to host them, such as the Zika virus, the oil price crash resulting from the Iranian embargo lift - much of Brazil's trade is oil-based - or the governmental collapse, both of which exacerbated, at least by indirect influence (increasing public unrest, which then directly influenced) some of the existing chronic issues, such as crime, spitefully low quality construction standards, small- and mid-level corruption, etc.

oh yeah them lifted trade sanctions on Iran allowed them to sell oil into the market in turn made the saudi's flood it before the price per barrel fell, which usurped Brazil who couldn't compete, and since oil is nationalized there it went caput then corrupt politicians got the blame and the cooked books opened up.

The big selling points of major sporting events is a short- and mid-term tourism boom, along with all the associated secondary and tertiary economic effects, and a purported infrastructural revolution. The latter does sometimes happen, like in Beijing, and sometimes doesn't happen, like in Rio. So far, completely new structures of use to the public are: one metro line. All other structures are either refurbished (Maracanã and Maracanãzinho, for example) or of no true public value. Treating 80% of sewage before it's dumped into Guanabara was something that the public works minister said with a face of pride, right before they found a woman's severed foot and hand right next to the beach volleyball venue. (there is also a hubris issue, continued bellow)

oh yeah there was no real infrastructure or added value for the public populace. and they did a test only 48% of the water being dumped right now is being treated.

Rio’s Olympics Woes Sour IOC on Developing World as Games Site (LINKY)

Several prominent members of the International Olympic Committee said the difficulty getting Rio de Janeiro ready for the Summer Games likely means the organization will shy away from again holding the world’s biggest sporting event in cities that exhibit any signs of instability.

The comments, among the strongest yet by IOC officials about their frustration with Rio’s preparations, show the organization backing away from a previous goal of opening up the Games to a broader selection of cities.

Rio, the first South American city to host the event, was supposed to mark the dawn of a new, more adventurous era for the IOC. It is instead shaping up as a cautionary tale about how volatile conditions can be in developing countries. Ambitions to hold the Olympics in Africa or India appear shelved indefinitely, according to IOC members and people who work closely with the organization.​

“Rio has been the biggest challenge we have ever faced,” said Gerhard Heiberg, a longtime IOC member from Norway, who headed the 1994 Winter Games in Lillehammer. “Maybe we will spend some more time thinking about going to the last continent. We need some assurance it will be a success.”

so it looks like Budapest and South Africa are off the table for 2024 looks like the Olympics is going to be a Developed Country only kind of event.

At 8/2/16 01:55 PM, Haggard wrote: Another reason might be that olympics are held when regular seasons already have started in most countries. Plus, the FIFA doesn't want IOC football to rival the WC (understandable).
However, IOC football has the reglementation of only allowing a selected few above 22 (or was it 23? Something like that) year old players to take part in the tournament, so "the best" players aren't even available.

It's an u23 competition. You're correct about some of the winter-seasoned leagues around the world having already started, but that's an issue that is resolvable with a very simple scheduling adjustment: by anticipating the Games by one month, and making continental-level football tournaments bianual on odd numbered years, nobody steps on anybody else's toes, on top of having a worldwide football tournament every two years. Additionally, this would mean a major football tournament would occur every year, which would lead to the elimination of superfluous "tournaments" like the Confederations Cup.

Useless, dumbass Cup anyway...

At 8/2/16 02:13 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Rio’s Olympics Woes Sour IOC on Developing World as Games Site (LINKY)
Several prominent members of the International Olympic Committee said the difficulty getting Rio de Janeiro ready for the Summer Games likely means the organization will shy away from again holding the world’s biggest sporting event in cities that exhibit any signs of instability.
so it looks like Budapest and South Africa are off the table for 2024 looks like the Olympics is going to be a Developed Country only kind of event.

I'm sitting here considering which is the simplest to implement, between a WC and the Olympics, and i'm not sure, and completely open to debate. Both are complex as all hell, but perhaps one has characteristics that make it easer for a developing nation to accomodate, whereby the other competition could follow the previous one in.

When a decision is made on a host city/nation, there's always the rolling of the dice on whether or not the hosts will collapse from under your feet, as they have now, but didn't in 2014. The engineer in me says that modularization is key to preventing system-wide failures, which makes the WC a more attractive competition. You build more stadia, yes, but stadia are the least worrisome of the infrastructures, and being that it's hosted nation-wide means that no one singular airport or transit system is asphyxiated. People enter for the competition via various cities, which share the burden of overhauling their hosting and transport systems. Combined with this is the fact that the WC is a segmented competition, where half of the fans have little reason to remain in the nation after the group phase has knocked them out, and with each passing knock-out phase match, again half of the fans will be ready to leave.

The Olympics hit one city, hard, for the full duration of the competition. It's where all of the fans are, where all of the press are, where all of the athletes are, and the venues that some local sports clubs may volunteer as training grounds are most likely choked by athletes' and teams' requests for them. The same with hotels, restaurants, hospitals, the damned phone lines... every god damned thing that the competition has no real lasting reason to spend money on amplifying.

This time it went wrong - granted. But i do feel like the Olympics going to the city after it's been touched by the WC (although maybe not directly after) is probably the best combination.

At 8/2/16 03:22 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Cooper Hawk, are you like a sports official with the games or something?

Just a verbose fan of almost all sports, Billy.

At 8/2/16 02:15 PM, C-Hawk wrote:

At 8/2/16 01:55 PM, Haggard wrote: Another reason might be that olympics are held when regular seasons already have started in most countries. Plus, the FIFA doesn't want IOC football to rival the WC (understandable).
However, IOC football has the reglementation of only allowing a selected few above 22 (or was it 23? Something like that) year old players to take part in the tournament, so "the best" players aren't even available.

It's an u23 competition. You're correct about some of the winter-seasoned leagues around the world having already started, but that's an issue that is resolvable with a very simple scheduling adjustment: by anticipating the Games by one month, and making continental-level football tournaments bianual on odd numbered years, nobody steps on anybody else's toes, on top of having a worldwide football tournament every two years.

But having major tournaments on odd numbered years would get in the way of the women's tournaments, which take place during those years. Now you might say "nobody is interested in women's football anyway". This may be true, but it wouldn't exactly help the popularity if their tournaments are outshined by men's tournaments every year.

Additionally, this would mean a major football tournament would occur every year, which would lead to the elimination of superfluous "tournaments" like the Confederations Cup.

Useless, dumbass Cup anyway...

Until 2006 I didn't even know such a cup even existed. It's about time to trim down the amount of matches anyway.

At 8/3/16 04:43 AM, Haggard wrote: But having major tournaments on odd numbered years would get in the way of the women's tournaments, which take place during those years. Now you might say "nobody is interested in women's football anyway". This may be true, but it wouldn't exactly help the popularity if their tournaments are outshined by men's tournaments every year.

I can see that, but somehow i disbelieve that fixture congestion is the main reason why female sports in general have significantly lower viewership numbers. I'm about as progressive as progressive gets, but there are certain things that are just true on a basic chemical level, like the low numbers of straight male fashion designers. It can happen, it does happen, and it's no indication of quality of work, i'm just talking numbers. In the US, football season has been overlapping with baseball season since the MLS began, and attendance & viewership numbers didn't take a particular hit in baseball. People gonna love what they love.

Also, i've been away for a while, is this baby-blue shit i'm typing on a leftover from the winter layout that the devs were too lazy to revert back to orange? FFS...

Study finds: Rio 2016: Rio de Janeiro's air more deadly than its water

Report: Police killings in Olympic host city Rio de Janeiro up 103%

At 8/3/16 06:37 AM, C-Hawk wrote:

At 8/3/16 04:43 AM, Haggard wrote: But having major tournaments on odd numbered years would get in the way of the women's tournaments, which take place during those years. Now you might say "nobody is interested in women's football anyway". This may be true, but it wouldn't exactly help the popularity if their tournaments are outshined by men's tournaments every year.

I can see that, but somehow i disbelieve that fixture congestion is the main reason why female sports in general have significantly lower viewership numbers.

That wasn't what I was trying to imply. They have lower viewership numbers because they aren't on the same level as their male counterparts. It's not too surprising, most top level players still have to maintain regular jobs to make ends meet, so of course this affects their training schedule. Plus -and I'm saying this without any ulterior motive- females just aren't able to build as much muscle as males. Yes, of course there are females that are stronger than most males. And yes, I bet all females playing on a (semi) professional level are far better players than I am. But in general a woman isn't as athletic as a man.
So, the playing speed in female sports are much lower in general, which sometimes can be a bit boring to watch.

In the US, football season has been overlapping with baseball season since the MLS began, and attendance & viewership numbers didn't take a particular hit in baseball. People gonna love what they love.

I never understood the US audience anyway. I've been watching some NBA games on TV (more like, I downloaded the broadcast after the match was over from certain sources, but that's beside the point). And it was always the same: When the game starts, most seats in the arena are still empty! WTF?! This is unheard of in european sports. Here, games even get DELAYED if a large fan group couldn't make it to the stadium in time due to heavy traffic or something similar. Also, there never seem to be any fan made choreographies in any arena. Has any US stadium ever seen anything like this? (Note, this is planned and executed by FANS, not by the club!)

At 8/3/16 01:56 PM, Haggard wrote: I never understood the US audience anyway. I've been watching some NBA games on TV (more like, I downloaded the broadcast after the match was over from certain sources, but that's beside the point). And it was always the same: When the game starts, most seats in the arena are still empty! WTF?! This is unheard of in european sports.

Sport spectation in the US is very different from the rest of the world, yes. It's very sanitized to be family-friendly. If you attempt to have a hot dog and a soda during a Dortmund v Bayern match... hahaha

Also, there never seem to be any fan made choreographies in any arena. Has any US stadium ever seen anything like this? (Note, this is planned and executed by FANS, not by the club!)

The most i've seen out of US fans is the very generic "Defense!" and "Let's go, [insert team name which is either an animal or may or may not be offensive to an entire race]!". That, or some song from the late '80s, early '90s when the clock is stopped, because that's a thing. There's also time-outs, commercial breaks, "downs", "innings"... but i'm pet-peeving about things that are irrelevant to the thread.

But yeah, inter-sport (or in the case of what we're talking about, intra-sport-inter-gender) scheduling conflicts have a most likely negligible effect on viewership on either one of the sports. You like what you like. It's summertime, there's nothing on that interests me except for a race every weekend. It's golf and tennis season, though... but you couldn't force me to watch that shit if you were a small puppet on a tricycle with lipstick on his cheeks.

Hope Solo talked shit about Zika and th Third Worlders got all butthurt about it.

those are polluted streams going into the clean ocean