Rio Scandals: Is It Ready, Will The Place Kill You & More!

[evilmindatwork]

43 minutes ago, Princess Sparkle said:

I'll believe her if she can define what satire means.  I mean, good lord, that video is awful.

 I refrained from weighing in on the Ryan Lochte situation until the whole story was out, and I realize this may sound naive, but I expected better from him.  When I first heard the story, I really gave him the benefit of the doubt - I'd watched his show (I KNOW) and always came off with the impression that while he was a dim bulb, he had good intentions.  However, now knowing everything that we know, I just think of him as this man-child that refuses to take responsibility for his actions.  I do believe he's sorry, but I think that's because he knows he tarnished his image badly and that it's going to affect his brand, not necessarily because he thinks he did anything wrong.  To quote many a parent (including my own), I guess I'm not so much mad as I am disappointed.  I want to give him a version of Tyra's "WE WERE ALL ROOTING FOR YOU!" speech.    

Exactly this. I've had a mild attraction to him since my freshman year of college (for context, I'm 28), but I think this incident has finally put that to rest. The Mindy GIF above totally sums up feelings for Lochte. 

Edited August 22, 2016 by evilmindatwork

[legaleagle53]

3 minutes ago, evilmindatwork said:

Exactly this. I've had a mild attraction to him since my early years of college (for context, I'm 28), but I think this incident has finally put that to rest. The Mindy GIF above totally sums up feelings for Lochte. 

Yeah, I'd still do him -- IF every other eligible man on the planet had already died and IF he agreed not to speak, or even to think, while we were doing it.

[merylinkid]

Going back to a perma City host.   That might be worthwhile because hosting once means you have to spend billions on single use buildings.   Sure they promise to convert the buildings over, but that rarely happens.   Plus there are the one time security costs.    The Olympics promise a huge return on investment (the NFL does the same thing with the Super Bowl) but in reality, when you have independent economists look at it, the host cities usually lose money on these things.

With a perma host city you can have tourism to the sites even when not in use.   Athletes can train pay to train there.   Etc.   The original Olympics did this to make money in the "offseason."   Now with the costs of things, it might not help these days.   But it's an idea that should be at least considered.   If there are complaints about preferences for "rich" countries, well stick in Eastern Europe, or Asia.   Not to insult them, but you know what I mean.   It doesn't have to be the US or Western Europe or China.  

[galax-arena]

Exactly this. I've had a mild attraction to him since my freshman year of college (for context, I'm 28), but I think this incident has finally put that to rest. The Mindy GIF above totally sums up feelings for Lochte.

Yeah, I'd still do him -- IF every other eligible man on the planet had already died and IF he agreed not to speak, or even to think, while we were doing it.

I still say y'all are crazy. He was never cute, dammit, even before he opened his mouth. I realize the whole lesbian thing might skew my perspective, but I can still acknowledge when a guy is good-looking, like when straight girls recognize other girls are gorgeous. And Ryan Lochte is not and never was gorgeous! 

...What do you mean, YMMV? I refuse to accept that other people's preferences differ. THIS IS MY HILL TO DIE ON. 

[jjj]

Lochte lost the mattress company endorsement that had said earlier today it would not drop him:  http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/ryan-lochte-loses-endorsements-rio-controversy/story?id=41578922

[Noreaster]

4 hours ago, biakbiak said:

But this very rarely is what actually happens. Just look at the destruction caused in Beijing and Sochi for two recent examples where harm was actually caused to many citizens.

Aside from the temporary inconvenience caused by the games, what destruction and harm did the Olympics cause that would not have occurred anyway in those cities?

 

4 hours ago, Matt K said:

Although I read an article (can't remember where from) talking about how hosting the Olympics is usually a net loss for the host city so "rich getting richer" might not actually be the case.  And it's not like poorer nations should or could host (as it takes a lot of capitol to build and I hate for one of these countries to spend a ton of money for something that's going to be a net loss financially). 

I think there are ways to set it up to appease the other nations and obviously the host nation shouldn't get a permanent auto-qualify for all events.  My personal thought it set it up in Greece (no one can really complain about that, given the historic context and honestly I can't think of anywhere else that makes sense), let other nations help pay for the venue (with some reward, maybe profit sharing or something).  That way the host doesn't go bankrupt building and maintaining these structures.  I just think that unless building these structures somehow becomes significantly cheaper, it doesn't make sense to build these venues and then most are never used again.

I think it's important to look at the potential long-term impact of these games. Yes, a great deal of capital investment is needed. But a good portion goes towards infrastructure that might improve living standards for the locals. Better roads, new railways, increased public spaces, etc.  Things that the countries/cities might not actually invest in over the short term if it were not for the Olympics and which are likely to be more meaningful for emerging economies rather than established ones.  There are also intangible benefits to hosting these games.  It is a marketing tool to increase the country's/city's profile on the global stage while it can also help improve national pride and make its citizens happier.  

Sure, hosting the Olympics in only one city might make more sense from a pure financial perspective, i.e. the Olympics might be more profitable in the very short-term.  But there is more to the games than that.  Or there should be.  I think there needs to be changes to the current business model where costs are out of control, but the solution shouldn't be to just help out one or a few select countries.  

Edited August 22, 2016 by Noreaster

[evilmindatwork]

27 minutes ago, galax-arena said:

 

I still say y'all are crazy. He was never cute, dammit, even before he opened his mouth. I realize the whole lesbian thing might skew my perspective, but I can still acknowledge when a guy is good-looking, like when straight girls recognize other girls are gorgeous. And Ryan Lochte is not and never was gorgeous! 

...What do you mean, YMMV? I refuse to accept that other people's preferences differ. THIS IS MY HILL TO DIE ON. 

But. But. But. LOOK at these. His nose looks a bit like a squashed potato tbh, I need him to be in profile at all times. 

http://jezebel.com/speedo-is-no-longer-paying-for-this-1785596396

[A.Ham]

Neglected and Recycled Olympic Stadiums From Around the World

For what it's worth...

[redpencil]

11 minutes ago, Noreaster said:

Sure, hosting the Olympics in only one city might make more sense from a pure financial perspective, i.e. the Olympics might be more profitable in the very short-term.  But there is more to the games than that.  Or there should be.  I think there needs to be changes to the current business model where costs are out of control.  But the solution shouldn't be to just help out one or a few select countries.  

Agree. Aside from infrastructure costs, another consideration could be the boredom factor. If you have the Olympics the same place every year, does that hurt attendance? Not just from locals, but also tourists? Might some fans be more likely to fly to Tokyo or wherever when it's somewhere new most years, or to the same city it's been in for multiple Olympics? And what about the athletes? I'd wager it wouldn't hurt whether athletes actually go, but I think there is some psychological/emotional component when you can look forward to Tokyo 2020 or Pyeongyang 2018 rather than [Same city as always] 2020.

And even if you do away with giving extra slots to the host country, you still have the permanent home-country advantage for those athletes. 

I just don't think a permanent home (or even a small number of rotating permanent homes) is a good solution. What needs to happen is IOC reform, where the bid cities don't have to focus on outdoing every other city, and reusing or repurposing existing venues is viewed as perfectly okay and expected. And what new venues that do have to be built don't have to win architecture awards. Then you might have cities that could manage it actually be more likely to bid. You wouldn't have a Kazakhstan vs. Beijing again situation.

Edited August 22, 2016 by redpencil

[evilmindatwork]

This is an interesting and balanced take of both the costs and benefits of hosting for Rio.   

Edited August 22, 2016 by evilmindatwork

[Occasional Hope]

58 minutes ago, legaleagle53 said:

Yeah, I'd still do him -- IF every other eligible man on the planet had already died and IF he agreed not to speak, or even to think, while we were doing it.

I don't think you have to worry about him thinking.

[legaleagle53]

19 minutes ago, Occasional Hope said:

I don't think you have to worry about him thinking.

He's too young for me anyway -- I don't do juvenile delinquents.

[MaKaM]

54 minutes ago, galax-arena said:

 

I still say y'all are crazy. He was never cute, dammit, even before he opened his mouth. I realize the whole lesbian thing might skew my perspective, but I can still acknowledge when a guy is good-looking, like when straight girls recognize other girls are gorgeous. And Ryan Lochte is not and never was gorgeous! 

...What do you mean, YMMV? I refuse to accept that other people's preferences differ. THIS IS MY HILL TO DIE ON. 

I am straight and never found him appealing until they did a late night segment on him and showed he loves his dog. Okay, I softened a little there. But otherwise, never saw much appeal. I will also admit that I think Tori Bowie is my new girl-crush.

I also think that from a certain point of view, he was exaggerating for attention and not exactly lying. It seems the elements of the story were there, taxi, badges, guns, money exchanging hands (though not Lochte's it seems) in a dodgy way and to a drunken idiot asshole, those have the makings of a fine story to get a little limelight back. If the gas station owner tried to get a bit more out of them than was strictly necessary to cover the cost of spraying down the wall and replacing the poster, well, who can blame him? If Lochte wanted to make himself out to be the hero he already is in his own mind, well, he's an idiot. Idiot + booze + "adventures" = finally I am getting some attention away from Michael Phelps!

[Kromm]

8 hours ago, evilmindatwork said:

John Oliver joined in on the fun:

Trust in LWT's editing team to find such a great collection of Lochte illustrating his Lochteness.  And in Oliver to find so many fun ways to insult Lochte in such a short piece.

"The purest form of the chemical element Bro" is one I will definitely remember!

[roamyn]

At one point homeless people were squatting in abandoned Sarajevo venues...until the civil war destroyed them.

But repurpose venues for homeless is a good start on what to do with these buildings. 

And Los Angeles did not lose money.  But they might've been the only ones.  Perhaps Lake Placid, because of how they've repurposed the sites.  I do remember talk of how Montreal went bankrupt because of the Olympics.

[biakbiak]

3 hours ago, Noreaster said:

Aside from the temporary inconvenience caused by the games, what destruction and harm did the Olympics cause that would not have occurred anyway in those cities?

 

I think it's important to look at the potential long-term impact of these games. Yes, a great deal of capital investment is needed. But a good portion goes towards infrastructure that might improve living standards for the locals. Better roads, new railways, increased public spaces, etc.  Things that the countries/cities might not actually invest in over the short term if it were not for the Olympics and which are likely to be more meaningful for emerging economies rather than established ones.  There are also intangible benefits to hosting these games.  It is a marketing tool to increase the country's/city's profile on the global stage while it can also help improve national pride and make its citizens happier.  

Sure, hosting the Olympics in only one city might make more sense from a pure financial perspective, i.e. the Olympics might be more profitable in the very short-term.  But there is more to the games than that.  Or there should be.  I think there needs to be changes to the current business model where costs are out of control, but the solution shouldn't be to just help out one or a few select countries.  

People in Beijing were forcibly removed from their homes by police so they could be destroyed to make room for the venues, both cities had issues with not paying workers and horrible working conditions, money was diverted from services to pay for the Olympics, in Sochi even though the the stadiums are not being used money is still being diverted to keep them up, replacement housing that was given to people after theor houses were seized has not been kept up, activists, human rights lawyers, and other "controversial" figures were arrested or confined to their homes during the run up to the games and many, many other things.

In Rio money has been diverted from social services, etc.

Real Sports did a great piece on the IOC that also showed the negative impact on Olympic cities.

[kokapetl]

The International Olympic Committee would never accept the idea of permanent host cities. Being courted and bribed is what they're all about. Host cities losing money is definitely not a material consideration. Attempting to be profitable is probably working against any American city's bid these days. 

[Kromm]

1 hour ago, Kokapetl said:

The International Olympic Committee would never accept the idea of permanent host cities. Being courted and bribed is what they're all about. Host cities losing money is definitely not a material consideration. Attempting to be profitable is probably working against any American city's bid these days. 

This kind of change will only happen if there's some kind of demolition of the current IOC, the way FIFA was forced to undergo. Which only ever happened because there was a relative outsider with power (the US) to put pressure on with criminal charges.  And there's no powerful outsider to do that with the Olympics. 

And even there it's too early to say if that made any real long term difference to FIFA. 

[renatae]

On 8/18/2016 at 2:22 PM, stealinghome said:

Not defending Lochte or his massive douchebaggery/idiocy here, but it's possible he was shaken by the incident and called his mom because, well, that's what many people do when they're upset. Moms have the magical superpower of making you feel better. Is the report still that the police officer drew his gun on them? If so, regardless of the circumstances, I imagine that having a gun pointed your way is pretty damn frightening (especially if you don't know what's being said to you in a foreign language). So if he calls his mom and strategically omits some information and embellishes some other in his account of what happened, and is probably still drunk or hungover to boot, it's not hard to imagine the story snowballing.

 

 

On 8/18/2016 at 3:07 PM, Arynm said:

After watching the press conference I still am having some doubts on both sides. I find it strange that we can't see any of the supposed bad behavior from the swimmers on CCTV. So far all we have is the word of some gas station attendants and the police. They have many angles, but not that one? I also question the fact that the police don't seem to have any problem with the fact that the security guard pulled a gun on them, demanded they get out of the car, and made them sit on the curb until they paid for any damages. Isn't that called extortion? Never mind that they said the security guard didn't speak English, so the guys might have had no idea that they guy with the gun had any relation to the gas station, they might have thought it was a robbery.

I think they were drunk, but have no idea if they did any damage or peed on the building. Maybe the gas station thought they would be an easy mark.

There is more to come I think

In his interview over this last weekend (8/20 or 8/21) with Bob Costas, that's exactly what Lochte kept saying. In most of the reports from Brazil, it seems that the policeman was off duty and was actually just a customer at the gas station at the time. No matter how many times Costas insisted it was a "negotiated settlement," Lochte insisted he felt they were being held up at gunpoint.

Lochte is a poor match for Costas in a debate, to say the least. At one point, Lochte said he didn't come out and have the "admission" interview before everyone was out of the country because he was afraid that might jeopardize their release. Then Costas asks him didn't he think if he came clean that would have helped and not hindered their release, and Lochte says, oh, yes, sure, by all means, or something to that effect. Complete turnaround. I didn't feel like he was lying. I got the feeling he is one of those people who has a hard time disputing what an insistent person says, and Costas was definitely being insistent. But he absolutely stuck to his claim he felt they were being held up at gunpoint. I can see how a person being dealt with in an unfamiliar language in circumstances like that, while drunk, would make such an assumption. 

They also showed videos of the restroom and said the US film crews could find no evidence of any damage except the remains of the ripped up poster. So, if no real damage was done, it seems reasonable they would not think the money was to pay for any supposed damage, especially as they didn't understand what was being said to them.

I'm not defending the drunkenness and other actions, but I feel like there is some reasonable doubt about the amount of damage and how they interpreted the actions of the people who detained them at the gas station.

Edited August 23, 2016 by renatae

[SnideAsides]

13 hours ago, galaxygirl76 said:

I don't know what the long term results may be but right now they don't have money to pay the police, fire department, teachers, etc. I firmly believe that they never should have gotten the Olympics after getting the World Cup, I'm not even sure why they thought it was a good idea to go forward with the candidacy after they got WC 2014 to begin with. One big event to put billions into is one thing, but two within two years sounds like a lot of money that could have been used for better causes.

It's precisely because they had the World Cup (and the Pan-American Games in 2007, shortly before they were awarded the Olympics in 2009) that they bid for the Olympics: the facilities they'd built were still in usable condition. We've seen what happens in cities like Sarajevo and Athens where stadiums fall into disrepair. It makes sense to bid for the Olympics while you can still use what you have instead of building something for the Pan-Am Games, letting it sit there until it's dilapidated, and having to spend tens of billions of dollars replacing everything.

[biakbiak]

2 hours ago, Kokapetl said:

The International Olympic Committee would never accept the idea of permanent host cities. Being courted and bribed is what they're all about. Host cities losing money is definitely not a material consideration. Attempting to be profitable is probably working against any American city's bid these days. 

The one item I was shocked by from the release of the IOC contract was not all the ridiculous demands about food and special lanes, etc.  but that the IOC decides to give the host city whatever percentage of the revenues they want. I know the history of nearly no cities making a profit but I thought it was based on poor planning or changing economic conditions  not that the host city isn't even guaranteed a base minimum of profits. 

The world should stage a boycott of the Olympic games until they get their house in order. 

[katisha]

14 hours ago, legaleagle53 said:

Yeah, I'd still do him -- IF every other eligible man on the planet had already died and IF he agreed not to speak, or even to think, while we were doing it.

Nah, I couldn't go there.  Men that stupid turn me off so much, I couldn't even consider it.  (Not that he'd want to bump uglies with an old granny my age anyway, but let's leave that part aside!)

[Noreaster]

11 hours ago, biakbiak said:

People in Beijing were forcibly removed from their homes by police so they could be destroyed to make room for the venues, both cities had issues with not paying workers and horrible working conditions, money was diverted from services to pay for the Olympics, in Sochi even though the the stadiums are not being used money is still being diverted to keep them up, replacement housing that was given to people after theor houses were seized has not been kept up, activists, human rights lawyers, and other "controversial" figures were arrested or confined to their homes during the run up to the games and many, many other things.

In Rio money has been diverted from social services, etc.

Real Sports did a great piece on the IOC that also showed the negative impact on Olympic cities.

The Olympics exacerbated some issues but many of these things are not really Olympic-specific.  Human rights issues were already a problem in those cities.  Stadium infrastructure is obviously specific to the Olympics, but other infrastructure like roads and railways and airports are things that the cities would likely eventually need to invest in for the purposes of long-term growth, and whenever this type of infrastructure is built, it is necessary to displace people and their homes.  Happens everywhere, with or without the Olympics.  Lack of money for services has more to do with challenging economic conditions than anything else.  Again, the Olympics made things worse, but not having enough money to pay teachers in Rio for example is really a product of the economic recession and falling commodity prices. Money is not really "diverted" from services when the money budgeted is already earmarked for the Olympics.  

I think the "destruction" caused by the Olympics is overly exaggerated.  Yes, there are negative things that come with the Olympics, but some are actually pre-existing issues.  There are also plenty of positives like I mentioned earlier.  One other thing that I think people overlook is that the local economy typically gets a boost while the city/country prepares for the Olympics.  Some of the high costs that go into building infrastructure is labor cost so there are locals who actually benefit there.  

Edited August 23, 2016 by Noreaster

[Noreaster]

7 hours ago, renatae said:

 

 

In his interview over this last weekend (8/20 or 8/21) with Bob Costas, that's exactly what Lochte kept saying. In most of the reports from Brazil, it seems that the policeman was off duty and was actually just a customer at the gas station at the time. No matter how many times Costas insisted it was a "negotiated settlement," Lochte insisted he felt they were being held up at gunpoint.

Lochte is a poor match for Costas in a debate, to say the least. At one point, Lochte said he didn't come out and have the "admission" interview before everyone was out of the country because he was afraid that might jeopardize their release. Then Costas asks him didn't he think if he came clean that would have helped and not hindered their release, and Lochte says, oh, yes, sure, by all means, or something to that effect. Complete turnaround. I didn't feel like he was lying. I got the feeling he is one of those people who has a hard time disputing what an insistent person says, and Costas was definitely being insistent. But he absolutely stuck to his claim he felt they were being held up at gunpoint. I can see how a person being dealt with in an unfamiliar language in circumstances like that, while drunk, would make such an assumption. 

They also showed videos of the restroom and said the US film crews could find no evidence of any damage except the remains of the ripped up poster. So, if no real damage was done, it seems reasonable they would not think the money was to pay for any supposed damage, especially as they didn't understand what was being said to them.

I'm not defending the drunkenness and other actions, but I feel like there is some reasonable doubt about the amount of damage and how they interpreted the actions of the people who detained them at the gas station.

I think you mean Matt Lauer, not Bob Costas.

I think the reason why Matt Lauer was so insistent is because there was a translator involved.  So while there may have been some confusion early on because of the language barrier, once the translator became involved, the situation should have been pretty clear to all involved.  The gas station employees wanted restitution for the damages and were thinking of calling the police.  The swimmers didn't want the police involved, according to the translator, and asked how much they needed to pay.  Then after money was exchanged, the swimmers were allowed to leave.  

It's possible that Ryan Lochte still didn't understand everything fully because he was so drunk.  But it seemed that his fellow swimmers did, as evidenced by their statements.  Here's one of them in case you didn't see it:

http://www.georgiadogs.com/sports/c-swim/spec-rel/081916aac.html

Edited August 23, 2016 by Noreaster

[mtlchick]

9 hours ago, Kokapetl said:

The International Olympic Committee would never accept the idea of permanent host cities. Being courted and bribed is what they're all about. Host cities losing money is definitely not a material consideration. Attempting to be profitable is probably working against any American city's bid these days. 

 

John Oliver had a fabulous segment about the 2022 Games voting. 

[Danny Franks]

13 hours ago, biakbiak said:

People in Beijing were forcibly removed from their homes by police so they could be destroyed to make room for the venues, both cities had issues with not paying workers and horrible working conditions, money was diverted from services to pay for the Olympics, in Sochi even though the the stadiums are not being used money is still being diverted to keep them up, replacement housing that was given to people after theor houses were seized has not been kept up, activists, human rights lawyers, and other "controversial" figures were arrested or confined to their homes during the run up to the games and many, many other things.

In Rio money has been diverted from social services, etc.

Real Sports did a great piece on the IOC that also showed the negative impact on Olympic cities.

Seoul and Barcelona are two examples of how incredibly beneficial hosting the Olympic Games can be, to cities and countries that are prepared to effect real change. Now, in both those cases, the cities were in dire need of regeneration, and it had long been in the planning stages.

South Korea committed to a massive rebuilding and regeneration programme, and some now credit those Olympics with being at least partially responsible for South Korea's emergence as an economic and democratic force in South East Asia. And Barcelona, prior to the games, was an industrial town with little of interest to the outside world, the works of Gaudi largely forgotten. Now it's seen as a centre of culture for Catalonia and Spain, and one of the best tourist destinations in Europe. It's a glorious city to visit. Their Olympic Park is wonderfully preserved and is still used for events in the city.

And yes, in both cases there were people who lost out, due to the regeneration of the city. But sadly, that's an unavoidable byproduct of any urban renewal programme. It's always going to happen, and what matters is how the country deals with those people.

I don't know as much about the Atlanta Games legacy, but this quote, from thisbigcity.net,  seems to declare them a success for the city:

Quote

Atlanta’s inner-city benefitted most from the legacy. The Centennial Olympic Park was the centerpiece of the downtown revitalisation, attracting a number of high rises and museums along its periphery. At the time of construction, the Park was the largest urban green space to be created in the U.S. in 25 years, and today attracts millions of visitors annually. 20 percent of the tax generated from the Games was channeled into regeneration of the city’s poorer areas.

Honestly, I think the legacy of the Olympics is what you make of it, whether in regards to grassroots sport or the prosperity of the host city. Some countries simply don't have the economic resources to make the most of it, and some just don't seem to care that much. This is why I think that the selection process of host cities should be scrutinised far more closely than it is, and should be about more than just how much money the IOC can make and how impressive the plans for various stadia are.

[DollEyes]

On 8/21/2016 at 9:47 PM, magdalene said:

Personally I do blame Lochte for the mess he is in.  I certainly don't blame myself.

And somebody up thread mentioned the most recent horrible suicide bombing as an example of why we should not get our collective panties in a twist over Lochte.  You can't compare the two. 

I can find suicide bombings and terrorist attacks abhorrent and awful and still believe that Lochte shouldn't get a pass.  Most bad things people do will be less awful than terrorist acts just because the level of awful involved - but that doesn't mean people should be getting away with crimes.

  Exactly. People can care about at least two things at once. It's possible to express solidarity with Feyisa Lilesa, the Ethiopian runner who can't return to his home country because of the massacre, condolences to the family of the late Stefan Herze, the German slalom coach who died and contempt for Ryan Lochte at the same time.

[xaxat]

There are occasional exceptions, but in most cases, economists have found that hosting mega events (Olympics, World Cup, Super Bowl) are a bad deal for the host cities.

“Going for the Gold: The Economics of the Olympics”

Quote

Each of these costs and benefits will be addressed in turn, but the overwhelming conclusion is that in most cases the Olympics are a money-losing proposition for host cities; they result in positive net benefits only under very specific and unusual circumstances. 

“The Illusory Economic Gains from Hosting the Olympics World Cup”

Quote

Scholarly evidence suggests that hosting either the IOC’s Olympic Games or FIFA’s World Cup event is no economic bargain for the host city or country. 
According to official reports, in London 2012, the city brought in around US$3.5 billion in revenues, and spent in excess US$18 billion – a negative balance of $14 billion plus.

“About Winning: The Political Economy of Awarding the World Cup and the Olympic Games”

Quote

However, the unjustified claim that these events produce substantial economic benefits can (a) mislead people into believing that their taxes are being productively spent on social regeneration rather than just funding mass entertainment, and (b) lead some private individuals to invest their own wealth in the expectation that an event will generate returns when it is unlikely to do so.”

It's one subject that conservative and liberal economists agree on.

[Danny Franks]

^ But the occasional exceptions in the case of the Olympics amount to three of the last seven Games. And in the case of Beijing and London, the benefits are still being weighed. It's not just economic, it's cultural and societal, and in the case of Seoul, it brought genuine political change to the country.

Some of these things would be considered worth the cost. The more nebulous factors that include national confidence and the long term economic benefits that might take years and years to realise. I agree that anyone expecting immediate returns on the vast outlay for something like the Olympics is dreaming, but I don't think any of the countries that have hosted the Games would have believed this was the case.

As far as I can tell, the only Olympic Games of the last thirty years that hasn't resulted in genuine renewal for a host city, and in marked benefits, is Athens. Because they didn't have the either the resources or the commitment to press ahead with the needed public investment to turn the new facilities and infrastructure into a sustainable success. A lot of that is down to the inherent weakness of the Greek economy where, as has become painfully clear over the last few years, they have such a lax attitude to fiscal responsibility and taxation that there is nothing to fall back on when markets go bad.

In the UK at the moment, we are still debating the legacy of London 2012, and that debate rarely focuses on whether the Olympics provided any sort of economic boost. We're talking about the regeneration of East London, the improving of infrastructure and facilities and housing in the area, and the grassroots sporting initiatives that have grown out of it. One of the main goals was to encourage sport in the nation's children. To get kids out and get them exercising. Whether with the serious goal of one day being elite athletes or just to get them more active and more healthy. 

To me, that's how the Olympic Games should be judged. But it's also why I don't feel they should be forced onto economies or countries that are too weak or unstable to absorb the economic hit and turn it into wider success.

[ElDosEquis]

Ryan Lochte is a life support system for a penis.

Lochte was a danger to himself when he started swimming, until he was told to turn around when he got close to a wall. He got TBI from hitting the wall so often.

Lochte's problems started when he had to pee and there was no pool around for him to relieve himself.

[caracas1914]

The old saying "it's not the crime, it's the coverup" rings true once again.

Lochte at some point flat out lied and apparently convinced his fellow swimmers to go along.  While it seemed dramatic for the Brazilian authorities  to pull them off their flight, I don't  doubt if they had all managed (as Lochte did) to have left Brazil and been safely back in the US, their original account would have continued to be the one they related, Brazil be damned.

Lochte was admittedly  drunk, but after his mom inadvertently went to the press,  and then the media confronted him, Lochte  could have had  an "aha" moment where he 'fessed up about being too drunk to remember all the particulars and everyone would have shrugged and said "well that's just Lochte being Lochte" again.   Instead Lochte  doubled down on the lies, so it wasn't so much his lack of intelligence as much as his lack of character.

There are also dumb people who do the right thing at times.

Edited August 23, 2016 by caracas1914

[renatae]

6 hours ago, Noreaster said:

I think you mean Matt Lauer, not Bob Costas.

I think the reason why Matt Lauer was so insistent is because there was a translator involved.  So while there may have been some confusion early on because of the language barrier, once the translator became involved, the situation should have been pretty clear to all involved.  The gas station employees wanted restitution for the damages and were thinking of calling the police.  The swimmers didn't want the police involved, according to the translator, and asked how much they needed to pay.  Then after money was exchanged, the swimmers were allowed to leave.  

It's possible that Ryan Lochte still didn't understand everything fully because he was so drunk.  But it seemed that his fellow swimmers did, as evidenced by their statements.  Here's one of them in case you didn't see it:

http://www.georgiadogs.com/sports/c-swim/spec-rel/081916aac.html

I didn't see the Matt Lauer interview. It was Bob Costas, and he was pretty rough on Ryan. I've seen various statements that the other swimmers agreed they thought it was a robbery, and others where they disagreed. Everything's pretty murky. However, Ryan not being the brightest bulb as well as having been drunk makes his account of how he felt at least arguable.

I've seen so many conflicting reports of what happened as well as conflicting statements that it seems almost impossible to determine what actually happened, so I'm retiring from armchair judgement until further notice.  :)

[ratgirlagogo]

3 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

The more nebulous factors that include national confidence

You mean a spiritual benefit?  Seems like there are cheaper less destructive ways to achieve that.

Edited August 23, 2016 by ratgirlagogo

[jjj]

"What Should Ryan Lochte do?"  http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2016/08/ryan-lochte-next-move 

Basically says what some of us have been saying here, which is that swimming is his way out of this -- and that may not be open to him, depending on the US Swimming sanctions.  There are always new athletes whose endorsements are preferred -- once you are at the top of the heap (like Phelps), the trick is to stay up there as long as possible, because the yielding to younger athletes begins at some point.  Lochte was not at the top of the heap, and he jumped from his perch with this incident. 

[Irlandesa]

This cracked me up:

[SnideAsides]

In case you missed it, the Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld the IPC's decision on Russia. No Russian athletes will be at the Paralympics.

[Noreaster]

Statement from Jimmy Feigen:

http://thehullfirm.com/official-statement-james-feigen/

Quote

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Austin, Texas August 23, 2016

First and foremost I would like to apologize for the serious distractions from the Olympics, Rio de Janeiro, and Team USA. It was never my intent to draw attention away from the tradition of athletic competition and the symbolic cooperation of countries participating in the Olympic games. I want to thank the IOC and the people of Rio de Janeiro for their hospitality in hosting these games. I have nothing but respect for the city in undertaking the massive responsibility of hosting the Olympics and I feel their performance was exemplary.

I also apologize for the delay in this statement as I just arrived back home late Saturday evening. That being said, I would like to take the time to explain my thoughts on the events that began on August 14th.

This unfortunate incident began after leaving a celebration at the French House. We left the party at around 5:00 am in a taxi to travel back to the Athlete Village. On our way back we asked the cab driver to pull over so we could relieve ourselves. We pulled over to a gas station to use the bathroom but the door was locked. We did not force entry into the bathroom, nor did we ever enter the bathroom. We did, however, make the regrettable decision to urinate in the grass behind the building.

On our way back to the cab, Ryan Lochte pulled a poster in a metal frame off a wall. I got back into the cab and waited for the others. One of my teammates told me that a man with a gun was standing outside the cab. The man with the gun spoke with the cab driver, who got out of the cab. We then got out of the cab and I paid the driver the fare. As I walked away, the man with the gun pointed it at me and my teammate and ordered us, in Portuguese, to sit. This was the first time I have ever had a gun pointed at me and I was terrified.

I put my hands up and sat down on the curb. It became apparent that the man with the gun was telling us to pay, and I was unsure if they were affiliated with the gas station. Gunnar Bentz and I gave the man some money. We were then allowed to leave and we took another cab to the Village, arriving around 7:00 am. Later that day, a Rio police detective came to the USA House to take a statement. Since I was the only person available, I was told by a USOC official to provide a statement.

In this statement, I omitted the facts that we urinated behind the building and that Ryan Lochte pulled a poster off the wall. This statement was written by the officers in Portuguese, and I was then asked to sign the statement without seeing it translated into English. I realize that I made a mistake by omitting these facts. I was trying to protect my teammates and for this I apologize.

On the day I was scheduled to leave Rio, I was told that the police were investigating the matter and my passport was to be held until further information was provided. I was asked to stay in the country so I voluntarily provided my passport to the police and waited while the matter was investigated. I contacted lawyers in the United States and in Rio de Janeiro and awaited instruction.

I was informed by my Brazilian attorney that the police were requesting I make a follow-up statement. I provided the statement at the police station, which included the previous omissions. From there I was taken to the Brazilian court. I waited outside while my attorney, the prosecutor, and the judge met to decide what to do.

I was eventually given two options. Option one was to remain in Brazil while the police continued the investigation. This process was estimated to take at least a month and I would be required to remain in Brazil. Option two was pay a fine of R$100,000.00 ($31,250.00 USD) for the return of my passport and perform fifteen days of community service. I called my American attorneys to discuss what to do. We decided that this amount was unreasonable and due to safety concerns, this offer was also rejected. The prosecutor’s response was to increase the fine to R$150,000.00 ($46,875.00 USD).

Finally, all parties agreed to a R$35,000.00 ($10,800.00 USD) fine. This fine was to be paid within three days. If it was not paid, the fine would be increased back to R$150,000.00. I was able to contact my family in the United States along with my American attorneys and we were able to satisfy the payment of the fine the next day. My passport was returned to me after payment was received, and I was able to return home.

The support of my family, friends, and attorneys was paramount in my ability to return home. I am so sorry for the drama this has caused in everyone’s lives. I am very thankful to be home in the United States with my family and that this ordeal has come to an end.

# # #

James Feigen has retained Mark Hull and Daniel Wannamaker for all matters related to the above statement. Please direct all communication to this office.

[kimaken]

Well, I'm still confused as to why Feigen was the only swimmer who had to pay a fine. I thought the guys did not file an official police report, yet Lochte got out of the country before the story blew up so spectacularly, 2 others were detained, gave statements, and then were released without having to pay anything, while the 4th guy was still detained and had to pay a huge fine to get out. I feel like Feigen was the scapegoat made to pay for all of them.  Evidently there is no set "fine" for whatever Feigen was eventually charged with (peeing in the bushes? omitting facts to police, therefore lying to police?), but this poor guy had to pay the taxi driver, plus he paid the largest amount of cash (about $50) to the gas station security guys, AND he got stuck paying a lot of money (almost $11,000--reduced from $31,250 and $46,875!)  in order to return home. Plus, his swimming career is probably ruined, too.

I'm not saying he should have gotten a free pass, but Feigen paid the steepest price for this incident.

[Crs97]

I agree that Feigen was left holding the bag, which is unfair, but I do wonder how he thought he could explain giving money to security guards without explaining why and have it not look like he was reporting a robbery.  What a mess over a torn poster and wet, smelly grass.

[doodlebug]

2 hours ago, kimaken said:

Well, I'm still confused as to why Feigen was the only swimmer who had to pay a fine

I'm not saying he should have gotten a free pass, but Feigen paid the steepest price for this incident.

According to what we've read, the two guys who were later removed from the plane were never asked to give a statement prior to that time.  It sounds like the police came to the Village and Feigen was the only one they could find and so, because he gave an initial statement that was inaccurate, he was liable for having interfered with an investigation.  The other 2 guys never lied, because they were never interviewed until after things fell apart.  As for Lochte, he certainly told the biggest whopper of all, but managed to leave the country before the fit hit the shan.  I presume, were he ever to return to Brazil, he could be charged with a similar crime as Feigen.

[vavera4ka]

On ‎8‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 7:22 PM, pennben said:

In my mind, when I saw the other athletes standing as Gabby did, I took it as a sign of support of her by them (who knows whether it was or not).  And that to me, is a more effective display of American 'values' (standing up for teammate/countryman), if you will, than a rote-without-thinking requirement to put one's hand over one's heart.

I like a saying going around after Gabby's case.

You know what's more American than putting your hand over your heart during the anthem? Ability to choose not to.

[jjj]

Wow, those "fines" are sounding more and more like extortion to me.  I have to say that I appreciate the combination of contrition and apparent accuracy in Feigen's statement.  And one quibble I have with the USOC is that because it asked Feigen to meet with the authorities, it should have provided an attorney to look over the statement in Portuguese he signed.  How could the USOC not expect something to go sideways in that situation?

Wow, those "fines" are sounding more and more like extortion to me.  I have to say that I appreciate the combination of contrition and apparent accuracy in Feigen's statement.  And one quibble I have with the USOC is that because it asked Feigen to meet with the authorities, it should have provided an attorney to look over the statement in Portuguese he signed.  How could the USOC not expect something to go sideways in that situation?

Wow, those "fines" are sounding more and more like extortion to me.  I have to say that I appreciate the combination of contrition and apparent accuracy in Feigen's statement.  And one quibble I have with the USOC is that because it asked Feigen to meet with the authorities, it should have provided an attorney to look over the statement in Portuguese he signed.  How could the USOC not expect something to go sideways in that situation?

[Constantinople]

51 minutes ago, jjj said:

Wow, those "fines" are sounding more and more like extortion to me.  I have to say that I appreciate the combination of contrition and apparent accuracy in Feigen's statement.  And one quibble I have with the USOC is that because it asked Feigen to meet with the authorities, it should have provided an attorney to look over the statement in Portuguese he signed.  How could the USOC not expect something to go sideways in that situation?

I'm generally not on the side of law enforcement authorities who seek tens of thousands of dollars for making a "false statement" when the statement was made in a language they knew the person doesn't understand.  I don't see a reason to make an exception here.

[Noreaster]

1 hour ago, jjj said:

Wow, those "fines" are sounding more and more like extortion to me.  I have to say that I appreciate the combination of contrition and apparent accuracy in Feigen's statement.  And one quibble I have with the USOC is that because it asked Feigen to meet with the authorities, it should have provided an attorney to look over the statement in Portuguese he signed.  How could the USOC not expect something to go sideways in that situation?

Negotiating plea bargains and settlements is very common.  

Keep in mind that this is a lawyer-crafted press release for Feigen.  When I read this, I actually felt that this was a statement meant to garner sympathy and not really intended to tell the whole truth.  Like when Feigen says that he had to sign something in Portuguese, he's basically implying that he can't be held responsible for that statement.  Like when he says he didn't know that the armed people were working for the gas station and then jumps to how they paid them, yet completely omits any mention of the translator.  Like him mentioning all the back-and-forth with the penalty negotiations including the larger fines that were proposed...I think this was clearly meant to make people feel bad for him.  

I appreciate learning some additional details on Feigen's role, but I don't really think any better of him. He stupidly lied ("omitted", whatever), just like Lochte did.  Isn't it interesting that Feigen had the piece of mind to pay the cab driver after the armed man approached the cab (so he very likely didn't feel any danger at that point), yet is still going to suggest that he didn't know why the armed guards were holding them.  

Edited August 24, 2016 by Noreaster

[FilmTVGeek80]

15 minutes ago, Constantinople said:

I'm generally not on the side of law enforcement authorities who seek tens of thousands of dollars for making a "false statement" when the statement was made in a language they knew the person doesn't understand.  I don't see a reason to make an exception here.

 

 

He's the idiot who chose to sign it. And chose to lie in his statement. So not feeling oodles of sympathy for him.

Quote

Keep in mind that this is a lawyer-crafted press release for Feigen.  When I read this, I actually felt that this was a statement meant to garner sympathy and not really intended to tell the whole truth.  Like when Feigen says that he had to sign something in Portuguese, he's basically implying that he can't be held responsible for that statement.  Like when he says he didn't know that the armed people were working for the gas station and then jumps to how they paid them, yet completely omits any mention of the translator.  Like him mentioning all the back-and-forth with the penalty negotiations including the larger fines that were proposed...I think this was clearly meant to make people feel bad for him.  

I appreciate learning some additional details on Feigen's role, but I don't really think any better of him. He stupidly lied ("omitted", whatever), just like Lochte did.  Isn't it interesting that Feigen had the piece of mind to pay the cab driver after the armed man approached the cab (so he very likely didn't feel any danger at that point), yet is still going to suggest that they didn't know why the armed guards were holding them.  

1

Exactly! This is coming from Feigen and to me, it did read as trying to paint him in the most innocent light possible. And, yeah, when I read his statement, I wondered why he omitted the part about the translator. Just like Lochte, he made it seem like they had no idea what was going on when they handed over the money.

There are so many conflicting reports, but if it's true that the three of them offered to pay the gas station money then get the cops involved, then this is more of the same. He could have waited for the investigation to play out, but decided to pay the fine. Again, no sympathy here.

This in the "but of course" department. https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/ryan-lochte-talks-join-season-171509326.html

Edited August 24, 2016 by FilmTVGeek80

[dcalley]

6 hours ago, Noreaster said:

This statement was written by the officers in Portuguese, and I was then asked to sign the statement without seeing it translated into English.

Brokedown Palace taught me to never sign something in another language!

This lawyer-aided statement is kind of weird.

[paperplate]

As more facts are revealed about Lochtegate, the more ridiculous the whole situation becomes.   A single green pea the size of Lochte's brain started rolling down a hill and became a boulder.

[SoCal Mema]

I just read that Lochte may sign on to do Dancing With The Stars.  SWEET. JESUS.  Can he just go away for awhile and sit quietly?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/olympics/ryan-lochte-in-talks-to-join-season-23-of-dancing-with-the-stars-cast-after-rio-controversy/ar-BBvZYf6?li=BBnba9I

[kimaken]

44 minutes ago, Noreaster said:

Keep in mind that this is a lawyer-crafted press release for Feigen.  When I read this, I actually felt that this was a statement meant to garner sympathy and not really intended to tell the whole truth.  Like when Feigen says that he had to sign something in Portuguese, he's basically implying that he can't be held responsible for that statement.  Like when he says he didn't know that the armed people were working for the gas station and then jumps to how they paid them, yet completely omits any mention of the translator.  Like him mentioning all the back-and-forth with the penalty negotiations including the larger fines that were proposed...I think this was clearly meant to make people feel bad for him.  

I appreciate learning some additional details on Feigen's role, but I don't really think any better of him. He stupidly lied ("omitted", whatever), just like Lochte did.  Isn't it interesting that Feigen had the piece of mind to pay the cab driver after the armed man approached the cab (so he very likely didn't feel any danger at that point), yet is still going to suggest that he didn't know why the armed guards were holding them.  

Yes--there are still a lot of holes in the whole story and the fact that Feigen's statement omitted the guy who came along and served as translator when this went down doesn't help the situation at all--he's still telling only half-truths by omission.  Nonetheless, I feel bad that he--alone--out of all these guys (with Lochte being the most vocal and was actually the one who caused the damage to the poster at the gas station) had to pay out all that money so he could leave the country--either stay there for a trial and spend thousands of dollars living out of a hotel until said trial would take place, or pay thousands of dollars for a "get-out-of-jail-card"--he was truly caught between a rock and a hard place.

All 4 guys were in the wrong and all should have paid some fines--the 2 lesser involved guys getting lower fines, the other 2 (Lochte and Feigen) getting higher fines -- even though Lochte was already out of the country, the fine would be public knowledge and he'd either have to save face and pay it from the U.S. or be under more public scrutiny/shamed/etc for not doing the right thing. He's said that he should pay the fine, but I haven't heard anything about him actually paying anybody or reimbursing Feigen any money. Maybe that will happen in the coming weeks?

[windsprints]

No surprise at all that Lochte is in talks with DWTS.  Many here guessed he'd go the reality show route and someone upthread called DWTS as where'd he go first.  Prediction: a year or two from now this will be nothing more than a footnote. He'll be swimming and probably even getting some endorsement deals. Athletes have come back from far worse than this.

Quote

Well, I'm still confused as to why Feigen was the only swimmer who had to pay a fine. I thought the guys did not file an official police report, yet Lochte got out of the country before the story blew up so spectacularly, 2 others were detained, gave statements, and then were released without having to pay anything, while the 4th guy was still detained and had to pay a huge fine to get out. I feel like Feigen was the scapegoat made to pay for all of them.

I'm just guessing but I think its because he didn't tell the police about peeing in the grass or Lochte ripping down the poster the first time they interviewed him so that is where he withheld information from the investigation. The other 2 swimmers never gave an initial statement and told the police about the peeing and the poster in their statements.

Plea bargains are common everywhere but the fee going up after being rejected wouldn't have been something I'd expect. I'm glad he was able to get his US attorneys involved (no language issues) and get the penalty negotiated to something that could be paid and he come back to the US. I'm also glad that Lochte has said he'd be paying him back the 11K. Its the least he can do since he's the one who started (IMO) the whole mess in the first place.