Olympics of 2008

[Carol]

> Discarding modern pentathlon is still to be decided. It's been only
> recommended by the IOC program committee. We don't exactly know why.

The discussion on rec.sport.olympics also is astounded by this decision to
potentially eliminate a sport which not only has been included on the
Olympic program since 1912, but also, through its breadth of events shows
what a true sportsman is.

However, the reason as to why is based on logistics and spectator
friendliness. Modern Pentathlon has graciously (and more appropriately,
bent-over-backwards) in the past to reduce this event to a 1-day event to
support the spectator friendliness issue (and some of the logistics
issues), however, much to the detriment of the athletes and also changing
the entire tone of the competition. It is very sad that even though these
great concessions were made that Modern Pentthlon is still in jeopardy,
and it creates a point where we all have to pause and consider what has
become of the Olympic ideal and spirit (is it about sport, or is it about
money?).

As to the logistics issues, Modern Pentathlon is being subjected to the
logistic concerns of some of the individual sports of which it is
comprised (sort of guilt-by association). First, is the shooting event.
Individual shooting events are being subject to scrutiny as to how many
different events are needed, and possibly eliminating some of them.
Second, is the equestrain event. Transport, storage, and upkeep of the
horses are of logistical concern. The IOC should recognize the unique
aspect of Modern Pentathlon and not take their concerns of logistics of
the individual shooting and equestrain events and apply them to Modern
Pentathlon. The venue for the shooting events exists already for the
individual shooting events, and Modern Pentathlon is just using them, so
in fact, it is providing a better utilization rate for existing
facilities. Likewise, for the equestrain event, Modern Pentathlon is
also utilizing an existing venue for the equestrain event -- the prime
concern for elimination of the 3-day event from the individual equestrain
events has to do more with the terrain availabilty and the suitabilty of
that terrain in regards to safety (which, is only a concern due to the
selection of Bejing) -- Modern Pentathlon's equestrain event occurs in the
ring, so this concern is not applicable. Also, in the fencing, swimming
and running events Modern Pentathlon is utilizing venues that exist for
other events. Bottom line: Modern Pentathlon does not require any
additional special venue over and above those that already exist for other
individual events -- it is in fact, by its inclusion, providing a better
utilization rate for facilities -- a cost savings to the bottom line.

Doesn't anybody on the IOC understand business cases and what needs to be
done to make something come off cost efficiently? Perhaps they should get
me on the IOC committee so I can educate them <g>

> It's has been suggested that pentathlon should be replaced by golf. Do
> you know who plays golf? Does it mean that if you have money you can
> have everything and discard a traditional sport embodying the very
> spirit of the Olympics?

This is the heart of the dilemma. Part of the IOC recommendation of
including golf is that if Tiger Woods and other professional golfers would
choose to participate -- this line of logic is seriously flawed and
contra-indicative of the IOC goals on logistics (and dare I say the
Olympic spirit?), and if somehow in their minds think that it will bring
in sponsor dollars, they are flawed again. Networks televise golf
tournaments because sponsors pay for the slow mode of a telecast and
exclusive rights during the telecast -- advertising dollars escalate
during the Olympics, and are for naught if viewers turn the TV set off
because they are bored by golf. If a network showed this during an
Olympics, the network would be bombarded with a negative viewer response
-- hasn't anybody on the IOC done any demographics of golf viewership in
relation to the total realm of sports offered in the Olympics? Also, I am
sure that many professional golfers would not be interested in competing
in the Olympics (hey, they make big bucks in tournaments -- why would they
play for free? Plus, if the IOC is concerned about logistics, do they
realize how large a golf course is?). I play golf, I enjoy golf, perhaps
sometimes I watch golf, but the majority of people in the world do not
find golf spectator friendly, in fact, the majority do not even understand
why golf is televised (I'll tell you the secret: the sponsors of the
tournament pay so much money to the tournaments -- that means that the
players get their cut and the network that televises it gets their cut).
There is so much downtime during a golf telecast that I am able to write a
technical specification for a computer application when watching it (hey,
I'm getting paid to work, and I get a diversion -- good deal for me).

> Ina Harizanova

Ina, I hope you would take my comments and use them to help lobby Modern
Pentathlon's continued inclusion. The business case is too strong for the
IOC to vote that Modern Pentathlon is excluded.

[Ina]

Dear Carol,
Thank you for your reply. After I did a research on the Internet, I
can't really understand why rugby and golf are to be added to the
Olympic Program. In the IRB's website has no information about any
organized World or Continental Championships for junior women and
youth (men and women). According to the IOC's Olympic Program
Committee report (p.4), a sport should have those competitions in
order to be considered for inclusion. Moreover, rugby will add more
than 200 athletes. I thought, IOC were trying to limit the number of
athletes. And rugby has no tradition with the Olympic movement
(another criterion that the committee is considering, p.4 in their
report).
As for golf, the website of WAGC also shows that this highest
governing body do not organize World and Continental Championships for
youth (men and women). Golf is expensive to practice. It'd add more
than 100 athlete (if pentathlon is excluded there will be about 48
openings). And after studying sports and the human body for 8-10
years, I'd like to be educated on the physiological health benefits
for the "athletes".



Carol <ca.donohue@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<3D781584.6083A421@verizon.net>...
> > Discarding modern pentathlon is still to be decided. It's been only
> > recommended by the IOC program committee. We don't exactly know why.
>
> The discussion on rec.sport.olympics also is astounded by this decision to
> potentially eliminate a sport which not only has been included on the
> Olympic program since 1912, but also, through its breadth of events shows
> what a true sportsman is.
>
> However, the reason as to why is based on logistics and spectator
> friendliness. Modern Pentathlon has graciously (and more appropriately,
> bent-over-backwards) in the past to reduce this event to a 1-day event to
> support the spectator friendliness issue (and some of the logistics
> issues), however, much to the detriment of the athletes and also changing
> the entire tone of the competition. It is very sad that even though these
> great concessions were made that Modern Pentthlon is still in jeopardy,
> and it creates a point where we all have to pause and consider what has
> become of the Olympic ideal and spirit (is it about sport, or is it about
> money?).
>
> As to the logistics issues, Modern Pentathlon is being subjected to the
> logistic concerns of some of the individual sports of which it is
> comprised (sort of guilt-by association). First, is the shooting event.
> Individual shooting events are being subject to scrutiny as to how many
> different events are needed, and possibly eliminating some of them.
> Second, is the equestrain event. Transport, storage, and upkeep of the
> horses are of logistical concern. The IOC should recognize the unique
> aspect of Modern Pentathlon and not take their concerns of logistics of
> the individual shooting and equestrain events and apply them to Modern
> Pentathlon. The venue for the shooting events exists already for the
> individual shooting events, and Modern Pentathlon is just using them, so
> in fact, it is providing a better utilization rate for existing
> facilities. Likewise, for the equestrain event, Modern Pentathlon is
> also utilizing an existing venue for the equestrain event -- the prime
> concern for elimination of the 3-day event from the individual equestrain
> events has to do more with the terrain availabilty and the suitabilty of
> that terrain in regards to safety (which, is only a concern due to the
> selection of Bejing) -- Modern Pentathlon's equestrain event occurs in the
> ring, so this concern is not applicable. Also, in the fencing, swimming
> and running events Modern Pentathlon is utilizing venues that exist for
> other events. Bottom line: Modern Pentathlon does not require any
> additional special venue over and above those that already exist for other
> individual events -- it is in fact, by its inclusion, providing a better
> utilization rate for facilities -- a cost savings to the bottom line.
>
> Doesn't anybody on the IOC understand business cases and what needs to be
> done to make something come off cost efficiently? Perhaps they should get
> me on the IOC committee so I can educate them <g>
>
> > It's has been suggested that pentathlon should be replaced by golf. Do
> > you know who plays golf? Does it mean that if you have money you can
> > have everything and discard a traditional sport embodying the very
> > spirit of the Olympics?
>
> This is the heart of the dilemma. Part of the IOC recommendation of
> including golf is that if Tiger Woods and other professional golfers would
> choose to participate -- this line of logic is seriously flawed and
> contra-indicative of the IOC goals on logistics (and dare I say the
> Olympic spirit?), and if somehow in their minds think that it will bring
> in sponsor dollars, they are flawed again. Networks televise golf
> tournaments because sponsors pay for the slow mode of a telecast and
> exclusive rights during the telecast -- advertising dollars escalate
> during the Olympics, and are for naught if viewers turn the TV set off
> because they are bored by golf. If a network showed this during an
> Olympics, the network would be bombarded with a negative viewer response
> -- hasn't anybody on the IOC done any demographics of golf viewership in
> relation to the total realm of sports offered in the Olympics? Also, I am
> sure that many professional golfers would not be interested in competing
> in the Olympics (hey, they make big bucks in tournaments -- why would they
> play for free? Plus, if the IOC is concerned about logistics, do they
> realize how large a golf course is?). I play golf, I enjoy golf, perhaps
> sometimes I watch golf, but the majority of people in the world do not
> find golf spectator friendly, in fact, the majority do not even understand
> why golf is televised (I'll tell you the secret: the sponsors of the
> tournament pay so much money to the tournaments -- that means that the
> players get their cut and the network that televises it gets their cut).
> There is so much downtime during a golf telecast that I am able to write a
> technical specification for a computer application when watching it (hey,
> I'm getting paid to work, and I get a diversion -- good deal for me).
>
> > Ina Harizanova
>
> Ina, I hope you would take my comments and use them to help lobby Modern
> Pentathlon's continued inclusion. The business case is too strong for the
> IOC to vote that Modern Pentathlon is excluded.

[Amy & Joseph Kormann]

Ina wrote:
> And after studying sports and the human body for 8-10
> years, I'd like to be educated on the physiological health benefits
> for the "athletes".

It can be spelled R-A-T-I-N-G-S.

How many people will gladly spend a georgous saturday (or sunday)
afternoon inside watching a couple of guys walking on a grassy path
you'd never be able to play on? Loads. The IOC knows this and are (I
believe) bowing to the pressure of the TV organization to bring in more
sports that can achieve higher ratings which will allow the TV
organization to pay the IOC for the rights to broadcast. A very vicious
circle.

Until we (fencing) can figure out a way to better market ourselves,
we're going to be doomed to ESPN2 after 2am. If we don't get 'cut'
first.
--
Amy and Joseph Kormann

[William Marshal]

My own personal suspicion is that there is another reason in addition
to these:
pentathlon contains a fencing component. And we know that the IOC has
no love for fencing, and cherishes the idea of getting rid of it.
First the epee in the pentathlon, then the rest of the fencing events.
Precedent.

As for golf, I have to say that the why-play-for-free thesis seems
weak to me. The same might have been said of basketball in the last
Olympics, after all---yet there the team was...

[Carol]

Hi Ina,

Very interesting research -- another fact that golf and rugby's
inclusion is contra-indicative of the stated goals of the IOC to only
bring in sports in the future that organize World and/or Continental
Championships for Junior competitors.

I guess it really boils down to that even though the IOC created a
document to codify and treat all sports equally and fairly, it is only
used to tell a sport "No, you can't be permitted in because it says so
in this document"; however, for other sports that are better politically
connected ($), then they will IGNORE the standards that had been set to
ensure uniform treatment across the board.

We've already had selection committee scandals, judging scandals, and
now this looks like the beginning of the next one -- the ink on the
paper on these new rules isn't even dry yet and the IOC is already
violating their own protocol.

Ina wrote:
>
> Dear Carol,
> Thank you for your reply. After I did a research on the Internet, I
> can't really understand why rugby and golf are to be added to the
> Olympic Program. In the IRB's website has no information about any
> organized World or Continental Championships for junior women and
> youth (men and women). According to the IOC's Olympic Program
> Committee report (p.4), a sport should have those competitions in
> order to be considered for inclusion. Moreover, rugby will add more
> than 200 athletes. I thought, IOC were trying to limit the number of
> athletes. And rugby has no tradition with the Olympic movement
> (another criterion that the committee is considering, p.4 in their
> report).
> As for golf, the website of WAGC also shows that this highest
> governing body do not organize World and Continental Championships for
> youth (men and women). Golf is expensive to practice. It'd add more
> than 100 athlete (if pentathlon is excluded there will be about 48
> openings). And after studying sports and the human body for 8-10
> years, I'd like to be educated on the physiological health benefits
> for the "athletes".