Dubstepforum.com

hugh wrote:If you are going to talk about it in a purely logistical sense then you can't ignore the fact we just spend over £10 billion during a double dip recession.

Yeah that was signed up to before the recession though.

There's some interesting stuff on the Paralympics Wiki

“ The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play....Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement. ”

While the charter is silent on discrimination specifically related to disability; given the language in the charter regarding discrimination it is reasonable to infer that discrimination on the basis of disability would be against the ideals of the Olympic Charter and the IOC.[34] This is also consistent with the Paralympic Charter, which forbids discrimination on the basis of political, religious, economic, disability, gender, sexual orientation or racial reasons.[35]

Chairman of the London organising committee, Lord Coe, said about the 2012 Summer Paralympics and 2012 Summer Olympics in London, England, that

“ We want to change public attitudes towards disability, celebrate the excellence of Paralympic sport and to enshrine from the very outset that the two games are an integrated whole. ”

wilson wrote:

hugh wrote:

kidshuffle wrote:they probably separate the olympics from the paralymics for the same reasons they put off the athletics competitions for a week; theres just a whole different set up process and equipment and etc. if you had them together, you would have to have the olympics running 24/7, and who would be getting the shaft on the non-prime times? probably the paralympians.

its fine the way it is.

If you are going to talk about it in a purely logistical sense then you can't ignore the fact we just spend over £10 billion during a double dip recession.

Gotta spend money to make money.

Except that we haven't made much money like we were expecting and now it seems that the net turnover from the games will be left in the red.

magma wrote:

hugh wrote:

kidshuffle wrote:they probably separate the olympics from the paralymics for the same reasons they put off the athletics competitions for a week; theres just a whole different set up process and equipment and etc. if you had them together, you would have to have the olympics running 24/7, and who would be getting the shaft on the non-prime times? probably the paralympians.

its fine the way it is.

If you are going to talk about it in a purely logistical sense then you can't ignore the fact we just spend over £10 billion during a double dip recession.

Well, we did sign up to all this in 2005 when everything was distinctly boomy still... it would've taken a very good effort from Mystic Meg to see where we'd be when it came around! Should we have let the world down at short notice rather than making the best of it?

You are ignoring the point I am making. He is addressing the discussion from a purely monetary standpoint so I just rebuked what he said. If logistics and practicality were such a real issue we would've spent far less during these games. I am glad we had a really good go and made a show of it, and I think it was pulled off brilliantly. But the issue is not about money or logistics.

hugh wrote:

wilson wrote:

hugh wrote:

kidshuffle wrote:they probably separate the olympics from the paralymics for the same reasons they put off the athletics competitions for a week; theres just a whole different set up process and equipment and etc. if you had them together, you would have to have the olympics running 24/7, and who would be getting the shaft on the non-prime times? probably the paralympians.

its fine the way it is.

If you are going to talk about it in a purely logistical sense then you can't ignore the fact we just spend over £10 billion during a double dip recession.

Gotta spend money to make money.

Except that we haven't made much money like we were expecting and now it seems that the net turnover from the games will be left in the red.

Who's surprised there though?

scspkr99 wrote:

hugh wrote:If you are going to talk about it in a purely logistical sense then you can't ignore the fact we just spend over £10 billion during a double dip recession.

Yeah that was signed up to before the recession though.

There's some interesting stuff on the Paralympics Wiki

“ The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play....Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement. ”

While the charter is silent on discrimination specifically related to disability; given the language in the charter regarding discrimination it is reasonable to infer that discrimination on the basis of disability would be against the ideals of the Olympic Charter and the IOC.[34] This is also consistent with the Paralympic Charter, which forbids discrimination on the basis of political, religious, economic, disability, gender, sexual orientation or racial reasons.[35]

Chairman of the London organising committee, Lord Coe, said about the 2012 Summer Paralympics and 2012 Summer Olympics in London, England, that

“ We want to change public attitudes towards disability, celebrate the excellence of Paralympic sport and to enshrine from the very outset that the two games are an integrated whole. ”

So why not put major and unique events in the main Olympics? Surely Wheelchair racers should be considered full athletes? Why not just get rid of the "paralympian" tag altogether and just have seperate qualifying divisons based on disability?

hugh wrote: You are ignoring the point I am making. He is addressing the discussion from a purely monetary standpoint so I just rebuked what he said. If logistics and practicality were such a real issue we would've spent far less during these games. I am glad we had a really good go and made a show of it, and I think it was pulled off brilliantly. But the issue is not about money or logistics.

I wasn't solely addressing the monetary side; that's just what you chose to get out of it.

What paralympian would want to compete at 3 am, just because they need time to set up a special court/pool/track/etc for them, and because "the world" would rather see Bolt/Phelps than some guy we've never heard of in a wheelchair? That would be more disrespectful to the athletes than giving them a their own weeks for the games

hugh wrote:So why not put major and unique events in the main Olympics? Surely Wheelchair racers should be considered full athletes? Why not just get rid of the "paralympian" tag altogether and just have seperate qualifying divisons based on disability?

I'm only guessing, but probably because it'd be too complicated for anyone to follow or organise? The way it is, you get 2 weeks of absolutely jam packed sport... a country almost on its back making sure everything happens correctly and the rest of it working half as hard as usual trying to keep up with the action... then a 2 week break to reorganise and readapt any facilities that need to be readapted, followed by another big push.

The Olympics is one of the biggest events any country ever gets to hold - you're talking a Great Exhibition, once-in-a-generation sort of gargantuan effort... add in switching equipment around multiple times a day and having to run an extra 15 concurrent TV feeds of competition and, at least to a non-expert like me, it becomes borderline-impossible.

kidshuffle wrote:

hugh wrote: You are ignoring the point I am making. He is addressing the discussion from a purely monetary standpoint so I just rebuked what he said. If logistics and practicality were such a real issue we would've spent far less during these games. I am glad we had a really good go and made a show of it, and I think it was pulled off brilliantly. But the issue is not about money or logistics.

I wasn't solely addressing the monetary side; that's just what you chose to get out of it.

What paralympian would want to compete at 3 am, just because they need time to set up a special court/pool/track/etc for them, and because "the world" would rather see Bolt/Phelps than some guy we've never heard of in a wheelchair? That would be more disrespectful to the athletes than giving them a their own weeks for the games

But you are just assuming these would be issues. More events could be held at more Arenas across the country for a start. I just think you are picking up on a really, well... moot issue, to be frank.

hugh wrote:So why not put major and unique events in the main Olympics? Surely Wheelchair racers should be considered full athletes? Why not just get rid of the "paralympian" tag altogether and just have seperate qualifying divisons based on disability?

magma wrote: I'm only guessing, but probably because it'd be too complicated for anyone to follow or organise? The way it is, you get 2 weeks of absolutely jam packed sport... a country almost on its back making sure everything happens correctly and the rest of it working half as hard as usual trying to keep up with the action... then a 2 week break to reorganise and readapt any facilities that need to be readapted, followed by another big push.

The Olympics is one of the biggest events any country ever gets to hold - you're talking a Great Exhibition, once-in-a-generation sort of gargantuan effort... add in switching equipment around multiple times a day and having to run an extra 15 concurrent TV feeds of competition and, at least to a non-expert like me, it becomes borderline-impossible.

Think this is a very valid question and a good answer. I'd say that we are getting closer in terms of acknowledging the efforts of paralympians. I haven't seen any previous paralympics, but then before this year I hadn't seen any Olympics either since about 92, so I don't know what changes need to be made to the track the pool the arena to accomodate the requirements of our paralympians. I definitely think it's a good question though.

hugh wrote:But you are just assuming these would be issues. More events could be held at more Arenas across the country for a start. I just think you are picking up on a really, well... moot issue, to be frank.

I think we're all just guessing rather than assuming really, but (unless you've got a few years working for LOCOG under your belt that I don't know about) I imagine you are too. These Olympics have been organised over the space of 7 years with tens of thousands of people involved and, even then, we had to bring the Army in because the logistics were simply impossible without them.

Add in a few extra arenas in the Olympic Park or the cost of preparing existing arenas around the country (and the risk of spreading the "London" games too thinly across the island) and it really looks like they probably took the most sensible course of action.

But yeah, it's a matter of opinion. None of us have Sim Olympics to try all this out on. They just had to get on and do it.

b4 yu get too far into losing the vibe thru critique

the closing was great (loved Ray Davies)
with a small tweek would've been better;
drop Annie & George's second (weak) songs
& have some Mala Education, RSD Living in Unity & some early Caspa wobble...
After all, isn't dubstep Britains greatest C21st invention so far?

southstar wrote:
The 100 and 200m are the ultimate events of the olympics, the ones everyone looks out for. So for me the best ever in these events is the best olympian

So his 6 golds beats Phelps' : x? Joker

mIrReN wrote:

southstar wrote:
The 100 and 200m are the ultimate events of the olympics, the ones everyone looks out for. So for me the best ever in these events is the best olympian

So his 6 golds beats Phelps' : x? Joker

For me personally yes because i prefer sprinting to swimming. Like i said, the number of medals is irrelevant

magma wrote:

hugh wrote:But you are just assuming these would be issues. More events could be held at more Arenas across the country for a start. I just think you are picking up on a really, well... moot issue, to be frank.

I think we're all just guessing rather than assuming really, but (unless you've got a few years working for LOCOG under your belt that I don't know about) I imagine you are too. These Olympics have been organised over the space of 7 years with tens of thousands of people involved and, even then, we had to bring the Army in because the logistics were simply impossible without them.

Add in a few extra arenas in the Olympic Park or the cost of preparing existing arenas around the country (and the risk of spreading the "London" games too thinly across the island) and it really looks like they probably took the most sensible course of action.

But yeah, it's a matter of opinion. None of us have Sim Olympics to try all this out on. They just had to get on and do it.

Sim Olympics ......
wait that's a great idea
^^

i too prefer track to swimming, but medal count aside, phelps has medals in different strokes, distances and the relays as well...where as bolt really only has the 100 and 200. until bolt does more than that, i dont think he can be "the greatest olympian"

Jesse Owens from a political/ cultural standpoint definitely has a shout for one of the greatest Olympians.
If anyone caught the BBC short film in the middle of one of the nights coverage on Jesse Owens/ Eugenics/ sizan/ Slaves that was an amazing watch

mIrReN wrote:

southstar wrote:
The 100 and 200m are the ultimate events of the olympics, the ones everyone looks out for. So for me the best ever in these events is the best olympian

So his 6 golds beats Phelps' : x? Joker

Tell you what, if there were 5 different 100M sprinting events (100M Sprinting while singing the Macarena, 100M Sprinting while waving ur arms in da air like u jus don currr, Regular 100M, 100M wearing a cowboy hat, 100m in a g-string) then Bolt would win as comprehensively as Phelps does. Swimming is definitely the event you need to take up if you want to become an all time top medal winner, and I'll leave it at that

Track and Field racing has 100M, 200M, 400M (plus relays of each), 800M, 1500M, 5K, 10K, Steeplechase and the 2 Hurdles events. That's less than 30 racing events in total adding women and men together.
Swimming has more than 50.

southstar wrote: The 100 and 200m are the ultimate events of the olympics, the ones everyone looks out for. So for me the best ever in these events is the best olympian

ridiculous way to look at things

Its physically impossible to win more than 2 individual golds in sprinting. You can't train your body for the 100 and expect to go and beat people in the 400m as well, same with hurdles.

Theres been talk of Bolt going for either the 400m or the long jump in Rio though...