Correction Needed: IAAF Awarding Worlds to Eugene without a Bidding Process is Unprecedented

Nobody cares Sean... nobody cares...

scrub wrote:

Nobody cares Sean... nobody cares...

You should care if false statements are issued. No one wins from them. Governing bodies I think have an ever stronger obligation to serve the public and tell the truth.

As for them not bidding out the Worlds the Swedes are very upset. Read this article that just came out today:

Very harsh towards Diack if the translation is anywhere accurate but the Swedish guy who sent it to us used similar words.

I think via bidding the IAAF could get firmer commitments. The IAAF press release talks about the Championships being on NBC Sports and Universal Sports like Universal Sports is a good thing. Universal Sports is a partner of LetsRun.com but they have very little carriage. A requirement could have been "It has to be on NBC and NBC SportsNetwork." Now there is a chance Universal Sports is purchased outright by NBC by then but lets not act like Worlds being on Universal Sports is a good thing. The good thing is the TV landscape should be different in 2021 than it is today.

wejo wrote:

scrub wrote:

Nobody cares Sean... nobody cares...

You should care if false statements are issued.

I care more when certain comments get deleted so that the narrative can be controlled and open dialogue is oppressed.

Star wrote:

wejo wrote:

You should care if false statements are issued.

I care more when certain comments get deleted so that the narrative can be controlled and open dialogue is oppressed.

+++

That's some rich dung, you allow anonymous libelers to post false statements here pretty much daily, and you don't care.

Find another windmill to tilt at, this boat has sailed.

A Duck, you have some validity about inconsistency. Even assuming both claims are of the same type and demand the same response, that doesn't make the truth he spoke here any less true.

The IAAF earlier made an award to Qatar. They've already shown that their competitive bid process selects not on compelling merit but on deepest pockets even if that criterion upends their future market. What does a competing bidder do next in such an imperfect world? If you're Team USA, you remind them that there's another pile of money out there right now but only for a limited time. Is Sweden going to pony up $40M in the next bidding cycle? Who can say, but Team USA will commit that money right now. This isn't just one very expensive bird in hand for IAAF, but two (both Qatar and Eugene). With two expensive buys to get an award in a row, maybe IAAF now also sees a permanently altered price threshold.

As for "firmer commitments", I'd say really? Do we really want the IAAF to select Sweden because NBC doesn't think there's a big enough audience in the US?

wejo wrote: What can't be overlooked is the IAAF issuing a false statement.

And tells you everything you need to know about the IAAF. They will issue false statements regardless of fact, lying to anyone and everyone as needed.

This behaviour establishes the amount of confidence any viewer should have in the IAAF officiating an elite international level sport. None.

I doubt the people of Eugene were directly consulted about this either. Track is a University of Oregon thing, to the city itself it just means more traffic.

A Duck wrote:

That's some rich dung, you allow anonymous libelers to post false statements here pretty much daily, and you don't care.

Find another windmill to tilt at, this boat has sailed.

A Duck - How many times do we have go through this?

1) If you email us demonstrably false posts we will remove them.

2) We do not prescreen content

3) Go back to #1.

Something that is unverifiable is not necessarily false. You don't like the fact we let people post stuff you disagree with. It is not our job to prescreen content or only allow posts that we can only verify are true, but If people point out posts to us that our demonstrably false we will remove them.

There is a huge difference between an opinion, fact, and something that can be proven to be false. If someone says, "The Yankees suck" that is their opinion. "Derek Jeter is a d***" That's their opinion.

If they say, "Tiger Woods is a doper. He cheats" that really is them saying "I believe Tiger Woods is a doper. I think he cheats" and is their opinion.

"Jerry Jones is scum" That is their opinion.

Even if they say, "I saw Tiger Woods inject himself with HGH" that is something I can't prove to be false. In some instances like that with a specific allegation we might remove it or place some sort of burden on the person to prove it's true, but we're less likely to do this when its a) doping related and b) related to a prominent person in the sport. However we will always let the person post this in the first place because we do not pre-screen content.

I bet you don't like it when people say 1) NOPers are dopers but I bet it doesn't phase you as much when people say 2) EPOpians

We used to get the nastiest emails saying we let people slander Lance Armstrong. Turns out in his case it was true. People said I used drugs. I didn't. I took it as a compliment. The truth of a lot of stuff posted on here can't be proven.

But I can prove the IAAF statement was false.

wejo wrote:

1) If you email us demonstrably false posts we will remove them.

2) We do not prescreen content

3) Go back to #1.

This is why I like lrc.

Just Ducky Too wrote:

Is Sweden going to pony up $40M in the next bidding cycle? Who can say, but Team USA will commit that money right now. This isn't just one very expensive bird in hand for IAAF, but two (both Qatar and Eugene). With two expensive buys to get an award in a row, maybe IAAF now also sees a permanently altered price threshold.

Sweden to win would likely need to outbid Eugene. There are certain guarantees needed. An interesting thing with Eugene is the question of who is guaranteeing the bid. The IAAF likes the government to guarantee anyshortfalls in revenue. US governments don't like to do that.

Here is what today's Register Guard says on this, "Former Gov. John Kitzhaber said he would ask the Legislature for $40 million to support the 2019 championships, and sent then-­Secretary of State Kate Brown to Monaco to represent the state. Brown is now governor, and in a press release Wednesday welcoming the IAAF’s decision did not repeat that promise. It’s not clear how meaningful it would be if she had — between now and 2021 there will be two gubernatorial elections and a half-dozen legislative sessions. Eugene’s 2019 bid was also backed by the University of Oregon Foundation’s open-ended guarantee that the IAAF would suffer no financial losses."

So my reading is that if anyone is on the hook it is the University of Oregon Foundation which is supposed to support the U of O. The UofO Board went around open records laws with the bid for 2019 and upset the Oregon press so it's kind of mysterious. I read the Foundation to be Phil Knight but that is 100% speculation.

Would be interesting if a Worlds is allowed to make a profit or if that money is supposed to go back to the IAAF. If it could somehow be run for a profit you could get private entities to perhaps guarantee the money but I don't think that is an option so you are left to governments or foundations guaranteeing worlds.

wejo wrote:

"Former Gov. John Kitzhaber said he would ask the Legislature for $40 million to support the 2019 championships.

The legislature would have turned him down flat, if it had any sense.

I like the WC but burning $40 million for it is ridiculous. I'm sure 99% of Oregon taxpayers would agree.

Richmond, va is spending something like 15 million with government guarantee.

The sport mostly happens in mostly one place and costs 40M? Wow. No wonder High tower wants a job at the IAAF.

Good money! I want in on the action.

wejo wrote:

So my reading is that if anyone is on the hook it is the University of Oregon Foundation which is supposed to support the U of O. The UofO Board went around open records laws with the bid for 2019 and upset the Oregon press so it's kind of mysterious. I read the Foundation to be Phil Knight but that is 100% speculation.

Sounds less like a world championship track meet and more like a giant Nike marketing event.

The legislature would have turned him down flat, if it had any sense.

I like the WC but burning $40 million for it is ridiculous. I'm sure 99% of Oregon taxpayers would agree.

=============

The blind jealousy on this board amazes me. Eugene will recognize at least $80 million in cash inflow during the WC's, plus the job and money flow from the renovation and expansion of Hayward Field, and the many events that will go their way as a result in the future. A $40 million guarantee is no big deal and likely would never be needed anyway. The speculation about the University of Oregon Foundation is also astounding...ignorance giving their opinions always is astounding. Fact, the Foundation is comprised of ties to Billions, without Phil Knight.

Good Vibrations wrote:

The blind jealousy on this board amazes me.

Sympathy, not jealousy.

Eugene will recognize at least $80 million in cash inflow during the WC's

We both know where you pulled that dollar amount out of.

plus the job and money flow from the renovation and expansion of Hayward Field, and the many events that will go their way as a result in the future.

Oregon taxpayers are going to make money by spending it on a new stadium?

And just what new events will result? Every national meet, plus a DL event, are already at Hayward. Are you suggesting the next WC will be there too? The olympics? A permanently expanded Hayward would have no purpose. It would be a boondoggle.

You've obviously never been to Eugene, other than the UO campus, the way you fall for the "track town" hype. Nobody there cares about track. It's not a big deal. Football is everything, since 1994.

Star wrote:

wejo wrote:

You should care if false statements are issued.

I care more when certain comments get deleted so that the narrative can be controlled and open dialogue is oppressed.

true that.