Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

IOC Clamps Down on Athlete Web Diaries 275

Posted by CmdrTaco from the now-that-pretty-well-sucks dept.
RSevrinsky writes "According to this article in the NYTimes, the non-profit IOC is scared stiff of losing its place as sole mouthpiece for the Games (which helped it get $705M from NBC for the TV rights). Now, even the athletes don't have the right to describe their own experiences for the outside world -- only Bob Costas can. " The IOC has never exactly been "nice" (actually, I would describe them more accurately as "Evil") but this is pretty dang stupid.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IOC Clamps Down on Athlete Web Diaries More

IOC Clamps Down on Athlete Web Diaries

Comments Filter:
  • one giant fucking commercial financed by telecommunications companies and sportswear. It's pathetic and it makes me sick.

    I must give the Aussies credit. Next time you are watching an Olympic event - have a look around the stadium. You'll see nary a single advert. I noticed this straight off, and make comment to some of my companions. We actually were unable to see a ad at the sporting venues. Everything is simply covered very tasteful "Sydney 2000" white text on a pale blue (fuscia?) background. Now, I know someone will say: "No way man, look at 'yadda yadda yadda'", but I was unable to locate one. Now, try to recall the games in Atlanta, remember that? The whole place looked like a billboard.

    Thank you Australia. You have done a terrific job of making the sporting events/venues 'advert-free'. Im very impressed.

  • If the IOC is non-profit, what are they going to do with $705 million?

    Costas rocks (read his book). However, can NBC botch things up anymore? Whatever happened with their "neutral" interview with the shot putter that is not competing but was tested positive for steroids. Why? Because he is married to Marion Jones (apologies if the name is misspelled). They have to find some dirt somewhere.

    I thought it was pretty cool to hear that when NBC got there they didn't find him, but they found a press release.
  • ... let them stage their spectacle in your hometown. Throwing rotten tomatoes at the corrupt IOC officials or just staging a few anti olympics demonstrations when the local greaseboys try to get them to your town will usually do it.

    The bill in new sports arenas, police invasion and associated costs usually makes the Olymics a lot more expensive than any local tourism or sales can make up for (depending which for of creative accounting you use, of course)... so the taxpayers end up paying a load to host that corrupt spectacle of drugged up degenerates anyway.
  • From the article:
    Earlier this year, Nascar, the stock-car racing league, backed off an attempt to make reporters agree that Nascar was sole owner of "images, sounds and data arising from and during any Nascar event" -- including the racing times and scoring information.

    "They were saying, `If it happens during the event, we own the intellectual property rights to it,' " said Michael Persinger, the sports editor of The Charlotte Observer in North Carolina, the epicenter of the Nascar universe. "You can't own the news."

    If the IOC is able to squash anyone broadcasting "their" information, what's to stop a political candidate from demanding that anything happening during one of his rallies (let's say he calls someone a major-league %$#@%$) cannot be reported by anyone but those whom he selects. After all, "any use of the term 'major-league %$#@%$' is the sole property of candidate --------"

    -------------

  • What? Don't you have freedom of religion? Yeah you do, and I don't think this employer would be in business after the lawsuit. Why is this any different?

    This is different because it has nothing to do with religion. They are treating every athlete in the same way. Every athlete, and probably coaches and other participants, has to sign this agreement. You are adding things to this argument that don't belong there. Also, since it is the International Olympic Committee, why do they have to go by U.S. law? Everybody seems to assume, just because there are U.S. athletes the IOC has to follow U.S. law. That is not the case.

    The point is you cannot make exercise of rights the deciding factor in an unrelated situation. It's wrong.

    Being wrong isn't always illegal. I think you're confusing two different types of wrong. You say they are restricting free speech, which is wrong. Which wrong is it? Morally wrong? Most would say yes. Legally wrong? That would be for the courts to decide, but if the contract is written properly, this type of thing could hold up.


    Spooon!

  • Sorry, that last paragraph is not part of the article (obvious to anyone who actually read it) - I hit the submit button when I meant preview...

    -------------
  • Clamming up won't increase your market value.
    I suppose that those motivated solely by greed (is there really such an animal?) have no interest in speech. But I wonder: an athlete spends many years training, often living on a subsistence income (at least before the medal roll in), begs and pleads for sponsors, knows that the most minor of injuries will destroy EVERYTHING; and they're in this for the money? Why didn't they go for the MBA track in school? Either they need a few accounting classes; (or maybe you do).

    2. The sheer love of performing, if only for a brief moment, at the peak of human capacity. Geeks on /. ought to be able to relate to this one. Gold medal or not, after dedicating years of your life to a sport, why should you care about possible restraints on your reporting on it during the competition? That's not nearly big enough to bother risking your future eligibility over.
    I suppose cowardice is a valid reason for some.
    Keep those heads down! No risk!
  • By using language like "the I.O.C.'s intellectual property rights", people are already conceding everything to the I.O.C. How could anybody oppose giving other people their property rights?

    Of course, the term "intellectual property rights" is a cynical manipulation of language. Why should anybody have "property rights" to other people's free speech?

    As for the Olympic "movement" itself, I hope athletes and viewer will stop deluding themselves about it. The Olympics is all about money. International understanding and sports are not a part of it. If you want to further the so-called "Olympic ideals", participate in sports yourself and travel yourself. There are lots of fun sports events around the world that are not as commercialized.

    (Similar comments apply to the term "intellectual property rights" for trademarks, patents, and copyrights. All of those are limited licenses granted by the government, not intrinsic unlimited rights to property.)

  • It seems that the issue here is not so much who "owns" the olympics, or who holds rights to report on them. Instead, this seems to be more of an issue of personal freedom. Who "owns" a persons experience and their rights to talk about it. Outside of security-related issues, attempts to restrain a person from talking about their experience of a clearly public event is absurd.
  • I know you're a troll, but I'm bored. /. has been minimizing the role of Inetlectual Property in business and in open source.

    IP is the cornerstone of the GPL, in the form of copyright which it is based on. The abuse of IP is a real issue, probably too complex for you.

    But, it is their right to control the flow of media from the game

    Why? From what ethical basis does this right derive? What has media control to do with the organisation's legitimate role of organising the events? How do you, oh fuckwit, know that by posting your comment you are not in breach of some other imaginary "right" that the IOC has decided to claim?

    It makes a copy of copyrighted material.

    If you knew anything, shit for brains, you would know that it plays DVDs. It is of no more use for making a copy than a record player is for making tapes of records. But then, Trollus maximus, you knew that.

    (i.e. only possibly going through virtual memory)

    Ah, so you, the great arbiter, has decided that when your system copies the data to the HD as part of the playing process it's okay, but when DeCSS does it it's bad. Great logic, or at least as good as the rest of your drivel.

    one must respect others IP rights by not taking illegal actions because one thinks it's okay.

    So it's okay to depend on rights, but it's not okay to complain if anyone tries to take those rights away? Welcome to Nazi America.

    Just go away.

    TWW

  • Especially countries that don't prize free speech the way the US does.

    HEheheheheheh - thats damned funny. You dont seem to understand;

    This -IS- the way the US prizes free speech*

    This 'policy' is a result of the US involvement (strong-arming) the Olympic Experience. If the speech is contrary to corporate profits, its not allowed. See DeCSS court rulings for an example, or the DMCA, or the action against Napster: these are American 'values'. Hheheheh, thats the funniest post on /. all day.

    * I will concede that this may not mean the 'citizens' of America, but it surely is the policy of their government and lawmakers...why is this the case?

    Wake up America, do the citizens of the planet (yourself included) a favour, tell your friends/relatives/neighbours to:
  • I know you're a troll, but you can't own an event. You can own a particular description of an event, but you can't restrict other people from recounting their experiences. At least not the last time I read copyright law. Unfortunately the NFL, IOC, and your grandma are trying to change this.

  • This takes away from the Olympics it takes away the human factor. Alot of people would love to read the day to day thoughts of athletes what are they going through. People will follow the events even more so when the human element is added.


  • troll, you are full of it (or dyslexic)

    Coke is an official sponsor [olympics.com] of the Syndey 2000 games. If people are walking into the stadium with Pepsi products (or anything else) they will likely get it taken away. Lots of places don't let you bring food and beverage inside. If they sell coke, so what?

  • um, perhaps an amateur athlete; one without a corporate sponsor, if there are any left anymore.
  • Ouch. Point taken. We've lost a lot of ground here.

    Originally, I was thinking of China or Cuba or Chile or something like that... a country where even free speech rhetoric doesn't fly well. Free speech rights are being eroded in the US, and probably actually prizd by a small percentage of citizens. But free speech rhetoric still plays fairly well here....

    And I do realize there are probably places that prize free speech as or more highly than the US.
  • Give me some hard-hitting fast-moving hockey!

    Excellent! I don't even have to insult this jackass, since he's done it to himself with this last sentence. He's a hockey fan... nuff said.

  • And how about NBC affiliate stations and the Today Show's cutsie:

    "We're going to give you the results of the events, but we know you want to help our ratings by not finding out stuff until 24 hours after the fact, so leave the room while we tell you what happened. Then you can watch our commercial filled non-coverage in prime time, so we don't lose so much money!"

    Ok, so they don't use those exact words, but you know what I mean...
  • How do you get the "rights" to report on something? I've heard about it plenty of times, but where did it start? Where's the legal basis? Who decides who owns and can sell the rights to start with? It all seems pretty rediculous to me, but that's no surprise.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Contracts which people have no choice but to sign are not valid. The athletes don't get to negotiate any of the clauses - they are dictated by the IOC. The only choice they get is "do things our way or don't do them". There is a word for that: it is 'coercion'.

    I realize that there are people in the world who's sense of justice is so poor that they think that a two year old child against Mike Tyson - or a grown man barehanded against a bull elephant is a fair fight; but the rest of us can see that they are not. Are you one of those blind to justice people? If you are, I suggest that you try opening your eyes; just because you can get a person's signature on a piece of paper doesn't mean what you are doing is right.

    Contracts and other legalisms are just words written on pieces of paper - there is no possibility that those words are more important than the people who create them; anyone who thinks that they are is either very evil, or seriously mentally ill. People are alive and matter - legalisms are dead ink on paper. Writings matter only when what they say reaches the level of the profound.

    A contract designed to screw somebody hardly qualifies as profundity.

  • wtf? (Score:2)

    by B1ood ( 89212 )
    as a potential olympic athlete, i'm outraged. i didn't skip out of training to spend all this time working on my GPL'd mysql/php blog backend for nothing did i?

    B1ood

  • I haven't seen a single event yet, and don't plan on watching one. And I'm definately not alone.

    Viewing the Olympics is at an all time low, and the IOC isn't helping at all. Making excrutiatingly restricted rights are gonna help the Olympics completely fail...

    If they were smart, the IOC would open their restrictions instead of restrict, if they plan on staying afloat.


    -- "Microsoft can never die! They make the best damn joysticks around!"

  • Old news... (Score:5)

    by Col. Klink (retired) ( 11632 ) on Monday September 25, 2000 @06:56AM (#756000)
    I already knew about this because I actually read /.:

    IOC To Olympic Athletes: Online Diaries Verboten [slashdot.org]

  • Yes, we all rather have our hospitals run like the DMV. "I don't care if you have a punctured lung and are drowning in your own blood. If you don't have an appointment you have to wait at the end of the line".

    Right now you have choices. You can either be part of any number of health insurance plans and abide by their policies or you can go without insurance and therefore have the option to seek whichever treatment you would like and can afford. If you socialized medicine you have no choice but to have (and pay for through taxes) the one and only state-run healthcare system. If the government decides it's not cost efficient to treat desease XYZ and you happen to have desease XYZ too bad so sad.

    -- Greg

  • Re:IP (Score:5)

    by Azog ( 20907 ) on Monday September 25, 2000 @09:55AM (#756008) Homepage
    When I heard about DeCSS, I thought it was a stupid case. Then I read a description of what the program does, and that is flat illegal, no matter what you say. It makes a copy of copyrighted material.
    You're kidding, right?

    You think that making a copy of copyrighted material is breaking the law? Well shoot, you'd better shut down your browser right now, or I'll sue your ass. These comments are copyright by me, and your browser just copied them.

    Of course that's nonsense, because I implicitly gave you the rights to make a copy of this article and read it when I posted it. But when I buy a DVD, I implicitly (should?) have the right to make a copy of it and view it too. That's what deCSS does. So why should it be illegal?

    Another example: DeCSS cannot be illegal just because it could be used to copy a DVD. If that was true, photocopiers would be illegal, because they could be used to copy books.

    Enough of this nonsense.

    The RIAA, the MPAA, the IOC, and other oppressive organizations are attempting to take away freedom of speech and fair-use rights. Copyright was originally limited, they are trying to make it unlimited through legal and technological means.

    These organizations want to create a world where you could be charged for everything you see, hear, and experience - every time. A world where you own nothing and rent everything. An attitude like that tends to polarise people, and push them in the other direction. Despite that, I don't think Slashdot (in general) is becoming anti-IP, although some posters may be.

    But most posters here have a greater respect and understanding for the limitations of copyright. I think the original version of the copyright act was, on balance, a good thing.

    I think the only "anti-IP" on Slashdot is an "anti-expansion-of-IP". At least, that's the only anti-IP I have.


    Torrey Hoffman (Azog)

  • Maybe people have finally woke up and realized that there's no point in watching endless hours of coverage of something that has absolutely no meaningful impact on their life...(notice the ratings for football are also down this year as well...)

    I think there are 2 things that are causing the low ratings. Another reply to your post hit the first one, which is that people are more pressed for time these days. But that links quite nicely with my other point, which is that people want entertainment, which is something that NBC has simply failed miserably to provide. With less time available to us, we try to get the most bang for our umm.. time. The Olympics just aren't gonna satisfy that need. Especially the way NBC is running things.

  • The olympians are not in the USA. You will notice that 'Australia' is not part of 'The United States of America'. Hence, any consitutionally guaranteed 'rights' of Americans mean absolutely NOTHING in Australia.

    I see the point you are trying to make, but it's wrong, and misguided.

    The right to free speech means the government cannot impede your right to speak out. That is not happening here.

    By your logic, a company making you sign a 'non-disclosure' agreement is also inhibiting your right to free spech, as your job will be terminated if you 'speak up'. Your employer is in no way impeding your rights.

    These people signed a contract, and as such, are BOUND BY CONTRACT not to speak about the olympics.

  • OK, I'm disgusted with the IOC, and I've had it in for NBC's sports coverage since the Atlanta games. (Don't get me started on their baseball coverage!)

    That said, the more I think about it the more I like the idea of a broadband "menu" of the games, where you can choose a sport and call up the entire event. There could be alternate angles and audio tracks for different commentary (or none at all). In events that are not head-to head, like gymnastics or diving, you could skip to the next athelete's "chapter" if someone was already eliminated from contention, or you just wanted to see certain atheletes. (Yes, I'm thinking of a DVD's choices, but I'm trying not to turn this into an analogy.)

    I would pay to have these kinds of alternatives to NBC's vomitus of commentary with small, partially digested chunks of actual sporting events floating in it. The flexibility would even allow for paying to see just one sport, a 3-sport package, unlimited use...

    I know NBC and the IOC would HATE to let us decide what we can and cannot see, but the more discussion there is about alternative media, the more people will realize that there should be other choices.

  • Then the question is whether they let you bring in "official" products, but nothing else, or at least not any competitor's products.

  • Re:IP (Score:3)

    by bnenning ( 58349 ) on Monday September 25, 2000 @10:11AM (#756026)
    Then I read a description of what the program does, and that is flat illegal, no matter what you say. It makes a copy of copyrighted material.

    Legality is a matter for the courts and that is still being decided. Regardless, it is not wrong, no matter what you or the courts say. It allows the owner of a DVD to make a copy for space-shifting purposes, a long-recognized application of fair use. It could also be used to pirate DVDs, just like a CD burner can be used to pirate software. The possibility of illegal use does not justify the criminalization of all use.

    If it were to pipe an MPEG video player, not logically going to the hard drive (i.e. only possibly going through virtual memory) then it would not be illegal because it would not "copy" the movie!

    It would still be copied to RAM, which would probably be sufficient for the MPAA weasels to try to ban it.

    Given that it is IP rights that protect GPL'ed code, one must respect others IP rights by not taking illegal actions because one thinks it's okay.

    No one has a duty to obey an unjust law. Arguably, one has a duty to break it. Martin Luther King, yada yada yada.

    /. should be careful about trivializing IP or it may find itself at the butt end of a lawsuit.

    /. allows a forum for posters to express their views. Any law of which that would be in violation needs to be swiftly challenged and disposed of.

    Not to say that it is wrong to oppose oppresive laws and systems, but /. is becoming the "no IP" site.

    The /. "official policy" (not that there is one) is not that all IP is bad, but that entities which attempt to abuse IP with bogus patents (Amazon, BT...), post-sale license "agreements" (CueCat, MS...), and purchased legislation (MPAA, RIAA...) should be stopped. (Voting Libertarian [harrybrowne.org] would be a good start.)

  • Including my own ...hometown newspaper

    Of coruse any good reporter protects his sources, and will have no problem interviewing a bunch of anonymous athlites and then publishing. I worked for a newspaper (Not in a position where my poor english would matter) and we continiously pubbed it into reporters that it is better to go to prison then revieal your anonymous sources.

  • Re:CBC Website (Score:4)

    by Giro d'Italia ( 124843 ) on Monday September 25, 2000 @08:29AM (#756029)
    I highly recommend the Canadian coverage. Yes, it's live, which is a big plus if there are some events you are really into, or if you're just a fanatic (like my wife).

    The real difference is the substance of the coverage. On NBC, you get Oprah/ER type bleeding heart stories about the athletes; interviews with families, coaches, teachers, etc. That's all well and good if you want to sit and get all teary eyed, but if you are actually interested in the sporting events, NBC is awful.

    CBC covers the events, and you get fairly decent analysis of them. The commentators (especially track) really know their stuff and explain the nuances of unfamiliar sports quite well. There is the occasional backgrounder on an athlete, but the event itself is the focus.

    The other great thing is that they are fairly neutral, at least vis a vis NBC. They'll interview a non-Canadian who wins an event, they'll discuss non-Canadian favourites. NBC is only interested in the American, and only if they have a chance of winning.

    Hoorah for CBC. I hope that the US cable providers near the border keep them on their lineup.
  • Which bribe was that for Sydney to get the Olympics?
  • I haven't watched a single minute of the Olympics since they replaced the U.S. basketball team with a team of NBA pros.
  • I've been greatly amused by the way my local paper [uniontrib.com] has been publishing a mid-day edition with the latest results. They end up scooping the TV coverage by a good margin.

    This tells you the sort of high-powered executives they have over at NBC - they managed to make television less immediate than the newspaper...

  • NBC won't be able to meet the minimum ratings they promised to advertisers and few people over here even seemed to notice the Olympics had started.

    That's because NBC's coverage, from what I've heard, sucks. Ratings here in AU are fantastic, and without being xenophobic, I'd account the lack of ratings in the US as being largely to do with apathy for anything that doesn't happen in the US.

    Do you know last night (Michael Johnson and Cathy Freeman winning their respective 400ms) had the highest attendance of any Olympic event ever? 112,500 people. Impressive, I think.

  • \begin{rant}

    I wish to God they would just go the hell away. I'm sick of hearing about how this or that is the official thing of the Olympics. It's so commercialized it makes my flesh crawl. They'd force you to use the Official Credit Card of the Olympics in lieu of cash if they could get away with it. Perhaps they should eliminate the porta-potties when Depends becomes the official protective undergarments of the Olympics. Will they make Smith & Wesson the official large caliber handgun of the Olympics? It makes me want to fucking PUKE (I'll use the Official Barf Bag of the Olympics.)

    And the IOC is a non profit organization? How about revoking that status and taxing them on their proceeds. It doesn't sound to me like there's anything non-profit about them.

    This post brought to you by the Offical Whiner of the Olympics.

    \end{rant}

  • Yeah. Evidence? If anything I think Athens should have hosted 1996, not Atlanta, it being the 100th anniversary.

    Or does that earn me a anti-American smackdown? :)

  • As I understand it, the IOC is essentially a autocracy controlled by Juan Antonio Samaranch who has been president for over 20 years IIRC. He lives in a $500,000 a year hotel suite in Geneva paid for by the IOC and did nothing about the corruption in the IOC even though by his own admission he knew of problems dating back to 1984. (He did nothing because no one came forward with names!)

    He did not resign after the latest scandals although many believe he should have. He has not been directly implicated in any corruption scandal...yet.
    --
  • I've never wanted less to watch the Olympics than this year. Not only is it over-commercialized, with fascist control over merchandising, but now they're spending more time dredging up some sob story or another that each athlete had to go through before getting there. Whatever happened to the stories of the actual competitions themselves?

    Or is it that now everyone wants such polished audience-targeted formula crap that they are avoiding "live" stories in favor of something that an unemployed sitcom writer can put together weeks in advance?

    I haven't watched a single minute of the Olympics, other than what I see channel-surfing past it. Thank goodness it's only on one network, and not all of them!

    I find the stories of Slashdot competition much more interesting. Like the Troll Vault here [slashdot.org]. 45 mod points, 24 of them "Funny"? What an amazing human^Wtroll achivement!

  • BC: Hi! I'm Bob Costas, and welcome to NBC's incredibly wonderful coverage of the Olympics(tm). In fact, our coverage is so wonderful that we want you to enjoy the anticipation so much, that we wait till tomorrow! Now let's go to the events.

    Cut to the 10000 meter run

    Announcer1: Look! There's an American running in this race. He hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of winning, but we're going to keep the camera trained on him, because we know you don't care about who wins if it's some foreigner.

    Announcer2: That's right! Hey, look, the American guy just got lapped by some foreign dude. They should change the rules so that the Americans always come in first.

    Cut to 20 minutes of commercials for Nike, IBM, and Coca-Cola

    BC: Hi! I'm back. And weren't those commercials thrilling? Oh yes, here are the results of the 10,000 meter race. It was actually held yesterday, but we know you didn't want to know about them today. Some foreign guys won, so you don't care. But now we'll cut to a clip from four days ago at the pool, because we know you love to watch Americans accept their gold medals!

    Cut to a clip of some US swimmer accepting their gold medal with the Star Spangled Banner playing in the background.

    BC: Doesn't that just bring a tear to your eye? And we'll be showing you that clip every day! Looks off camera for a minute... What? Oh, I'm sorry. It appears that that athlete has been banned from the Games, and had her medal stripped because she said that she believes that Nike(tm) uses sweatshop labor. Darn. Now we'll have to find another heartwarming clip of an American accepting a medal. Meanwhile, it's off to the fencing competition.

    Cut to yet another 20 minutes of commercials.

    BC (showing bruises on his face): Sorry, I lost my head there for a minute. Management has "reminded" me that Americans don't care about fencing coverage, so we'll go to something else. Here's Rhythmic Gymnastic coverage...

    Cut to the Rhythmic Gymnastic coverage

    Announcer1: Hi. We're just down to the part where some pre-teen girl runs around the floor holding a huge ball, and we pretend it's a sport. We know you love this coverage.

    Announcer2: Oh! She dropped the ball! Darn it, and she was an American, too! Now we'll probably have to broadcast some pictures of a foreigner. They should change the rules!

    Cut 20 more minutes of commercials.

    BC: Well, that wraps it up for our Olympic coverage for tonight. After your local news, we'll rerun this entire show, instead of showing other sports that WE know you don't want to watch.

    Cut to 20 more minutes of commercials

    Closing Credits. Includes the line: This is the property of NBC and the IOC. If you even talk to your friends about who won before we broadcast it, we'll sue your asses off!

  • Why Olympic Ratings Suck... (Score:3)

    by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Monday September 25, 2000 @08:45AM (#756066)
    I think people are just as interested as they ever have been with the olympics, maybe even more so. I think a lot of the problem with the bad ratings is simply because the coverage is horrible.

    A) NBC delays the coverage for multiple hours in order to run it during prime-time. Unfortunately they seem to have forgotten that the one of the big things that makes the sports exciting is that you don't know who won in advance. Given the prevelence of alternative media outlets (*cough* internet *cough*) there is little reason to watch if I already know who won.

    B) They only cover a limited number of "popular" sports and even then the coverage is shallow. The sports I'm most interested in are wrestling, taekwondo, and judo. However unless there is an american in a gold medal match, I will never see these sports. (and even then the match usually isn't shown in its entirety) Even for track, swimming and the other more popular sports, the coverage is shallow and very incomplete.

    C) Those stupid "Olympic Moments". You know the ones. Where they show some banal feel good piece about how some athlete's parents were run over by a piece of farm equipment, his sister has cancer and his dog ran away but he persevered and made it to the olympics. Or where they waste time on some useless piece of trivia about the host country. No one I have ever spoken to likes these. We watch the olympics for one reason, the sports. I don't really care about the life history of the athletes. Just show me the sports.

    D) Overcommercialization. Yes I know companies pay the bills. But that doesn't mean they have to be crass about it or run 15 minutes of commercials for every 3 minutes of athletics.

    E) American-centrism. Yes, all us Americans love to see an American win. However believe it or not I still like the sports even if an american isn't involved. Yes, I really do like track if Michael Johnson doesn't win. I will still watch swimming if Jenny Thompson isn't involved. Etc. The olympics provides a rare chance to see a lot of the best athletes in the world at a wide variety of sports all in one place at one time. Whether an american wins or not, is really of very little importance.

    And there are other reasons, but I'm tired of thinking about it. If NBC wants me to watch, they should get some people who actually understand sports to schedule their programming. Until then, I have better things to do.

  • I dunno. Would it just be a "rule of the game" if athletes were told that their participation depended on their not marrying members of other races or belonging to a particular political party? The regulations regarding steroids are designed to ensure fair competition; regulations prohibiting free expression are designed only to maximize IOC profits at the expense of basic human rights. It's not like anything that could reasonably be construed as a trade secret is at risk.

    Sure, it's legal. But it's unethical and antithetical to the spirit of the games, which is one of the things the IOC is supposed to be concerned about. Unfortunately, they seem to be mainly concerned with grasping incompetently and short-sightedly after money.

    --

  • I just about puked when I saw the basketball "Dream Team" a few years ago.

    In defense of USA Basketball (and admittedly off topic) the US was one of the few countries that voted against letting pros play basketball in the olympics. Why? Because they knew that it was going to be disgustingly lopsided and thought that it would turn people off. The whole complaint about the US demanding to let pros play so that they could wipe the floor with all of the other countries, which many people make, is 180 degrees off.

  • Re:CBC Website (Score:3)

    by Riplakish ( 213391 ) on Monday September 25, 2000 @08:49AM (#756074)
    I hope the CBC is telling NBC to go prack themselves. It's bad enough that NBC is "black-holing" results in the USA, just to force people to watch their boring, insipid coverage, but to try and force a broadcasting company from another country to delay their coverage, because it might hurt NBC's ratings is an outrage.

    Did I mention that I am an American?

  • "USA gymnastics has been a joke during the Olympics. I laugh now at all the hype the media gave simply because it blew up in their faces. We were horribly outclassed this time."

    Not to mention swimming, lead by the ubiquitous Gary Hall Jr. "We're gonna smash the Australians like a guitar."

    Meanwhile, the Australian relay teams ignore it and just smash World Records (and said Gary Hall Jr.) like a guitar. :)

  • I agree. As an Australian, actually being here... there's a WORLD of difference between the Olympics 'as they happen', versus the Olympics, 'exclusively presented to you via NBC'.

    Though Channel Seven's coverage here has left a lot to be desired too. (This is their free to air coverage, which seems more aimed at frustrating people into subscribing to C7 - two cable channels of coverage, owned by same company).

  • The IOC can get $700mn for the exclusive rights.

    The IOC takes measures to ensure that it can deliver the exclusive rights.

    What's the news story here? If Hemos started his own site whereby he kept on publishing all the story submissions he gets from slashdot, plus his book reviews, and sold advertising in competition with slashdot, you betcha ass he'd get reminded of the little print "The Rest © 1997-2000 OSDN. ".

    If you own the event, you get to set the terms on which people attend your event.

    If this didn't happen, we wouldn't have big sporting events.

  • That's the point: there are no more amateur athletes, or at least very few. And you can bet that those getting paid aren't going to risk their money on something relatively trivial like on-line diaries.

    Is anyone here even watching the Olympics? I haven't watched a minute: to me, they're a joke. The only thing the Olympics stand for these days is selling french fries and shoes. The IOC might as well just sell the Olympic name to Nike and be done with it.

  • Of course they want to control it.. (Score:5)

    by M-2 ( 41459 ) on Monday September 25, 2000 @06:58AM (#756089) Homepage

    Especially since, in general, the ratings for the Olympic broadcasts have been getting steadily worse for the past two decades. It's quite possible that NBC will not make ANY money off of the Olympic broadcasts this time around. Add to the sheer level of botching they've had with the release of information and the display of the events, and you can see why this is not looking good for their shareholders this time.

    Unfortunately, the diaries of the Olympians are just the sort of thing that would bring a lot of interest to the Games. Knowing what some of them were thinking, doing, planning... who in the competition they really thought were tough and who they didn't think were actual competition.

    The IOC has, more and more, lost the concept of the fact that the Games are not just national spectacle, but also tales of achievement, and they're cutting off one of the really great ways to show that sort of ethic off.

    But this is the same bunch where they fired half of the main committee for bribery a few years back, so I'd bet that the media companies (NBC, et al.) also paid to have a clause in the contract that NO ONE ELSE can have the coverage. With that sort of patronage/corruption in place, the mediots could then dictate that any 'diaries' are violations of that clause, as it takes away from their 'exclusive coverage', as well as taking away from the deep insights of Bob "Jack Handley" Costas.
    ----

  • I don't understand all these people crying about "amateur" athletes, who cares if they are amateur or not? Their is hardly a point in having a world class competition but barring the top performers of the sport.

    A great deal of the mystique surrounding the Olympics was the fact that it was a world-class amateur competition. The professionalization of the Olympics has utterly destroyed the one thing that made it unique. Every sport has it's world championships for the professionals; they come every year, and if you want to see professional athletes, you have plenty of opportunities to do so. You'll get a good show. That's what they are paid to give you.

    The Olympics were different. In order to be an Olympic athlete, you had to not only become a world class athlete, but you had to make the tremendous sacrifice of not performing for money, and you were entering a competition that only took place every four years, which meant that most athletes would only expect to compete in one, or maybe two games. You find it hard to believe that anyone would do it, but before the IOC destroyed the games, that was the price! Often, the Olympics were the "last stop" before an athlete turned pro -- and part of the tension was that the stakes were so high -- these were people who, given the choice between a professional career and a chance at an Olympic medal, chose the latter, and everyone recognized the sacrifice as well as the accomplishment. It was really something much more special than it is now.

    Granted, the eastern bloc nations often cheated on the amateur requirement, and the IOC had the choice of whether to enforce the amateur requirement, or accomodate the cheaters. They took the low road, again and again, and now they wonder why the world is disillusioned with their corrupt, ruined games.

    Now the Olympics are nothing more than the world professional sports championships, except that it comes every two years, so it isn't even a novelty anymore. I don't want to watch a "dream team" of overpaid, asshole NBA players beat the hell out of a third-world team and go on TV to tell us all what a snooze the game was and how bored they are and how they can't wait to pick up their gold medals so they can get back in time to rest up for the NBA season. I want to see the best American college athletes get together to try for a medal, knowing that it's a one-shot; they will never have a second chance -- the NCAA championships have a million times the heart and emotion that the Olympics will ever have. Maybe they should let NBA players play in the NCAA championships too. Why limit their potential?

    The problem with barring professional athletes is that the best will not even care to compete if they are going to have to starve to do it, why should we limit a persons potential?

    The aspect of personal sacrifice is now gone from the games, replaced by corporate greed, mandatory non-disclosure agreements for the athletes to "shut them up" so they don't interfere with what's important -- selling the rights to cover the games, and drug tests for the athletes to draw attention away from the real source of corruption - the IOC.

    Unless you count a millionaire basketball player making the "sacrifice" of having to make do with a gold medal that should belong to an amateur athlete, instead of taking a paycheck this week.

    Sorry, but the Olympics are now just another manifestation of of bloated, corporate crap.

  • Re:They should just boycott the IOC back. (Score:5)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25, 2000 @08:54AM (#756091)
    Nice idea, but not going to work. Having done quite a few international competitions in an olympic sport (although I won't be taking part in olympics anytime soon) there are few formalities involved which basically make this an impossible equation.

    Just to be able to enter competitions (olympics too) you're going to have to sign a declaration that states that you are going to be in full compliance with the rules and regulations involved. In my sport these mandate you to take part in the interviews and other post-competition activities(medal ceremony, etc..) involved provided you do sufficiently well.

    If you don't you might lose your some or all of your price money and definetly get a really bad name for yourself. You might even get banned from entering competitions in future. I can't think of a single athlete who has worked hard and then would just throw it all away because their diaries can't be published.

    In order for this to work people doing it would have to be really really famous and those people have the most to lose. All corporate sponsorships etc. The lesser known medaling athletes would be just more than happy to have accomplished what they did and would not jeopardize anything(future corporate sponsorships).

  • How many times to officials need to be bribed, and caught before people realize this?

  • Re:Of course they want to control it.. (Score:3)

    by gorilla ( 36491 ) on Monday September 25, 2000 @09:00AM (#756100)
    The ratings have been falling in direct coorelation to the increase of inclusion of "sports" such as syncronized swimming, where there is no objective standard, and instead a judge has to decide if they like what the performers are doing. Of course, the American judge never likes what the Russians are doing, and the Russian judge never likes what the Americans are doing. It's become a big game of politics, and it stinks.

    Now obviously a coorelation is not a cause, but it's just one example of how the modern Olympics is no longer about how well people can run, jump throw things etc, and instead it's become a huge commerical jingoistic bribrary ridden folly.

    Go back to the focus being on the athletes. Limit it to real sports that the winner can be objectivly measured. Make them the best adults in their fields. No more 14 year old kids with eating disorders too scared of their coaches to quit. Get rid of the national anthems in the medals, the national team coloured tracksuits and the country names in the scoreboards. If Michael Johnson or Alexei Nemov win it's not because they're American or Russian, it's because they are Michael Johnson or Alexei Nemov.

  • It's because of this, that I'm unable to listen to Triple J [abc.net.au] in the states, because this Australian station may talk about the olympics during parts of it's broadcast, and also has minor olympic coverage. So therefore, for their safety from the IOC, they stop their broadcasts 24/7 until the Olympics are over. This applies to some other .au stations as well...

    It's also kinda pathetic that because of this, no one can broadcast any live video of the olympics... so in the states, you're forced to watch NBC, and you can't watch any other station broadcasting anywhere in the world... assuming you don't have satellite. Kinda has pissed me off, as I stream my video, as I don't have a television. Therefore, I have not seen any Olympics this year.


    _________

  • And CBC even advertised for TSN's coverage (!) (Score:4)

    by peterarm ( 95041 ) on Monday September 25, 2000 @11:08AM (#756113) Homepage
    When CBC was showing coverage of the Canadian men in the beach volleyball quarterfinals, the women's marathon was being run. CBC did some switching back and forth, and some split-screens, but what really impressed me was that Brian Williams (a CBC commentator) actually said (when they were switching back to volleyball) that anyone who wanted to watch the marathon could see it live on TSN (Canada's ESPN). Phenomenal.
  • According to the news I've heard, in some cases they are banning vendors from selling products that look like official sponsors' products. E.g., a burger stand was stopped from selling burgers because they looked too much like McDonalds or something. If that is not the height of stupidity and corporatization I don't know what is. What is really ironic is seeing athletes from third world countries plastered with logos of the likes of Nike and other companies, who are, in their very own country, exploiting the workforce with sweatshops and child labor. Dave Barry had a recent column on the 2000 Ford Exxon DuPont Toyota Traveler's Insurance McDonald's Olympics brought to you by Coca Cola, that was pretty good.

    Ah, well, see sig.

  • CBC Website (Score:5)

    by MarkKomus ( 71304 ) on Monday September 25, 2000 @07:04AM (#756123)
    I don't have a link for it, but apparently NBC is trying to get the CBC here in Canada to stop updating their olympic web site [cbc.ca] as soon as the events are completed because NBC's coverage does not occur until later the next day.

    There have also been reports on how many American's near the border and with satalite have actually been watching CBC coverage because they are showing events live (even at 5am), while NBC is always a day behind.

  • As part of drug inquisition, the judges have stripped a gymnast of her gold medal for taking pseudo-ephedrine for a cold. Pseudo-ephedrine, of course, is the safe synthetic drug developed as a replacement for ephedrine which is a stimulant and not good for you.

    If you buy a cold medicine that is marked "non-drowsy", it's probably pseudoephedrine. What's next? Ban Tylenol?

    I sure am glad there's sufficient numbers of fanatics out there making the world safe for busy bodies.
  • In 1996 in Atlanta, the Olympic folks were raising cain over legitimate uses of the word "Olympic" and "Olympics." They sued the fuck out of a little pizza place in the suburbs called "Olympic Pizza" that had been there long before Atlanta was chosen as a host city. I'm sure everyone else will report about this... it made the front page of the Atlanta Journal-Constipation a year before the games went up.

    -Chris
  • More important than protecting mere money streams (in which case the IOC may be overstepping its bounds) is protecting the IOC's trademark rights to "the Olympics". I know your knee-jerk reaction to such a statement would be to say "But the IOC has no legitimate trademark on the word 'olympics'", which may be true in general terms (and the IOC is rather heavy-handed in clamping down on diners and other unrelated economic uses of the word, which is unfair and improper). But here, we're talking about olympic athletes using their prominence within the Olympics to make a quick buck by promoting messages contrary to the message the IOC has ordained.

    Any other legitimate claim of trademark infringement would be lauded on Slashdot, as you'll remember if you recall the IMac v. IPC nonsense a year back. But somehow, because we're talking about corporations battling individuals and not corporations merely battling each other, this has changed? Think carefully and reflect on your own hyporcrisy, and you may come to the correct view.

    Cheers,
    Froid
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • They should just boycott the IOC back. (Score:5)

    by jms ( 11418 ) on Monday September 25, 2000 @07:07AM (#756139)
    Well, if the athletes feel strongly about this, they should get together and agree not to participate in any interviews at all. I'll bet that if a few gold medal winners, when presented with a camera and microphone, were to tell the reporter that as a protest against being prohibited from publishing their diary, they were declining to give any interviews at all, I bet that the IOC would get the message pretty quickly.

  • Reading those gymnasts web diaries really brought home the reality of the Olympics, and personally, finding out what motivates a 13 year old is very personally rewarding.

    All sarcasm aside, I'd love to know how a 13-year-old feels about being at the Olympics! It might not be my top news story, but still could be interesting. And I'm not sure that the IOC should be restricting said 13-year-old from letting others read their personal writings about the experience, just because some US network wants "exclusive" rights to yakk on and on about how great Michael Johnson and company are and ignore every other country's athletes.

    (Yes, I know there aren't supposed to be 13-year-olds at the games, I just said that for effect)

  • Anonymouse Reviewer: Worst Olympics, Ever!


    It's all true! ±5%

  • Delete proprietary info from mind of an employee when he quits/is fired.

    Reminds me of Snow Crash.

  • If your answer is "yes", please indicate what it means to "own" a sporting event

    Errrrr ... to own it. To own the trademark (remember the Ted Turner World Peace Games?) and to organise it.

    But if I attended the game, can I make a webpage that gives a general outline of the game. Sure! I'm not "rebroadcasting" anything--I'm reporting (in my own words) on an event

    Major League Baseball decides to give you that right as part of the terms on which it sells you your ticket. You haven't signed a contract saying that you won't do this; the Olympic athletes have (a fact which Slashdot chose not to post, and you chose not to bother finding out).

    You can run an event but you can't own the rights to tell people about it

    Nonsense; owning the event means that you control access to it; if you are minded to, you can only allow access to people who agree to respect the exclusivity of your broadcasting rights. This is not exactly a controversial matter of law.

    That must be why the ancient Greeks never held any Olympics.

    Perhaps if we return to a slave economy, your economic model will once more be viable for a few citizens.

  • ...for /. not to go the extra redundant mile for news coverage... ;)
  • 1: NBC is pissed that we, so sophisticated as we are, tune in on the internet or shortwave (yeah, it still exists!)
    2: ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, whomever, recognize that the world has changed again and they just noticed it!
    3: Broadcaster lobbies IOC to deny access to Olympics anyone who doesn't play by their exclusive rules
    4: Heavy lobbying of the House or a sympathetic President results in blocking of foreign netcasts, surfing foreign pages, radio jamming, etc
    5: We in the home of the free and land of the brave are, step by step, cut off from news and views of the world (which once we so celebrated when accessed by a student under a fascist regime like Iraq, Iran, North Korea or China)
    6: Check for a sale on brown shirts and jack-boots in the officially sanctioned news paper
    7: Practice your goose step and regurgitating whatever wisdom your betters have passed along to you

    What has gone around eventually comes around.


    It's all true! ±5%

  • It's also kinda pathetic that because of this, no one can broadcast any live video of the olympics... so in the states, you're forced to watch NBC, and you can't watch any other station broadcasting anywhere in the world... assuming you don't have satellite. Kinda has pissed me off, as I stream my video, as I don't have a television. Therefore, I have not seen any Olympics this year.

    See if your cable provider has CBC, who are broadcasting from Canada and carry the events live. Then you can use NBC as a fallback to catch the events you missed!

    Cheers,

    Toby Haynes

  • If you are pointing a gun at my head and I sign a contract saying I'll pay you $1M, it is not valid. But an Olympic athlete has a choice: they can sign the contract and go to Australia, or they can not sign the contract and not go.

    What is it that you are threatening to take away from a person when you hold a gun to their head? Everyone dies - all life ends eventually. The answer is that you are threatening to take away their dreams - their possibilities. That is exactly what the coercion the IOC is using against those athletes is doing.

    You can only see the most direct level of coercion: physical force or torture. Ultimately what any threat does is cause pain. Pain is the central nervous system's way of reporting physical damage is occurring to itself. It doesn't matter how that damage is done to a person's central nervous system: all pain is signals which are integrated by the brain. You wish to exclude only that pain which is directly caused and which you are sensitive enough to detect . I am simply a little more aware than you are, and I can see that coercion is almost always wrong.

    Just because the actions of the IOC are legal, doesn't mean that they are right. I'll repeat it again, just because you can get someone's signature on a piece of paper doesn't make what you are doing right. The motivations of 'Guido' with a gun and the IOC with a non - negotiable contract are virtually indistinguishable; each is trying to get something which it hasn't earned. It is the similarity of their motivations which cause me see their actions as similar.

    When you trick someone into signing a 'con'tract you are trying to get something you don't deserve. You can claim that you deserve it because you are cleverer than the people whom you con, but 'Guido' is cleverer than you are: he had his gun at your head before you got yours out - so by the 'who is more clever' argument he is entitled to your wealth.

    Contracts obtained by coercion are wrong - it doesn't matter what the coercion is.

    Of course the law agrees with you, but as has often been pointed out, the law is an ass.

  • Not a question of free speech.. (Score:3)

    by kabir ( 35200 ) on Monday September 25, 2000 @07:11AM (#756175)
    No... Athletes are not being told that they may not freely express themselves, they are being told that they may not freely express themselves and participate in the games. It's a condition of competition, just like the no-drug requirement (which exists despite the fact that certain steroids, etc. might be legal in an Athlete's country of origin). It's not so much a law as a rule of the game.
    --

  • IOC Bans Spectators From Olympics (Score:5)

    by Saint Aardvark ( 159009 ) on Monday September 25, 2000 @07:15AM (#756178) Homepage Journal
    Sydney (AP) -- In a move that signalled a harsh clampdown on non-licensed coverage of the Olympic Games, the International Olympic Committee announced that it would be banning spectators from the Games themselves. The ban is to be put in place immediately.

    "It's very simple," said an IOC spokeswoman. "The IOC has an obligation to fulfill the terms of its contracts. And when these spectators -- or 'coverage pirates' as we like to call them -- go home and talk to people about what they saw at the Games that day, they are providing unlicensed coverage -- coverage that should be coming exclusively from NBC. It's up to us to stop this."

    She denied that the ban was overly fascistic. "Actually, we will be erecting giant television screens outside the Olympic Stadium, where people can watch licensed NBC coverage of the events inside. What more could people want?"

    Free Software Foundation guru Richard M. Stallman could not be reached for comment. A source close to the programmer said he was "busy watching the 400 metre butterfly."

  • Never mind "live", how about "decent"? CBC's coverage could be three months delayed and I'd still prefer it to the patently pathetic job NBC is doing...
  • Yes, they probably did agree to it. Presumably, to play in the games, you need to sign some sort of sign-up form which says amoung other things that you agree to follow the rules set by the IOC. These rules may include things like saying that all football games follow FIFA rules. They also most likely include provisions against using performance-enhancing drugs and the likes. And, now, they say you can't talk about your experiences during the Olympics unless your talking through IOC approved channels.

    Since IANAOlympian and probably never will be (probably? definately!) I've never actually looked at what they say, but usually, whenever you sign up to play in any type of tournament, you agree to the rules they set. Most of the rules are good: specifying that the ruling of the judges is final, the exact ruleset used for a game, etc. So I would find it quite unlikely that the athletes didn't agree to it. More likely than not, they were warned to stop it or forfeit any chance of a metal. It's still the Olympics, so that's probably quite a powerful threat...

  • Funny how a "non-profit" organization is the first to receive this title.

    The IOC has been doing everything in its power to bolster its bottom line. From accepting bribes to put the 2002 olympics in Utah, to making that inept moron of a journalist, Bob Costas, the sole source for fans to hear about the life of the olympic athletes. This is an Orwellian attempt to hide the real pain that is the Olympic bureaucracy.

  • Just one of the benefits of living in Seattle - a ton of very good CBC coverage from the Vancouver station (thanks, CBUT!). Who needs Nothing But Commercials???
  • Because of this sort of policy (not allowing rebroadcast/webcast/etc.) those of us who wish to follow lesser covered sports like fencing are pretty much SOL. There is no major network coverage of these sports available in the US, and since no-one can put up a web site I have to wait for the video tape from the hand-cam of my fencing instructor to arrive back in the states. It's extremely frustrating, and the IOC has left no recourse for enterprising individuals (short or exhorbitant shipping fees, I suppose) wishing to see lesser covered sports, or full coverage of a given event (NBS edits like you wouldn't belive!).

    Grrrr.
    --

  • IP (Score:2)

    by musique ( 35188 )
    /. has been minimizing the role of Inetlectual Property in business and in open source.

    In this case, the IOC is nuts to say that atheletes cannot keep diaries. They seem like a bunch of communists for doing that, but they're avoiding the Internet because they don't have a plan to use it. But, it is their right to control the flow of media from the game. They can't stop an American olympic athelete from writing about the experience later. And if they try, they're stupid.

    /. is making itself look bad by attacking IP rights. When I heard about DeCSS, I thought it was a stupid case. Then I read a description of what the program does, and that is flat illegal, no matter what you say. It makes a copy of copyrighted material. The program would not be illegal if it weren't for DMCA, which is a very bad law, but it is now illegal. This does not justify other issues with the DeCSS case, such as tramping on the rights of journalists. If it were to pipe an MPEG video player, not logically going to the hard drive (i.e. only possibly going through virtual memory) then it would not be illegal because it would not "copy" the movie!

    Given that it is IP rights that protect GPL'ed code, one must respect others IP rights by not taking illegal actions because one thinks it's okay. For example, Napster sold itself by saying that you could illegally copy songs by major artists. They made statements that said that you wouldn't find no-name artists on Napster. They show a lack of respect for copyright law, and have put themselves in a sticky situation.

    /. should be careful about trivializing IP or it may find itself at the butt end of a lawsuit. Not to say that it is wrong to oppose oppresive laws and systems, but /. is becoming the "no IP" site. Without any IP, people would not be able to bring their creations to fruition and invention and innovation (not the MS kind, but the real kind) would stagnate and would be limited to small hobby projects.
  • They were called about by their president to boycott the games. It wasn't about idealism, it was about political pressure.
  • which is really odd, because all the national radio and television stations in the states are giving the results of the days events before NBC plays them. A good example, on Opening Day, I heard whom the final torch bearer was on NPR at 5pm CST, then watched it at 12pm CST. I felt that something about the suprise was lost then, but I don't know if I blame NPR for that or what. (NPR has done the days results at 5pmish since). Another good example was that the results of the gymnastic tourney were reported by Tom Brokaw on the NBC Nighty News before they were shown in NBC's broadcast.

    It's understandable that NBC is trying something in *american* television that hasn't been done before: broadcast something that literally happens completely opposite to prime time for 3 weeks straight, and they might make errors. But most ppl have agreed that NBC made poor choices in the games coverage this year. What they should have done is should have converted MSNBC to broadcast the live feed of the olympics (delaying the business news slightly in the early morning hours), then used a 4hr block on NBC's prime time to go over the day's highlights, with certain events in full (such as gynamistics, etc), cutting down longer events (soccor, basketball), and still get all the appeal that they needed.

    I have a feeling that because of these olypmics however, you're not going to see another olypmics that doesn't occur within 10hrs of LA (eg limiting it to the Americas, Europe, Africa, and Western Asia.)

    Which suddenly reminds, what *did* they do with the Winter Olympics in 1998 in Japan? As the WO get much less coverage, I can't remember if they tape delayed or what, and yet they have the same problem as Aussie.

  • You haven't missed much. NBC is putting on the absolute worse broadcast of the Olympics that I have seen. They seem to think that we'd rather tune in to a sporting event to see hours of Austrailian history than the sports themselves. It has been so bad that this US station only showed under ten of the thirty US womens gymnastics performances in both the prelims and the finals. The other sports are covered in this same spotty manner.
  • Just before the Atlanta games, the IOC tried to get businesses in NW Washington state to change their names. Seems that the IOC feels that they own the term 'OLYMPIC' absolutely, even if you live and work in the Olympic mountain range. I guess we should be grateful that they didn't try to force us to change the name of the mountains...
  • The article by Dave Barry is available here, Miami Herald [herald.com]

  • "Evil" is right -- Atlanta Games (Score:3)

    by doodaddy ( 92272 ) on Monday September 25, 2000 @07:22AM (#756201)
    I'll keep it short but I was in Atlanta going to school during the games. The committee did a sweep of local venues and closed down anything with a reference to the Olympics, or which had rings in it's logo - even though the city was sponsoring the games and putting lots of money into it. A decades old restaurant - The Olympiad (a pizza joint) was forced to change its name!!! The potential penalty was something ludicrous though I don't remember it now. The mayor was bribed. The schools were shut down to house the athletes so students were kicked out and had to find some place for the summer. (Studying is a pretty noble goal as well.) Several new stadiums were built under the promise (by city govt) that there would be a windfall of profits from the games. Not surpisingly, a follow up story never pointed out just how much was made.
  • the fans allowed to tell their stories of the games or is that privilaged to NBC as well?

    Yep! The IOC made sure the only ones reporting were their 'approved' pool of 'press'. No fan diaries, no 'I saw [blah] winning the 5,000 Meter Balloon toss'.
  • Speaking of sponsorship, an intresting little ditty...

    The Brazilian 4 x 100m swimming team (that won bronze after the aussies and the americans) was almost disqualified because one of the athletes had a minuscule logo from one of his Brazilian sponors on the shirt he was wearing.

    IOC didn't approve (i.e. received money from) the Brazilian sponsor so they really were gonna take the medal away. They gave up after a few days and a lot of begging on part of the athletes - I suspect that the brazilian company gave Samaranch a nice fat envelope at his wife's funeral.
  • Posted by polar_bear:

    It's really odd to see the amount of hype that is being given to the olympics - especially given the collective yawn that people are giving them. It's a good example of the growing disconnect between media outlets and the public's interests. Of course, the multi-million dollar sponsors are pressing media outlets for more coverage since they're afraid of seeing their (wasted) investment go out the window.

    Maybe people have finally woke up and realized that there's no point in watching endless hours of coverage of something that has absolutely no meaningful impact on their life...(notice the ratings for football are also down this year as well...)

    I saw a poll on MSNBC, I think, that was about the low ratings and oddly enough none of the options were "no one cares" or "the olympics don't interest me" - they were all about time slots and that sort of thing, which leads me to believe that either they're trying to simply rig results that say "Oh, that's why ratings are low - because we're showing them on tape delay, not because no one really cares..." or they really can't fathom that the average American really doesn't care.

    To address the topic at hand, though - it's ridiculous to say that participants can only communicate to the public through approved channels, but it looks like the atheletes are going to have to fight the IOC if they want to do so and still be allowed to play. Of course, by the time the IOC gets done getting rid of the olympians who are using dope and the ones who are doing diaries they won't need to have the games anyway!
  • The aggressive enforcement effort, he said, is meant to ensure that "the association between the athlete, the sport, the values and the symbol that represents all this is clear."

    A pretty dangerous quote for an IOC official - or at least one with quite a big opening for ridicule. I think that pretty much everyone believes what the symbol represents - greed and corruption.

    I am surprised that the atheletes signed such a contract. I'm even more surprised that they had to sign such a contract. "Yes, come represent your country. However, any thing you experience during the games is our property." I wonder if the atheletes that have the video cameras during the opening ceremony have to sign something special to carry them in. Perhaps they have to pay the IOC before showing them to their family.

    The IOC paints themself as so holy and so committed to the spirit of the games. However, if you go to an event, you can not wear an outfit that has a visible logo on it for fear that someone who hasn't paid a shitload of money may accidently get free advertising if that shirt shows up in a photo. No problem with the atheletes all wearing their Nike logo uniforms.

    Or perhaps I'm pissed of the lack of soccer and fencing coverage, and the majority of coverage going to "non-sports" (gymnastics, synchroized this and that. Basically anything that you can not use a length, height, time, etc... to judge a winner.) So part of my beef is with how pathetic NBC is.
  • but they are non-profit

    The IOC may be non-profit (or more correctly, not-for-profit (but we can't help it if we actually do make one)), but it seems the individual members profit as much as they can.

  • I would like to tell what I think... (Score:4)

    by ralmeida ( 106461 ) on Monday September 25, 2000 @07:28AM (#756218) Homepage
    ...about all this. But I can't, because I am an olympic athlete at Sidney.

    --

  • Security guards have reportedly been confiscating cocacola products. It seems Pepsi is the official soft drink of the 2000 olympics, and someone thinks "official" ought to mean "the only thing allowed".

    Also, a food vendor that was selling an item with egg and ham was booted because it sounded too much like an egg mc muffin.

    The IOC is getting way out of hand. I live in Utah, so I've heard all the bad there is to hear about the SLOC-IOC scandals. I'm embarrased that we even wanted the winter olympics here. I'm planning to be on vacation out of state when they happen.

  • Your idea is a good one; if enough of the athletes did this together, it'd certainly get folks to take notice.

    It seems, however, a bit of a longshot to get everyone involved. Even everyone from one country. Especially countries that don't prize free speech the way the US does.

    But if all the athletes mentioned the ban, and their disfavor towards it, that might even be enough.
  • Sadly, the Olympic Games ARE "just a commercial event" at this point. Overblown, overcommercialized, and mired in politics, legal weirdness, and questions of bribery.

    And now, this. Now the communications of those participating, those contributing, those we want to see and hear of, are limited. The IOC is now in the same category as the RIAA in my book - people busy ignoring those doing the work and snatching up as much intellectual property as possible.
  • How do you get the "rights" to report on something?

    Simple.. just hit the US Patent office and apply for a patent on reporting the Olympics.
  • you damn right "olympics" is a trademark! They made a long-standing company in Norman, OK (USA) change it's name from "olympic village" to "athletic village" ...

    Obviously, we've never had an olympics here. IIRC, we had some trials in Oklahoma City and that was when the IOC found out about this store and made them change it...
    ---
  • I don't know if you heard about the Australian guy back in the 50's when the Olympics were in OZ: A 17 year old kid made a fake torch out of a stick and a tin can, put on his torch carrier outfit, and started running. The police saw him, and escorted him to city hall, where the Mayor was waiting. Mayor finishes up his speech, everyone starts to leave, then the real torch arrives.

    It is stuff like this that can make the games in your town fun! Ya got two years to work on a prank - I sure would if they were here where I am.

    Vote Nader [votenader.org]

  • IOC USA Members Addresses (Score:3)

    by namespan ( 225296 ) <namespan&elitemail,org> on Monday September 25, 2000 @07:59AM (#756239) Journal
    OK, so here's some IOC US Members Addresses.
    If you're displeased enough to actually write
    a physical letter, and able to be articulate,
    maybe you should use these. Please folks, don't
    turn the flame level up high unless you do it
    subtly. And nothing so immature as hacking or
    death threats, please.

    Oh. International slashdot readership. Haven't forgotten you, but I can't duplicate the whole list. Find it here [olympic.org].
    ---------------------------------
    James L. Easton

    7855 Haskell Avenue, Suite 202
    Van Nuys CA 91406-1999
    USA
    ---------------------------------
    Anita L. DeFrantz
    c/ o Amateur Athletic Foundation
    2141 West Adams Boulevard
    Los Angeles California 90018
    United States of America.
    ---------------------------------
    Robert Ctvrtlik is a US IOC rep, but
    doesn't have an address listed.
  • Sorry for posting what is obviously old news. I should point out that the post in question was on a Saturday, and I am (like many /.ers) a weekday reader.

    - Richard

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing ever becomes real until it is experienced. - John Keats

Close