An Endorsement for Golf from IOC President, Golf Stars
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 5, 2009 11:26 PM EDT
Email
PrintOn Friday, golf will need 53 votes in favor of its inclusion into the 2016 Olympics from the 106 member Congress in Copenhagen. The votes will be cast by the same body that rejected golf cities like Chicago and Madrid in favor of Rio de Janeiro, a city in a developing nation.
As our rcrusoe pointed out, Rio is a city that boasts no major championship-caliber courses. In fact, it boasts very little golf infrastructure altogether. Despite that and no announced plans to build golf facilities to suit Olympic golf, Rio got the nod anyway. It is not hard to make the leap that golf is not in the best shape for the Friday vote.
How cool would it be if Loudmouth Golf
created Olympic pants?!
Perhaps sensing that the moment for golf was slipping the International Golf Federation, headed by the PGA Tour's Ty Votaw and the R&A's Peter Dawson, tried to enlist the help of some professionals with a cameo in Copenhagen. Two-time Open Champion Padraig Harrington, Suzann Pettersen, Michelle Wie, and the British Amateur Champion Matteo Manassero will all be a part of golf's final presentation on Friday.
When the Executive Committee voted in August on its recommendations for the full body, it took four rounds of secret ballots for golf to overtake karate and get to this October vote. It has been said that Tiger Woods' indication that he would participate in the '16 Games if he were still competitively active was the deciding factor. Perhaps the realization that Woods will be 40 in 2016 has the larger Congress wondering about golf's viability.
International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge came out today in support of golf. He is not looking to the appeal of an aging Woods, but rather appealing to golf's youth movement with the likes of Rory McIlroy and Ryo Ishikawa. This is likely the impetus for including Pettersen and Wie - particularly the American - in the presentation.
Rugby sevens, the other sport recommended by the Executive Committee, will surely get into the Games for '16. The question will be if golf provides enough global appeal to make the sport a good fit for the Olympics. For the IOC President to step in so close to the vote and feel the need to publicly defend the recommendation of the Executive Committee does seem like quite a statement about golf's security.
Lawrence Donegan agrees over at his great blog. In fact, I wrote the same thing, then did a little link finding on Google and found his take.
11 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Do you ever think that these kinds of “conventions” do business for about half an hour a day, then hit the town for touring and eating and drinking so they can stretch it out as long as possible ? There are 5 or 6 sports being considered for entry into those games – but it will be Friday before they get to golf ? (lol)
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Well, they basically vote on golf and rugby sevens, that’s it. But I have no clue how long the presentations are, schmoozing, etc.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 6, 2009 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions
They have been there since last week and won’t get to golf until Friday. That’s at least 10 days on the taxpayer’s dime – not to mention the estimated $750k – $1.35 million just to have President Barry hop on Airforce One for 14 hours. Can’t just hook up a satellite connection and a teleprompter in the Oval Office ? “Hi….I’m…Barrack…O..bama…and I would…like..for you to…put….golf in…the Olympics…it would be…change…and bring…hope…to…golfers around…the world…”
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Golf in or out of the Olympics has nothing whatsoever to do with the United States or its government. It’s the world golf associations who are doing the wining (whining?) and dining and schmoozing and whatever else they do.
The president, like the head-of-state of each of the other three countries, went to Denmark to present the case for each. That’s how it’s done.
Am I going to have to read knee jerk, if-the-president-did-it-then-it-must-be-wrong baloney from you for the next seven plus years?
Truth has a well-known liberal bias.
really ? so why was Obama overseas ? Tax dollars to to the building of venues and upgrades to infrastructure.
Reagan didn’t go to wherever they met when Atlanta was chosen for the ‘96 Olympics. Andrew Young and Billy Payne headed the group from the US. I don’t really care what the other heads of state did.
Hopefully not – it’ll just be three years. ;-) Come on – all the venom you spewed at Bush ? I didn’t say Obama was wrong for supporting the Olympic effort – but if you’re going to babble on about cutting back on costs and spending – and it costs half a million dollars every time you fire up Air Force One…someone is going to notice that you’re doing what you say you’re doing sooner or later.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Where did you get the half million dollars number?
The only venom I spewed at Bush related to the unjustified, poorly planned invasion of Iraq.
Truth has a well-known liberal bias.
half million ? the report I saw estimated it between 3/4 million and 1.35 million dollars for that flight. He spent nearly 2 million on his “date nights” to New York and Chicago.
you really need to study your history a little better. Iraq was completely justified and SHOULD have been carried out nearly 12 years earlier when Hussein refused to allow UN investigators into the places they wanted and were legally allowed and bound to go after the Kuwait invasion. IF you would study a little bit – you would find that your liberal buddies like the Clintons were publically behind the evidence that there were weapons, nuclear materials, and biological weapons – that is, until Bush got elected – then they reversed field and started screaming that Bush was evil and just picking on Iraq. Gee – what a shock – 10 years after Kuwait – the UN couldn’t find anything. Why ? Because Hussien wouldn’t let them into the places they knew held the weapons until after they were cleared.
The UN was supposed to enforce the surrender – but was too weak to do what they were supposed to do.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
I know a little bit of something about airplanes and their operating costs. There is no way fuel and maintenance reserves for a B747-200 are going to cost that much. The personnel required to go along when the president travels are already employed and getting their normal salary. Per Diem isn’t going to cost that much either. Someone is pulling your leg, CG.
So, you think Hussein moved the weapons to Syria, huh? In reality, he used almost all the chemical and biological weapons Reagan gave him against Iran. What little was left he used on the Kurds. Hussein let inspectors in multiple times. Bush had to tell the inspectors to leave so he could launch “Shock and Awe.” It was all made up BS because Bush wanted to be a War President, just like his daddy. In the meantime, those who actually attacked the US slipped out of Afghanistan into Pakistan. So now we’re left in a bind because Bush wanted to give his cronies big time military contracts and play the hero.
As an aside, if invading Iraq was that important, why didn’t you enlist?
Truth has a well-known liberal bias.
D – we’re not talking about you or me taking a flight – we’re talking about one of the most highly protected people on the planet. I agree with you on the reported costs. The question I always ask is how these things cost so much for this one trip – do they not pay the security people and pilots and support people if they are not actually on a mission or trip ? Obama isn’t the first president to have these kinds of figures tossed around – but he is the first one who has abused the priviledges of the office so much. Even Slick Willie didn’t run off for multi-million dollar date nights.
Really ? You know how much or how many weapons Iraq had ? How is it they existed until Bush got elected, then magically disappeared and the democrats all changed their opinions ? I have no idea where he put them – but these things don’t just disappear – they are somewhere.
Why didn’t I enlist ? I’m an old fart – they didn’t want me.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
When I said I know something about aircraft operating costs, I actually meant it. There are two types of costs associated with the operation, direct which includes fuel, crew and maintenance reserves; and indirect costs which includes the cost of acquisition that is generally amortized over the life of the airplane, insurance, and hangar space at home. The government has either owned or leased the airplane for over a decade, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, I’ll leave out indirect operating costs.
I have no personal experience with a B747, but I do have experience running a corporate flight department. The costs below are educated guesses.
Direct Operating Costs
Fuel: 3600 gallons per hour @ $1.50/gallon = $5400/hour. The military probably gets fuel for significantly less than this.
Flight Crew: It’s large for Air Force One, but all members are in the military so if they weren’t flying the president they’d be doing some other military job. No charge.
Maintenance Reserve: Airplane maintenance schedules are predicated on flight time, so it’s perfectly reasonable to allocate a specific dollar amount for each hour of flight for both predictable maintenance plus the ever present unforseen circumstances. I have no idea what’s budgeted, but it’s the most sophisticated 747 in the world, so let’s budget around $3000/hour.
The airplane has room for significant number of “guests” such as the press and upper level members of government who are traveling in the same direction. These guests are required to reimburse the government for the cost of their flight.
So, my scenario has Air Force One operating for about $9000/hour. Significantly less than the half million you’re throwing around.
Saddam Hussein didn’t even control the skies over Iraq. After the Gulf War he was so hemmed in about the only thing he could do is abuse his own people. That’s a terrible thing, but it’s not enough to justify an invasion while ignoring the real threat. Bush ignored multiple warnings that forecast the events of 9/11 and by 9/12 he was looking for a way to attack Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush’s own weapons inspectors never found any evidence of WMD after the invasion. CG, you are so blinded by ideology you can’t take an objective look at the facts. Your response is always, “Blame Clinton.” Read history? Hell, I’ve lived it.
Truth has a well-known liberal bias.
D – here’s the thing – I’m not making up the figures. I tried to tell you that I didn’t understand how they decided these trips cost so much and I didn’t invent this idea. I also told you that Obama isn’t the first president to have these figures thrown out about – though he is the first to abuse the office priviledges for his little date nights. And I really don’t care what kind of expert you think you are. This has nothing to do with how much I dislike Obama or how gullible you appear to be to his un-Constitutional actions.
Bush didn’t have his own weapons inspectors. Where the heck did you get this from ? The UN was doing the inspections. Hussein not having control of MOST of the skies has nothing to do with anything. Bush may have missed some signals – but how many terrorist attacks went ignored by Clinton ?
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Have a golf story tip? Contact editor Charles Boyer and he will follow the story! Thanks!
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
