Should the Paralympics be scheduled before the Olympics?

1 to 20 of 22 messages
26/08/2012 at 19:01

I'm not bothered which way round they are scheduled, but they should be before the closing ceremony (not explained well)

Opening, Olympics, Paralympics, Close

or

Opening, Paralympics, Olympics, Close

Another point is they should also get equal coverage. Will they get the 24 channels that the Olympics had on Sky, I think not

26/08/2012 at 19:03

You need the massive interest generated by the Olympics to fuel the Paralympics.

The interest peaks by the close of the Olympics, and the Paralympics benefits from this massively, with people realising there is still a chance to get to events.

If you ran them the other way,, I'd imagine the interest would be pretty low, with people saying they're waiting for the real action, and saving their money and time.

26/08/2012 at 19:24
I believe it should be after as the public interest was about 50 - 50 before the games started. By the end nearly everyone seemed very positive which can carry the feeling straight into the Paralympics. They cannot have the Olympic closing ceremony after the Paralympics as they are 2 separate events run under different governing bodies. I don't think the Paralympics have anything to do with the IOC. Please correct me if I am wrong on that point.
26/08/2012 at 20:23

It all a little too low key for my liking

It will hopefully build up when the events start but at the moment there is not enough of a build up. The Olympics started off bonkers and didnt let up until the Spice Girls left the stage. I fear the Paralympics are all a little too tasteful.

Not likey.

27/08/2012 at 04:32
The Olympics and Paralympics are completely different events, run by separate governing bodies, so they will both have their own Opening and Closing ceremonies. I think it's only in recent years that they've even been hosted at the same time by the same country, as obviously it makes sense for the Paralympics to use the infrastructure that's already in place for the Olympics AND to benefit from the public interest which has already been fired up by the Olympics... I don't think that would work so well if the Paralympics were first.

As for the TV coverage, both events would have been bid for separately by TV companies and it just happens that Chanel 4 won the rights for the Paralympics... I think they got them for Beijing as well... Probably there won't be so many chanels available but, again, it's handled as a completely different contract.
27/08/2012 at 20:18

No.

27/08/2012 at 22:26

definitely lowkey and not sure it will get the same respect or audiences being on channel 4.

also, sure as f*cking f*ck it shouldnt have ATOS as sponsors

28/08/2012 at 00:15

Agree with many of those above - without the Olympics preceding them they'd get a fraction of the interest they are going to get now.     It'll be great for the athletes to compete in front of a full house and I bet the TV audiences and even the media coverage will be that much greater because there is still a bit of a buzz from the Olympics.   

It wont get the same audiences as the Olympics of course but then why should it - the athletes work hard but then lots of people work hard at lots of things and don't expect whatever it is to be screened live on TV irrespective of whether there is a demand to watch it.   

 

28/08/2012 at 17:07

No, but I think that if you get the TV rights to broadcast the Olympics you should have to broadcast the paralympics. Did you know US TV isn't showing them? It's an outrage.

28/08/2012 at 18:04
What's wrong with channel 4 showing it?

It would be hard to get one channel to have the rights to both as the Olympics and Paralympics are completely different organisations.
29/08/2012 at 09:53

I'll hold thoughts on channel 4 until afterwards, if the coverage is as shocking as the World Champs last year... but the point was about US TV.

gingerfurball    pirate
29/08/2012 at 09:58

I'm really disapointed that the paralympics are on channel 4...I don't like any their presenters for athletics when they cover those and I found one of their ads (for a late night catch up of events) quite distasteful.

29/08/2012 at 11:36

dancing in spikes

Not sure how you could force the broadcasters in a country to bid for TV rights to any event. If they thought their was an audience to watch it they would have bid, obviously they don't.

30/08/2012 at 09:17

Why are the events separate. Why are they not one event? Why are they not held together? Are paralympians a sub species? Why is there discrimination?

Ignoring any argument about logistics. That can be overcome.

30/08/2012 at 09:39

Perhaps that question, Mouse, should be put to the organisers of the paralympics, and to the athletes?

Maybe they want it to be separate?

On the TV issue, I didn't watch much of the olympics, and will probably not watch any of the paralympics.  The part of the opening ceremony I saw last night was definitely poorer for being interrupted by ads, and the commentators were not up to much either.

But then, I don't much like watching sport on telly (I'm going to the stadium to watch athletics on Monday, though!)

 

30/08/2012 at 10:39

T.Mouse, I get the impression that the Paralympians are very much proud of their event and, logistics aside, would be incredibly miffed if they were combined with the Olympics.

It is an entirely separate event, with very different origins and a completely different governing body.

Wouldn't it be a bit like saying, "why are the Winter Olympics not combined with the Olympics"? Again, logistics aside.

 

 

 

Edited: 30/08/2012 at 10:40
30/08/2012 at 11:05
I had heard that there are practical reasons for the Paralympics following on. It's easier to make the modifications to the event arenas and accommodation than to dismantle that infrastructure for the able bodied athletes. Though considering the speed at which they can get the opening ceremony stuff cleared and the stadium set up it's not an overwhelming reason.

I strongly agree with Loons point about ATOS sponsoring the event, given their role as official hatchet men for cutting the welfare bill.
30/08/2012 at 11:11

ATOS are only the messenger, really, on the benefits issue.  They are acting on the government's decisions.

The responsibility for the changes lies with the Government, who have put a lot of (our) money into the olympics and paralympics.

If you're going to reject money-providers on that basis, the government should be rejected!

Edited: 30/08/2012 at 12:06
30/08/2012 at 13:33

It's difficult because if someone offered me a highly paid job working for them I'd probably take it - but ultimately you are responsible for what you do and the fact the govt are paying you for it isn't an excuse.   

30/08/2012 at 18:47

that may be the case Wilkie, but they are doing a hatchet job. the assessment process is totally unfair, totally biased towards getting people off sickness benefit regardless. it's the height of hypocricy for them to sponsor the paralympics.

if they are going to do these assessments they should be done by medically qualified personnel who specialise in the area of disability/health problems. this isn't the case. 

having been (and still on) the receiving end of the fecking raw deal this shower are handing  out to EVERYONE, not weeding out the piss takers, that's where I have an issue. their sponsorship leaves a hugely bitter taste 

1 to 20 of 22 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW Forums