Do you care about the 2010 Winter Olympics?

. ._ · Post by **. ._** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:49 am

I, personally, don't care who can ski fastest down a hill, or who gets to the bottom of the ice slide first, or who can skate in a circle really well. I do like the short skirts the figure skater chicks wear, but that's about it. I really don't care about the 2010 Winter Olympics.

I'm curious.

-istp

SkyWolfe · Post by **SkyWolfe** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:51 am

I wish they would curl up and die. I live in yvr, suprize!

iflyforpie · Post by **iflyforpie** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:30 am

Two week party for the rich. Corrupt judges, doping scandals, construction overruns. And my taxes get to pay for it all!

Screw the IOC and VANOC!!

Changes in Latitudes · Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:49 am

Love the olympics, watch it religiously.

habit · Post by **habit** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:42 am

Just the mens Hockey

Rowdy · Post by **Rowdy** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:10 am

Its brought a lot of good and a lot of bad to vancouver... Much like everything else. Hooray for new infrastructure and roads and sports complexs.. booo for the huge loss of tax money, the ridiculous security setup and stupid flying restrictions.. not to mention it'll bring a whack load of morons to the city and surrounding area..

BoostedNihilist · Post by **BoostedNihilist** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:40 am

not to mention it'll bring a whack load of morons to the city and surrounding area..

I heard that the interior detachments are loaning officers out to increase security.

and yes I care. @#$! the liberals and @#$! the olympics. my 15 year old brother has more fiscal responsibility than the entire IOC and VANOC combined. I don't give a rats ass that vancouver gets some more infrastructure. I don't care about the legacies left behind by the olympics. What I do care about is the gutting of our infrastructure here in the interior and centralization of power/money. It's a bunch of bullshit and I hope those lying shitbags who comprise the liberal party get ousted come next election.

Rowdy · Post by **Rowdy** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:01 pm

BoostedNihilist wrote:
not to mention it'll bring a whack load of morons to the city and surrounding area..
I heard that the interior detachments are loaning officers out to increase security.

and yes I care. @#$! the liberals and @#$! the olympics. my 15 year old brother has more fiscal responsibility than the entire IOC and VANOC combined. I don't give a rats ass that vancouver gets some more infrastructure. I don't care about the legacies left behind by the olympics. What I do care about is the gutting of our infrastructure here in the interior and centralization of power/money. It's a bunch of bullshit and I hope those lying shitbags who comprise the liberal party get ousted come next election.

Would you rather have the NDP crumble the province into a vast nothingness again?

Just another canuck · Post by **Just another canuck** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:38 pm

habit wrote:Just the mens Hockey

x2

2R · Post by 2R » Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:49 pm

If they do not let those girls do the ski-jumping ,the courts should cancel the games .Or at least prevent my taxes supporting sexist games .

Remember when they laughed at girls wanting to play Hockey .How many gold medals have they won now ?
And even if they never won a medal the women /girls should still get to compete at their chosen sport.

Edo · Post by **Edo** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 10:33 pm

Just another canuck wrote:
habit wrote:Just the mens Hockey
x2

I see the mens hockey for what it is the almighty dollar ruining what used to be to be an international amateur sport competition.

B-rad · Post by **B-rad** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 10:42 pm

2R wrote: Remember when they laughed at girls wanting to play Hockey .How many gold medals have they won now ?

That's a good point. I am curious at how many gold medals the women have won in women's hockey. I'd say all of them but I guess you can never be too sure.

I'm all for the Olympics but I am pretty disappointed to see the negative impacts it can have. I never saw it from this end until it happens in our backyard. Since it is happening, I hope it has a huge success.

Just another canuck · Post by **Just another canuck** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:11 am

Edo wrote:
Just another canuck wrote:
habit wrote:Just the mens Hockey
x2

I see the mens hockey for what it is the almighty dollar ruining what used to be to be an international amateur sport competition.

Most people would rather see the best of the best play, rather than the Junior player's who we see perform in International competitions every year. It's nice to see NHL player's play for their respective countries... after all, in only happens every four years. Not to mention, the hockey is far more superior and the results of who's who of men's hockey are much more accurate.

You don't like it, don't watch it.

laticsdave · Post by **laticsdave** » Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:23 pm

As a Brit, I know that since Torvill & Dean are no longer in the team, we'll win less than 1 medal, so I don't care for them too much - but Canada must kick the US's ass at hockey!!

Just another canuck · Post by **Just another canuck** » Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:31 pm

laticsdave wrote:Canada must kick the US's ass at hockey!!

The US actually has a number of excellent players... as does Russia, the Swedes, the Fins, Czechs and then there are a few other countries that are making a name for themselves.

But, yeah, statistically, Canada rules at hockey... for now... they'll always be huge contenders but other countries are really starting to step up... Russia especially, but they've always been really good.

GO CANADA!!!

Floats · Post by **Floats** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:40 am

Ok, I'll open up a can of worms.

Womens hockey should not be part of the winter olympics (yet)

There are 10000 male hockey players, who were never good enough to make the show, let alone the elite who make the Olympic team, who are better hockey players than the womens olympic team.

Also, the sport has been dominated by 2 countries, Canada and the USA, with the rest of the world miles behind.

Now, if the major benefit of having womens hockey at the olympics, is too incourage more women to take up the sport, well thats an obvious plus. However I personally find it quite boring to watch, lack of physical play being a factor.

And given the recent news, where 2 women will be inducted into the hall each year. Am I the only one who sees a problem with Hayley wickenhiesor (sp) being inducted ahead of Doug Gilmour.

anyway, my 2 cents, I'll duck for cover now

Just another canuck · Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:17 am

Yes, you have certainly opened a "can of worms"... let me explain.

Just to say it shouldn't be part of the Olympics is well, completely sexist. "I don't like it." and "I think it's boring." is no reason not to let them compete. That's your personal opinion and you are entitle to that, but they have just as much a right to be there as the men do.

And yes, it's obviously a male dominant sport... that's why there are 10,000 men (probably more) that could be gathered to make up more and more teams. In fact, I would even say the Junior B teams in Canada wouldn't have a problem beating the women's Olympic team. Again, there is no significance here. You could say this about many sports. Sports, in general, are dominated by men and in most cases, you would be hard-pressed to find a female who can beat a male in any of them. But, who cares?

And sure, it's not as exciting as men's hockey, but it's still pretty good to watch IMHO... and yes, the Canucks and Yanks dominate, but the same could be said about the Canucks and Russians thirty years ago in men's hockey.

Anyway, to say it shouldn't be part of the Olympics is just wrong... there are other sports that I find extremely boring... biathlon for one... cross country skiing... luge and bobsled aren't even that interesting and as far as I'm concerned don't require a hell of a lot of skill. That's really all irrelevant anyway.

Sure Dougie Gilmour should be in the H of F and Wickenheiser, probably not... that's obviously more about politics. There are countless players that should have been inducted a long time ago and still have not. Oh well... move on. Or do something about it... write a letter, start a petition if you are really that upset about it.

The women belong there. It's good for the sport. It's good for women everywhere. And at least for the next while, it's another medal for Team Canada.

B-rad · Post by **B-rad** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:01 am

Floats wrote:Ok, I'll open up a can of worms.

Womens hockey should not be part of the winter olympics (yet)

There are 10000 male hockey players, who were never good enough to make the show, let alone the elite who make the Olympic team, who are better hockey players than the womens olympic team.

Wow, I am really surprised that you actually said that.

How do you feel about the Special Olympics?

Floats · Post by **Floats** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 1:55 pm

B-rad wrote:
Wow, I am really surprised that you actually said that.

How do you feel about the Special Olympics?

Come on, people come out of your politically correct round padded rooms.

I'll quote Steve Simmons, Toronto Sun Sports Sunday April 5, 2009

"The idea of opening the Hockey Hall of fame to women is noble and may be politically correct, but it is absolutly forced at this time in history.
The women's game has not advanced enough as an international sport for there to be a credible pool of Hall of Fame Candidates. There are only two countries that play the game at the highest level, and at any time there are no more than 40 world-class players around the globe.
How does that qualify women to get their own place in the Hall of Fame?
This is not an argument of sexism but of sport. There is no national or international leaque of consequence in womens hockey. There are only world tournaments and Olympics and every major event is won by either Canada or the United States.
Yesterday, at the world championship, Canada outshot China 75-5 in a 13-1 win. The US beat Japan 8-0. This is Sport? These are preliminary matches leading up to the inevitable showdown.
And while there are giants who have undoubtedly helped grow the women's game, small at it remains, the Hall of Fame should not at this time be opening up to two Candidates a year. Its too soon. Lets talk when there are six countries capable of winning Olympic Gold. Then, and only then, should the Hall of Fame be listening"

I agree, there are some sports i dont enjoy watching during the olympics, thats my choice, but I always support those who wear our flag, even the womens hockey team. Its still my opinion that its not very good hockey. However my point is not that it shouldnt be in the Olympics because I dont enjoy it. I feel its not at a level to be considered an olympic event yet.

I"m sure there are others who may even agree with me, but are affraid to speak up for fear of insulting the politically correct. This has nothing to do with being sexist. Im willing to bet I have done more to promote womens hockey than most on here. I coach a womens hockey team.

And B-rad, Im mildly insulted that you compare deciding which sports warrant olympic status with whether or not we should hold a special olympics. My step son has down syndrome, and I only hope one day he could be so fortunate to participate in the special olympics

Just another canuck · Post by **Just another canuck** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 2:10 pm

Floats, you do make some very valid and interesting points... and I agree with you on the Hall of Fame issue. They haven't earned their place in history there... not yet.

But I still think they belong in the Olympics. Plus, to not allow them would cause problems and controversy so big, it would be less trouble just to let them play. Sure, the final is going to be Canada/USA, but at least that's something we as Canadians and Americans have to look forward to.

So, I revoke my statement about sexism... you're obviously not if you coach women's hockey. But why such a strong attitude towards banning the sport from the Olympic level? You of all people, I would think, would be supporting it.

Anyway, give the girls more of a chance... cheer them on and if watching them in public, keep the "Women should be out of the Olympics" comment to yourself. I'd hate to hear you got a shiner for it.

Cheers Floats and good luck with the rest of your season (if it's not already over)

JAC

B-rad · Post by **B-rad** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:28 pm

Floats wrote: And B-rad, Im mildly insulted that you compare deciding which sports warrant olympic status with whether or not we should hold a special olympics. My step son has down syndrome, and I only hope one day he could be so fortunate to participate in the special olympics

But let me guess.. if it was a daughter you had, you would feel that she shouldn't play in Olympic Hockey because women are not as good as men?

I'm not arguing that Women's Hockey hasn't had the time to grow into a competitive enough sport for you yet but no matter the abilities (ie Special Olympics), I can't believe you would say that Women shouldn't play Hockey as an Olympic sport. Do see what I'm getting at? or do I need to spell it out even more for you. From what I understand of your reasoning, Special Olympics shouldn't be a sport either because there are far more capable athletes and disabled people (or women in hockey) should not be given the same Gold as someone like Michael Phelps, a male athlete at the top of his sport.

I'm not trying to be politically correct but saying women should not play hockey in the Olympics is just stupid.

Floats · Post by **Floats** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:50 am

B-rad wrote:
Floats wrote: And B-rad, Im mildly insulted that you compare deciding which sports warrant olympic status with whether or not we should hold a special olympics. My step son has down syndrome, and I only hope one day he could be so fortunate to participate in the special olympics
But let me guess.. if it was a daughter you had, you would feel that she shouldn't play in Olympic Hockey because women are not as good as men?

I'm not arguing that Women's Hockey hasn't had the time to grow into a competitive enough sport for you yet but no matter the abilities (ie Special Olympics), I can't believe you would say that Women shouldn't play Hockey as an Olympic sport. Do see what I'm getting at? or do I need to spell it out even more for you. From what I understand of your reasoning, Special Olympics shouldn't be a sport either because there are far more capable athletes and disabled people (or women in hockey) should not be given the same Gold as someone like Michael Phelps, a male athlete at the top of his sport.

I'm not trying to be politically correct but saying women should not play hockey in the Olympics is just stupid.

Perhaps I should clarify myself, I made the mistake of talking about 2 different issues mixed into one post, the olympics and the hall of fame. When I made my reference to 10000 players who didnt make it. I was talking about the hall, and while their are pioneers in womens hockey who may deserve right to the hall, 2 a year is too much, I mean in 10 years, they are going to be electing players just on the reason that they showed up and played, hardly what the hall of fame is for.

And again, so I can spell it out clearly for you. It has nothing to do because they are women, Grow up! The sport is 2 teams and thats it. What you believe I am saying, is because they are not as good as the men, they shouldnt be allowed? It doesnt matter what the gender is. its a sport of 2 guarenteed medals for Canada and the USA. Thats not really much of a competition is it?

Now going back to my original post, I added if the benefits of womens hockey in the olympics was significantly enough to promote the sport than im ok with it. If not than, it should be out of the olympics until it is a world class sport in its own right.

As far as my step son is concerned, I suggest you grow a little respect and show some class as a human being

floats

(thats it from me on this topic, I believe I have more than enough explained myself, and if you still feel Im sexist, well, I think thats sad on your part)

B-rad · Post by **B-rad** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:36 am

Floats wrote: When I made my reference to 10000 players who didnt make it. I was talking about the hall.
And again, so I can spell it out clearly for you. It has nothing to do because they are women, Grow up!

I'm not even sure you read what you write.

Floats wrote: Womens hockey should not be part of the winter olympics
There are 10000 male hockey players...who are better hockey players than the womens olympic team.

Ok, you got me. I was a sucker to even respond to your post.

Just another canuck · Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:04 am

We all knew this would be a disaster from the get go... time to move on and let bygones be bygones.