Parolympic Games

vyle

kermitfrog wrote: »

The least you can do to show respect for the Paralympic athletes is to spell it correctly!

It denotes the parallel Olympics.

Thank you! I was going to say that, but thought better of it :P.

marmitepotato

dacouch wrote: »

The Paralympians are truely inspirational, hopefully they will inspire other disabled people and also change the opinions of able bodied people. I think this will be the legacy of London 2012.

P.S Has anyone seen the blind Iranians multi cartwheel goal celebration against GB yesterday?

Yes, I saw him. The whole Paralympics has got me mesmerised. I've laughed, I've cried, I've shouted at the tv screen, I was totally exhausted after David Weirs two races.


I have tickets for the stadium on Saturday and I am so excited. Thank you London 2012 for showing us just how fantastic the Paralympics is.

pickpocketlocket

kermitfrog wrote: »

The least you can do to show respect for the Paralympic athletes is to spell it correctly!

It denotes the parallel Olympics.

It's a shame that MSE could not do the same - "Go Paralympic Team GB" ... Err, who?

pink_princess

marmitepotato wrote: »

Yes, I saw him. The whole Paralympics has got me mesmerised. I've laughed, I've cried, I've shouted at the tv screen, I was totally exhausted after David Weirs two races.


I have tickets for the stadium on Saturday and I am so excited. Thank you London 2012 for showing us just how fantastic the Paralympics is.

Wow, enjoy it.

I wish I could get there :j

GABBLERAD

vyle wrote: »

I think you need to understand some things:

Firstly, the BBC bid enough to secure the next four olympic games, but did not care enough to outbid C4 for the paralympics. Clearly the BBC did not want to broadcast them that much.

Secondly, the BBC does not need to turn a profit in the same way that C4 does, so for C4 to invest however much it did, it clearly feels that it could turn a profit from the advertising. If it didn't have adverts, it wouldn't be able to stay in business. They're a necessary evil.

C4 doesn't have the resources to hand to splurge on a bunch of special paralympic channels like the BBC did. If it DID, as a for-profit broadcaster, don't you think they'd be exploiting them for cash already?

As for why it's sidelined in newspapers... papers like to tell a story, to pull the nation through a narrative. Sadly, they've already done this story, three/four weeks ago. It's too soon for them to repeat the stories, and most of the nation, in the newspapers' eyes is burnt out and repeating the same story isn't going to sell so well the second time round.

It's not so much disrespectful as the unfortunate effects of going on second.

But it should not be second, it should be equal.

Channel 4 should not have been allowed to bid. The BBC should automatically get the rights and have to show same coverage as the Olympics. It is completely out of order interrupting athletes for advert breaks.

vyle

See....again.... it's the IOC and IPC (I think that's what it's called) that decide they want money. Under your logic, they would be free to bill the BBC what they want for the paralympics and force them to broadcast it whether they can afford to or not, which isn't a great use of license fee.

While from what I hear C4's coverage isn't very good, they're constricted. Is it C4's fault for bidding for something they can't do that well. Yes, but at the same time, the reason why they're not on the BBC is that the BBC clearly didn't want them that much. If BBC's being outbid by C4 it's clearly a token bid.

As for being second, they say (the IPC) that it's because it's logistically impossible to host both at the same time, and the IOC wanted to go first so they did, so that's an issue to take up with them, really.

pink_princess

GABBLERAD wrote: »

But it should not be second, it should be equal.

Channel 4 should not have been allowed to bid. The BBC should automatically get the rights and have to show same coverage as the Olympics. It is completely out of order interrupting athletes for advert breaks.

All on at the same time?

How do you expect that to happen?

I believe we did amazing job transforming the venues from ablebodied to multiablebodied in such a short time.

I think if it had been intergrated then the paralympians may of not been the focus. It has raised the focus and I think they have done us proud.

mallada

I have 3 dedicated HD channels and equivalent channels in standard. Plus channel 4.

Yes adverts are annoying and the coverage isn't as much but thats the way the bid went

balletshoes

GABBLERAD wrote: »

But it should not be second, it should be equal.

Channel 4 should not have been allowed to bid. The BBC should automatically get the rights and have to show same coverage as the Olympics. It is completely out of order interrupting athletes for advert breaks.

they don't interrupt the athletes for advert breaks :rotfl:. Thats one of the funniest things I've read :rotfl::rotfl:.

giraffe69

But it should not be second, it should be equal.

No it shouldn't. It maybe politically correct to say so and many admire the fantastic effort and achievement of the paralympians but, in truth, it is a second rate competition and fewer people will want to watch. Personally I don't even if I admire the skill and amazing effort at overcoming stiff odds from many(most) who compete.