Athensfan

I don’t buy the premise of this article. If everything happens quietly, out of the public eye, without any publicly released timetable, then what is there for the media to report? Just a lot of speculation. I foresee a lot of “maybe,” “perhaps,” and “we’ll have to wait and see.” Even after future hosts are decided, we won’t know much about how those decisions were made — apart from what the IOC chooses to make public. It seems to me that the primary reason for cloaking the process in secrecy and abolishing most structure is for the IOC to avoid media scrutiny. No one can comment on low numbers of bids, failed referendums, etc. if none of that information is available. I do agree that this new approach will further erode public trust in the IOC and could benefit totalitarian governments. I also suspect, that the IOC will adopt a “bird in the hand” approach, where as soon as they have strong interest from a semi-reliable partner they will move forward and try to lock in that host as fast as possible. They’re trying desperately to keep the Olympic movement afloat. Perhaps there are enough Olympic junkies to keep Gamesbids on life-support as well. Lord knows, this crowd is content to speculate endlessly despite limited data. But what happens once there is almost NO data? Doesn’t that speculation become an exercise in futility? In words we will hear much more of, “It will be interesting to see what happens....”

This begs the question, why should GamesBids.com continue to exist? BidIndex has been irrelevant for some time. There have been very few bidders in recent years. Now the whole process has changed to something with no set timeline that will be decided mainly behind closed doors. What is there to analyze or discuss? It’s difficult for me to envision any meaningful future for this site.

I’m surprised you all are arguing the merits of the various “bids.” At the moment, they are only “interested parties.” The big question is how many (IF ANY) of them go the distance and make it to a vote. All the remaining “players” could still go down. Erzurum: venue plan? no winter sports tradition. political instability. Stockholm: funding? Calgary: plebiscite? Italy: CONI is reliably unreliable. Italians have withdrawn from the bid process in recent memory. This plan is cobbled together and wobbly. I’m betting at least two of the above go down in flames before a vote. Possibly all four. For me, there’s just no point in debating their respective “merits” when they all seem so uncertain.

Like so many, I've always believed Paris would host 2024. I still do. However, I think the IOC really needs the Games in LA ASAP -- even if they don't realize that. I think it's a bit much to suggest that LA will "save" the Games. But I do think that LA can put forth a dramatically different model and generate much more youth interest and energy than Paris. The IOC has dug itself into a huge hole with three consecutive Games in Asia. Western audience share will decline -- especially among youth. LA, IMO, would do more to rebuild than Paris. Generally speaking, the French are so dramatic about these sorts of things that I fully expect the IOC to give them the Games just because they don't want to deal with the fallout of a Paris loss. Although I have no doubt that Paris Games would be a success, AT THIS TIME I don't think they offer as much benefit to the Olympic Movement (or should I say Olympic Paralysis?) as LA does. But Paris will still get 2024. I don't think it's a sure think that the LA crew will regroup for 2028. These bids take so much energy and drive. Eric Garcetti, Gene Sykes, Casey Wasserstein all have careers and lives. Do they really want to wait 11 years more? Would the USOC even be smart enough to offer LA again? Or would they have another stupid domestic bid? I think the latter is highly plausible. Dallas anyone? There's also a question of Olympic fatigue. Can the people of LA sustain enthusiasm that long? The corporate sponsors? It would be great if the IOC could get both Paris and LA, but I think it's a long-shot. And now that both cities have said they only want 2024, it would be difficult to say, "Surprise! We're giving you 2028 anyway!" The cities would have to be in agreement. And no matter what intimations the IOC might make about 2028, there are no guarantees until that 2028 vote is done -- assuming it gets to a vote. I think it's Paris 2024 no matter what -- even though LA would be better right now for the Olympic Movement. If the IOC is smart, they'll enter into talks about 2028 with the USOC and LA after the Paris victory. Assuming that all parties agree on LA 2028, then the IOC should just ratify this at their next general session. Then they overhaul the whole bid process. But I suspect it won't go down that way. I think there's a good chance that 2028 could be a total mess with only the likes of Doha bidding. I think the majority of the IOC is still in denial about just how untenable the current system actually is.

Well, the IOC isn't FIFA, but it is not a meritocracy. In that respect, I can understand calling it "cooked." The 2016 evaluation report was quite slanted and made it clear that the IOC already favored Rio. For instance, it omitted any mention of crime in Rio and drastically under-represented transportation times. Chicago received negative comments in both those areas. Rio's financing was lauded over Chicago's as well, which seems especially bizarre. The language describing Chicago's bid betrayed the underlying strain between the IOC and the USOC. As soon as Paris entered the race for 2024, we all knew they would win as long as they didn't shoot themselves in the foot. Really, they would have to amputate their own foot in order to lose. That alone shows that the quality of the bid is really not the primary criteria. The IOC's biases are obvious enough for everyone to know how they will vote ahead of time. The voting process seems fair and free of bribery, but it's not about the "best bid" (just ask Almaty). It's about warm feelings and favorites. And in that context I understand Obama's remarks. The timing is unfortunate for LA2024 , but Obama's remarks are really more about his own political legacy and defending himself from detractors than they are about the IOC. The whole 2016 episode was an embarrassment and felt like a major slap in the face to him. If the IOC is not biased, the comments of an outgoing president about disappointing events that happened 7 years ago should not compromise their ability to fairly evaluate the 2024 race.

This. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/rio-2016/2016/08/08/armour-mens-gymnastics-usa-team-final/88431532/

I agree that the problem is largely mental, but I don't think a psychologist is the sole answer. If the team's heads are not in a good place, that goes back to leadership and the team culture. A psychologist may help, but I suspect they really need to get rid of Kevin Mazeika.

The way the gymnasts were talking it sounded like they were in denial about what happened in London. I don't think they really faced up to the fact that they had a total meltdown. I think they did everything the exact same way in Rio and got an identical result. Obviously poor preparation. The definition of insanity is doing everything the same way, but expecting a different outcome. There MUST be a leadership change in the men's program.

It seems clear to me that serious changes need to be made in USA men's gymnastics -- particularly with regard to coaching. This is a repeat of London, but worse. Can't call it a fluke anymore. This is a pattern now.

Miss Eurasia, what do you think of my Hernandez theory?

I'm irritated with the 2per rule too, btw. Doesn't the FIG want their medalists to be the top three competitors, irrespective of nationality? I guess not.

This shows, however, that there's a problem with the FIG's system. Basically a coach just picked an all-around medalist.

So here's my theory on Hernandez not doing bars: Marta believes Raisman is the stronger all-arounder right now. I think it's that simple. Despite a big error from Raisman on beam and no major mistakes from Hernandez, on floor, vault and beam combined, Raisman outscored Hernandez by .508. And that was WITH the big balance check on beam. So that brings us to bars where Raisman scored 14.733. Hernandez would have had to score better than 15.241 on bars to overtake her. That would've been a tall order, but not impossible. However, if Raisman had not bobbled on beam, Hernandez would've had an even bigger gap to close on bars., So there would appear to be a decent argument that Raisman is the stronger all-arounder at this moment in time. Perhaps Marta made the right call. She had to put up Douglas on bars and it's good she did after that sterling routine. That meant she was forced to split hairs and make a judgment call between Raisman and Hernandez who are both outstanding and are separated by the slimmest of margins. Somebody had to lose out. Maybe it was the right call after all.

US has number one qualifier in every event final and qualified 2 athletes for every event final except vault. It really was SPECTACULAR domination.

The US is nearly 10 POINTS ahead of China. Unbelievable. Biles, Raisman, Douglas 1,2,3 in AA. It would've been super close between Hernandez and Raisman if Hernandez had done bars. Raisman had huge balance check on beam and Hernandez qualified in 2nd for beam finals. Simone. Just astonishing.