Kngkyle Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 It's not so much that Chicago lost that is really irritating, we all knew Rio was a strong contender, but to go out in the first round was a bit extreme. I really do not like how this whole IOC selection process works. First off, half the IOC members are European. That puts a huge handicap on all the non-European cities and is probably the main reason Madrid got so far. Secondly, having the voting elimination rounds lets the IOC members play politics and vote for cities not because they want them to win, but because they want to hurt another cities chance at winning. I believe this is what happened to Chicago today. I am all but certain Chicago would have done better up against Rio in the final than Madrid or Tokyo. Perhaps a better way to do the voting would be to simply have one round and whatever city gets the most votes wins. That way the IOC will all pick the city they want to actually win and not give sympathy votes or try to eliminate certain cities. I know I probably sound a bit like a sore loser here and admittedly if Chicago had actually won I probably wouldn't be complaining about this, although I would still understand why someone would be upset over it. But like I said, I am happy for Rio and have no issue with them winning. My issue is with how Chicago got eliminated first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympic USA Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 First of all - congrats to rikebsb on a very nice and thoughtful post - while I haven't posted on here much as I used to I come in and read and have to say I was pretty appalled at all the mudslinging going around but you and a couple of your fellow Brazilians have proved that Rio and Brazil do have friendly people with lots of hospitality that will welcome the world with open arms in 2016 - would't have guessed that from some other posters the past year or so. Second, I completely agree with KngKyle - I thought Chicago being eliminated first was a real slap in the face, similar to Salzburg's failed winter bids. I'm happy for Rio and they were my 2nd favorite and am glad that the IOC will finally bring the games to South America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dino Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 It's not so much that Chicago lost that is really irritating, we all knew Rio was a strong contender, but to go out in the first round was a bit extreme. I really do not like how this whole IOC selection process works. First off, half the IOC members are European. That puts a huge handicap on all the non-European cities and is probably the main reason Madrid got so far. Secondly, having the voting elimination rounds lets the IOC members play politics and vote for cities not because they want them to win, but because they want to hurt another cities chance at winning. I believe this is what happened to Chicago today. I am all but certain Chicago would have done better up against Rio in the final than Madrid or Tokyo. Perhaps a better way to do the voting would be to simply have one round and whatever city gets the most votes wins. That way the IOC will all pick the city they want to actually win and not give sympathy votes or try to eliminate certain cities. I know I probably sound a bit like a sore loser here and admittedly if Chicago had actually won I probably wouldn't be complaining about this, although I would still understand why someone would be upset over it. But like I said, I am happy for Rio and have no issue with them winning. My issue is with how Chicago got eliminated first. I, too, share the same feeling. Now that there are lots of reports coming out of the Chicago Tribune, NYTimes and Sports Illustrated, it seems that the IOC punished the USOC re TV Network by punishing Chicago--which did not have any control of it. Plus, the fact that a Swiss IOC member calls the early exit as an "accident" doesn't sit well. Like what you have stated above, Kevan Gosper of Australia blamed the so-called "stupid voting bloc." It's great that Rio won for South America, but I just wished there was an equal playing field. Chicago 2016 was thrown in the middle of the IOC-USOC fight and if we only knew that there were still some bad blood between the two from the get go, then we shouldn't ahve pursued the games. Many articles have cited the US TV Network was to blame for Chicago's undoing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 I, too, share the same feeling. Now that there are lots of reports coming out of the Chicago Tribune, NYTimes and Sports Illustrated, it seems that the IOC punished the USOC re TV Network by punishing Chicago--which did not have any control of it. Plus, the fact that a Swiss IOC member calls the early exit as an "accident" doesn't sit well. Like what you have stated above, Kevan Gosper of Australia blamed the so-called "stupid voting bloc." It's great that Rio won for South America, but I just wished there was an equal playing field. Chicago 2016 was thrown in the middle of the IOC-USOC fight and if we only knew that there were still some bad blood between the two from the get go, then we shouldn't ahve pursued the games. Many articles have cited the US TV Network was to blame for Chicago's undoing. Actually I agree more with what others have said that: many believed that Chicago had enough votes to stay in that they voted for their continental affililiations instead. And that was Chicago's big miscalculation -- really taking a hard headcount of the first round. But the other interesting things are the comments quoted from the elders of the IOC, including the Dutch guy who got so pissed off at the TV negotiations (no...NOT the network thing...but the share of the USOC), apparently they were really horrified that the rank and file let Chicago go early. And those elders mince no words. Also a word to the wise: if you get picked first in the line-up (unless you are in Rio's position), I would pack it in early. The first presenter slot is the kiss of death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyelBrazil Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 I was kind of surprised that all of Chicago's votes went to Rio. I thought they would have boosted Madrid or Tokyo after they dropped out in the first round. Rio just have too much support even on that second preference vote of the IOC members. It seemed that Rio have almost all second-option-support... Rio lobbying work was based on it and it was very successfull since from the first to the third ballot Rio earned 40 votes meanwhile Madrid got 4... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micheal_warren Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 It seemed that Rio have almost all second-option-support...Rio lobbying work was based on it and it was very successfull since from the first to the third ballot Rio earned 40 votes meanwhile Madrid got 4... Well their lobbying was very successful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walei Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 I hope this is some kind of a wake up call for the IOC for future elections that they dont go into the first round with the continental affiliation or sentimental mentality. I remember in 2001 the vote for 2008, Paris was even behind Istanbul in the first round .... really uncalled for IMO and way more so this time with Chicago out first. Even IOC members had their jaws dropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrianme17 Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 The thing that is so devastating about this vote is that it screams loud and clear: "We don't want another American Olympics. Go away." It would be one thing if the vote had been closer or if Chicago had made it a little farther. Yes, it would have been disappointing, but it wouldn't have been such an emphatic, blunt rejection. At least we know where we stand. There is no point in bidding again for quite some time. i understand you must feel sad and frustrated but calm down - this is the first time that chicago had bid - how do you think the french must have felt after paris was rejected for the 60th time ! the issue is that the US has had the olympics more times than any other nation in recent memory and it is time to spead the love. it is nothing to do with not wanting america or anything else like that! there will be another American games in the next 20 years or so. but it also shows that obama can't buy you everything! that in my view was the vote loser for chicago at one point i thought michelle and the kids were going absail down from the ceiling! bad luck chicago - would have been great games but well done rio! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOC Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 Chicago did not do it right, they hosted dinners on behalf of USOC instead of Chicago 2016, while the other bid cities were out there getting their message heard. Even as late as February they held a USOC dinner at a meeting while all the others were Candidate City dinners. The USOC is not liked. That is why Chicago did not win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citius Altius Fortius Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 Chicago did not do it right, they hosted dinners on behalf of USOC instead of Chicago 2016, while the other bid cities were out there getting their message heard. Even as late as February they held a USOC dinner at a meeting while all the others were Candidate City dinners.The USOC is not liked. That is why Chicago did not win. ...thats sounds like a rookie mistake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyelBrazil Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 For those who don't believe me that Rio's map was, at least, a great strategy, GamesBids' Robert Livingstone have a great article on this: http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/bidblog/1216134743.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 The USOC is not liked. Well, the strange thing is the USOC was not eager to partner up with New York a 2nd time. Was this a fatal error too? And it probably goes down to the TV revenue-sharing issue. Since there's nothing to be gained in the new few rounds, I hope the USOC sticks to the contract and to the IOC. After all, who also gives them their most marketable athletes? The USOC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis-The-Dentist Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 i understand you must feel sad and frustrated but calm down - this is the first time that chicago had bid - how do you think the french must have felt after paris was rejected for the 60th time ! the issue is that the US has had the olympics more times than any other nation in recent memory and it is time to spead the love. it is nothing to do with not wanting america or anything else like that! there will be another American games in the next 20 years or so. but it also shows that obama can't buy you everything! that in my view was the vote loser for chicago at one point i thought michelle and the kids were going absail down from the ceiling! bad luck chicago - would have been great games but well done rio! Well said. This was Rio's 5th bid, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafa Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 For those who don't believe me that Rio's map was, at least, a great strategy, GamesBids' Robert Livingstone have a great article on this:http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/bidblog/1216134743.html Let us join hands and bring the Games to Cape Town Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kngkyle Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 Let us join hands and bring the Games to Cape Town I support ya! Cape Town 2020 and then perhaps Chicago 2024 if the city is up for it. If not Chicago then New York or San Francisco. A 2022 winter Olympics win for the US might change that as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citius Altius Fortius Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 Let us join hands and bring the Games to Cape Town what is with South Asia, Southeast-Asia and the Middle East - when you look on the map you can see that are "olympic-whit-spots" too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafa Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 They count as Asia. Asia big place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soaring Posted October 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 Yes, there is still a lot of empty space to fill up out there. Chicago shouldn't bid until 2052... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 i understand you must feel sad and frustrated but calm down - this is the first time that chicago had bid - how do you think the french must have felt after paris was rejected for the 60th time ! the issue is that the US has had the olympics more times than any other nation in recent memory and it is time to spead the love. it is nothing to do with not wanting america or anything else like that! there will be another American games in the next 20 years or so. but it also shows that obama can't buy you everything! that in my view was the vote loser for chicago at one point i thought michelle and the kids were going absail down from the ceiling! bad luck chicago - would have been great games but well done rio! Wow. You really didn't understand my post at all. I congratulate Rio. The Olympics need to visit new frontiers. It is time. I am sure Rio will make Brazil proud. I'm not surprised Chicago lost. It was the WAY that they lost -- being shot down so quickly. Chicago didn't just lose. The IOC sent a clear, cold message. I know the French were devastated when Paris lost again in 2012, but it only lost by 4 votes in the final of a very close race. There's no comparison. I never thought Obama could "buy everything" and I find that statement insulting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aluz Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 They count as Asia. Asia big place. I think one can pull a "Never in the Middle-East" slogan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyelBrazil Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 Chicago losing is not surprising.. I agree with Athensfan... It was surprising the way Chicago lost... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpman Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 Chicago losing is not surprising.. I agree with Athensfan... It was surprising the way Chicago lost... Agreed! I actually jumped when I heard Chicago was eliminated in the first round. I was shocked! The final round clearly would be between Rio and Madrid... with Rio a step ahead due to London 2012. I believe Chicago´s fault were some arrogance of USOC with the TV issues and the pressure of using such big stars like Oprah. It´s OK for Barack Obama to talk about the bid but now I see that as a letdown. He went away before the voting. Again, some kind of arrogance for the IOC members. But Rio won and we have MUCH WORK TO DO! And many eyes to see how our RIO 2016 chiefs will spend billions of dollars of public (tax) money. And let´s hope they were not so LAZY to do the right thing, not like the PanAms 2007 or the (now lazy) plans for the FIFA World Cup 2014. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 I do not believe the starpower hurt the U.S. at all. Everybody loved Oprah and the Obamas. It just didn't make them vote for Chicago. It was the problems with the USOC that killed Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox334 Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 I do not believe the starpower hurt the U.S. at all. Everybody loved Oprah and the Obamas. It just didn't make them vote for Chicago.It was the problems with the USOC that killed Chicago. Is Oprah really an international star, tough? You got to believe that Pele is a much bigger worldwide star that Oprah will ever be... I agree that the Obamas did not hurt Chicago's chances: looking back, it was a lost cause from the beguining, and it was certainly not the fault of the fault of the Chicago bid team... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyelBrazil Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 yesterday I was talking to some friends here in Brazil, talking about Oprah been there in Copenhagen... Everybody said: Who's Oprah? Oprah is very famous in USA, a little bit in Europe and in some African nations... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.