Jump to content

Chicago Never Really Had A Chance


Recommended Posts

Isn't that the definition of hindsight? ^_^

Well, I suppose. But to me hindsight takes a lot further than that. Actually acknowledging that Chicago "never really had a chance", as the title of this thread is called, because of something or reasons that were totally in control of Chicago 2016 & the USOC. When in reality, we all know that there were so many varibles 'outside of their control' that could have caused the U.S. bid to be tossed in the 1st round:

For starters, JAS shameful plea to the IOC; the JOC pleaing with IOC members to at least help them to try & save face & not let them be the first ones out in the vote; IOC/USOC rift; Olympics have never been in South America & so forth. Because in "hindsight", the final ballot was *highly* expected to be between Chicago & Rio, not only by us here, but also by pundits, observers, the media & the bookies. It also seems that even the IOC was shocked at the seesion in Copenhagen when Rogge read out the 1st ballot results & there was a gasp that came from a lot of the members in the room when Chicago was eliminated. So that's why "hindsight" in the texted that it is trying to be used in that particualar post, seems to be a misnomer, or at the very least an exaggeration of the whole scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Don't even bother until at least 2046 on the Summer side because as history has shown your wasting your time and energy on bidding . Those who don't learn from History are bound to repeat it .

I completely agree with you here. However, it seems there are three schools of thought.

1) Persistence pays off (well, it never paid off for Detroit in the last century when Detroit still was a great city)

2) An emotional appeal helps and the IOC will rewards those that got screwed in the past (well, Chicago got humiliated in 1904 and passed over in the 50's, but that didn't stop them from getting humiliated again for 2016)

3) The IOC only tolerates a US games when it is absolutely necessary

Given the results this time, I'm with you that the USOC shouldn't even consider another bid. My view is wait until the IOC is begging us to bid again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree with you here. However, it seems there are three schools of thought.

1) Persistence pays off (well, it never paid off for Detroit in the last century when Detroit still was a great city)

2) An emotional appeal helps and the IOC will rewards those that got screwed in the past (well, Chicago got humiliated in 1904 and passed over in the 50's, but that didn't stop them from getting humiliated again for 2016)

3) The IOC only tolerates a US games when it is absolutely necessary

Given the results this time, I'm with you that the USOC shouldn't even consider another bid. My view is wait until the IOC is begging us to bid again.

TULSA 2020!!!!

Fewest votes ever for a U.S. Candidate City!!!!

A U.S. city that barely makes it past Applicant Status!!!!

GO TULSA!!!!

CHItown '16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't the USOC encouraged by the IOC to bid again after 2012...as were the other 3 losing cities?

Sometimes I wonder if the USOC showed it was really a bad sport and threatened to withdraw...forget all that noble, good sport bullsh*t..., I wonder what the old poobahs and gnomes of Lausanne would do?

I mean the Arabs would get away with such surly behavior, why should others be exempt?? <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I would like to say that Chicago had a chance. Chicago had a great chance. What the USOC did not foresee is that another city would go and take over their better asset: continental rotation. If Rio did not run the kind of campaign it did, Chicago would have walked over it, with all the problems they had during the bid process.

Most people disregarded Rio as a contender in the beginning of this race, including people within the IOC. The basic view was that Rio did not have the money, was too unsafe, the transport infrastructure upgrade was unachievable and there was no experience organizing such an event. Nobody has seen it coming. On the other hand, this campaign carried the inherent charm of the city and the new frontier card. To fix those problems, the Rio bid team (President Lula included) had meetings with the IOC leaders and with the IOC members to understand their needs and showcase Rio's capabilities. Some of Rio's assets could not be matched by the other cities like being a new frontier and having recently hosted a multi-sport event.

On the other hand, Chicago bid was plain. They did the same old thing and expected the decision to go their way. They probably did not interact a lot with the IOC. Chicago built a nice venue plan, a good technical bid and went out trying to win votes in a similar manner as done previously by the USOC (probably with no or less bribery, this time). It didn't work. The great asset of continental rotation was lost to Rio as a new frontier. This left Chicago with nothing to show and the bad relationship between the USOC and the IOC came into play.

Nevertheless, I really believe this election would be closer had Chicago passed the first round. The order of elimination was misleading. Madrid had mainly pledged votes gathered by Samaranch and the King of Spain. Tokyo had pledged votes and sympathy votes. The Asian votes may have gone for Chicago in greater numbers than they went to Madrid or even Rio. This could have taken Madrid out in the second round.

The problem now, is that a new chance for the US to win was delayed for at least 8 years, in my opinion. Until then, any bid attempts tend to be futile. The US must choose a good city and prepare it to bid along time. It is important to map the emerging competitors and prepare a speech to fight them. And the USOC must get closer to the IOC, otherwise they will be blown away by their lack of understanding of the IOC political games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I would like to say that Chicago had a chance. Chicago had a great chance. What the USOC did not foresee is that another city would go and take over their better asset: continental rotation. If Rio did not run the kind of campaign it did, Chicago would have walked over it, with all the problems they had during the bid process.

I think that's probably very true.

2016 was America's to lose. We kept saying that three or four year ago. At that time of course, we'd just seen the 2012 race reach its climax; a race which the IOC decided Rio's bid wasn't good enough to take part in, let alone have a chance of winning. So when the mantra "it's America's to lose" was repeated on here, nobody, understandably, even considered South America or Brazil because of their 2012 failure, and Canada was obviously out of the loop because of 2010. America meant the USA, to all intents and purposes.

What happened after that was a surprise. It's entirely understandable that most took America to be synonymous with the USA back in 2005/6. Only a madman would have put good money on Rio winning at that stage after having missed out on the previous race's shortlist. It's of course, to Rio eternal credit that they turned around that almost hopeless situation but you're right Aluz, the effect of that was that the USA had lost its monopoly on the argument "it's America time" . And furthermore, to compound Chicago's problems, Rio had the new frontier argument on top of that!

Chicago didn't lose this race, Rio emphatically won it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the most part I agree...

And giving it more thought, I really think...despite the lip service that the IOC gives...they still LIKE a WHOLE LOT of shiny new venues (rather than the packed style of the Chicago bid.)

I think the twisted thinking of the IOC rank and file is: Okay!! Wow!! Nice renderings and new buildings!! What a pity for those not to be built and go to waste. Let's go with those....and worry about tomorrow.

So there is that subtext of: shoot first...and ask questions later...or let tomorrow (and the chosen cities) worry about what to do with those white, black, pink elephants...afterwards. After all, after 17 days, we're outta there!!

That to me, in a rather perverse way, makes Chicago's loss more palatable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rio did not run the kind of campaign it did, Chicago would have walked over it, with all the problems they had during the bid process. Most people disregarded Rio as a contender in the beginning of this race, including people within the IOC. The basic view was that Rio did not have the money, was too unsafe, the transport infrastructure upgrade was unachievable and there was no experience organizing such an event. Nobody has seen it coming.

So, I agree with you that if Rio did not run a great campaign, Chicago could have won. However, I completely disagree that Rio was not considered a contender from the beginning. In January 2007, when we were still in the domestic phase, we mapped out our competition. At that stage we were still expecting strong bids from Toyko, Rio, Prague, Madrid, Moscow and Doha. During our competitive analysis, we figured the Madrid and Moscow bids to be non-starters, and the Prague and Doha bids not to make the final round. We considered our strongest competitors to be Toyko, because a Japan Games would be able to bring in the size of TV revenues that a US games could, and Rio, because of the new frontiers thing.

At the end of the day our analysis showed that if Rio aced the 2007 Pan Am games, then the Olympic bid was theirs to lose. That's why the focus on the Chicago bid moved away from the original "stir the soul" concept. We knew we could only win with a far superior technical bid, not on an emotional appeal.

So, no, you're mistaken - within the Chicago bid committee and the USOC, Rio was always considered the presumptive host, and it was up to either Rio to screw up or Chicago to present a far superior technical bid.

Chicago bid was plain. They did the same old thing and expected the decision to go their way. They probably did not interact a lot with the IOC.

Again, not quite true. I believe - and maybe I am biased - that the Chicago bid is the gold standard in technical bids. I've read all the bids from 2004 to 2012, and definitely NONE compare to Chicago's. As for interacting with the IOC, it was at an unprecedented level, and the bid committee was very teachable. Avoiding the creation of white elephants, abandoning the two stadium idea, endorsement of the temporary stadium idea, modifying the transit plan (athletes on buses in dedicated lanes, spectators on public transport) - all of these were developed in consultation with the IOC.

The great asset of continental rotation was lost to Rio as a new frontier

You know, I'm a little irked. South America and North America are two clearly separate continents. No one confuses them. Why can North America not host directly before or after South America? That would be like me saying, well, London 2012 could never have happened because of Beijing 2018 which is all Eurasia. For that matter, if you insist on saying NA vs SA is NOT continental rotation, well, then how come we had 2004, 2008 and 2012 all in Eurasia? This whole continental rotation thing is completely overrated in my opinion.

Nevertheless, I really believe this election would be closer had Chicago passed the first round.

Completely agree. The Chicago committee completely underestimated the Madrid threat. We bought into the flawed continental rotation theory. Despite the ever present claim that the same continent can't host twice, a full ONE THIRD of the IOC was prepared to give Europe two games in a row.

The problem now, is that a new chance for the US to win was delayed for at least 8 years, in my opinion. Until then, any bid attempts tend to be futile. The US must choose a good city and prepare it to bid along time.

Well, the next time Cape Town bids, I am sure they will get it if they do well in the World Cup and put together a good bid. So, I actually think that the US can win in either 2020 or 2024, whichever one Cape Town does not go for. However, after the humiliation vested on Chicago, I just don't see the support for another bid - certainly not in Chicago, New York or LA. That leaves only San Francisco, should the USOC decide to bid. But even then, I think the USOC should just not bid again until the IOC comes begging us for another bid. And then, like chitown 16 says, we give them Tulsa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I agree with you that if Rio did not run a great campaign, Chicago could have won. However, I completely disagree that Rio was not considered a contender from the beginning. In January 2007, when we were still in the domestic phase, we mapped out our competition. At that stage we were still expecting strong bids from Toyko, Rio, Prague, Madrid, Moscow and Doha. During our competitive analysis, we figured the Madrid and Moscow bids to be non-starters, and the Prague and Doha bids not to make the final round. We considered our strongest competitors to be Toyko, because a Japan Games would be able to bring in the size of TV revenues that a US games could, and Rio, because of the new frontiers thing.

At the end of the day our analysis showed that if Rio aced the 2007 Pan Am games, then the Olympic bid was theirs to lose. That's why the focus on the Chicago bid moved away from the original "stir the soul" concept. We knew we could only win with a far superior technical bid, not on an emotional appeal.

So, no, you're mistaken - within the Chicago bid committee and the USOC, Rio was always considered the presumptive host, and it was up to either Rio to screw up or Chicago to present a far superior technical bid.

Again, not quite true. I believe - and maybe I am biased - that the Chicago bid is the gold standard in technical bids. I've read all the bids from 2004 to 2012, and definitely NONE compare to Chicago's. As for interacting with the IOC, it was at an unprecedented level, and the bid committee was very teachable. Avoiding the creation of white elephants, abandoning the two stadium idea, endorsement of the temporary stadium idea, modifying the transit plan (athletes on buses in dedicated lanes, spectators on public transport) - all of these were developed in consultation with the IOC.

You know, I'm a little irked. South America and North America are two clearly separate continents. No one confuses them. Why can North America not host directly before or after South America? That would be like me saying, well, London 2012 could never have happened because of Beijing 2018 which is all Eurasia. For that matter, if you insist on saying NA vs SA is NOT continental rotation, well, then how come we had 2004, 2008 and 2012 all in Eurasia? This whole continental rotation thing is completely overrated in my opinion.

Completely agree. The Chicago committee completely underestimated the Madrid threat. We bought into the flawed continental rotation theory. Despite the ever present claim that the same continent can't host twice, a full ONE THIRD of the IOC was prepared to give Europe two games in a row.

Well, the next time Cape Town bids, I am sure they will get it if they do well in the World Cup and put together a good bid. So, I actually think that the US can win in either 2020 or 2024, whichever one Cape Town does not go for. However, after the humiliation vested on Chicago, I just don't see the support for another bid - certainly not in Chicago, New York or LA. That leaves only San Francisco, should the USOC decide to bid. But even then, I think the USOC should just not bid again until the IOC comes begging us for another bid. And then, like chitown 16 says, we give them Tulsa.

You obviously know more about the Chicago bid than I do, but most people did not believe Rio had a shot in the beginning of this race. It was clear that Rio would bid, but the majority of the people considered it to be weak. One of the Brazilians even brought up an old thread in GamesBid speaking of it as a weak bid. I bet many IOC members didn't buy this at first. It took a lot of roadshows to get the bid to bought by the IOC. Lula, Sergio Cabral (Rio state governor), Eduardo Paes (Rio mayor), Nuzman and Osorio have been around the world meeting the IOC members and the IOC EB to discuss the bid present the proposal and gather feedback. They put out a relentless effort to get this SOG to Brazil.

If you saw Rio coming, you probably did not plan properly for the competition. Trying to beat a sentimental favorite with a solid technical bid for me seems futile. The drive of Rio's pleas would be strong enough to take the Games with an acceptable plan. And Rio ran a pilot Olympics with the 2007 PanAm which generated knowledge that could be showcased to the IOC as a sort of demonstration of experience in the subject of organizing the SOG. Besides, Rio has a real potential to be the new Barcelona for the IOC. I believe this asset was properly pitched in closed doors. And let's not forget that Rio had powerful and resourceful men inside the IOC, especially Mr. Havelange.

Even with what you have said about the IOC input, this seems too little to swing votes. This was adjustments in the technical bid that seems mostly standard, like the transportation approach. According to Nuzman, the IOC provided valuable feedback not only on the technical bid definition, but also on the campaign process. Besides, I never bought the Chicago's legacy plan. It has always seemed to me a lame excuse for the absence of legacy. Besides, the legacy plan brought nothing new. It was basically something that all cities could copy very easily. On the top of that, Chicago had lower grades than Madrid and Tokyo in the initial pahse of the technical bid.

Regarding continental rotation, we must consider that it can only work if the continent has enough suitable cities. The main reason why Europe, which is smaller than Brazil and the US in surface, hosts the Olympic in such small intervals is that it has many suitable counties and cities to host. On the other hand, Asia, Oceania, North America, South America and Africa have much less options. So, it would be logical that the IOC combines them in blocks to apply continental rotation. I think they are going to work like this. Even with Asia growing at a fast pace, it still makes sense to aply continental rotation in combination with Oceania. There has never been 2 Olympics in a row in Asia and Oceania and Beijing gave up the 2004 race after loosing to Sydney. I think the Americas will also be treated the same way. The bid question is how Africa will be considered. Since only South Africa seems to be fit in the short term, I don't think the IOC will worry too much about it.

That's why I think that with or without Cape Town, 2020 is closed for American bids. I think that the next good chance is in 2028. If 2020 goes to South Africa, 2024 is European for sure. And I also think that it will take more than a good WC to make a Cape Town bid believable. The WC has a limited impact on the city if compared to the SOG. Unlike the PanAm Games, the WC will not prove that transportation plans and travel times are within the IOC expectations, since the football teams stay in spread out hotels and there is only one venue to be used. The complexity of handling several events simultaneously will not be tested. However, the WC will attract much bigger crowds than the PanAm did.

I think the underestimation of the Chicago bid for Madrid shows how distant it was from the IOC. This meant not recognizing JAS and King Juan Carlos (despite all the royalty inside the IOC) as important assets. Madrid's performance in the 2012 election showed how many pledged votes they could get. There was a very bad management of the first round which led to an early defeat. It was getting clear at the last moment that Madrid was in a better position than Tokyo. However, underestimating Madrid's potential to win was a good call. The basically stayed where they were after the first round meaning that they only got the loyalty votes, but missed nearly all of the rest of the votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We bought into the flawed continental rotation theory. Despite the ever present claim that the same continent can't host twice, a full ONE THIRD of the IOC was prepared to give Europe two games in a row.

That one-third of the IOC should be ashamed!! And really...Samaranch should be KICKED OUT yesterday for fostering this whole tradition of patronage and favors-owed and collected.

On the other hand, they're lucky that TWO-THIRDS stopped them in their tracks!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That one-third of the IOC should be ashamed!! And really...Samaranch should be KICKED OUT yesterday for fostering this whole tradition of patronage and favors-owed and collected.

On the other hand, they're lucky that TWO-THIRDS stopped them in their tracks!!

So what?

Almost half of the IOC members were ready to elect Salt Lake City for 98, 2 years after Atlanta...

Continental rotation is one criterion, not the only one.

Madrid had a great bid and has powerful connection within the IOC. It is not that surprising that they gathered almost a thrid of the vote.

We all know that IOC is euro-centric. Live with it or do not bid...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just discovered this...what would've been the Official Chicago 2016 bid song....by a group called "Gypsy Drivers"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpErqelXxV8...feature=related

I actually like it. It's very Aegean.

Lyrics:

from such a tiny land

with that magic hand

land that games of us the games

and the sacred flame

Zues give us the sign

to travel though the time

from ancient greece till now

athena show us how

oh yes we can bring the olympic flame to chicago

somewhere in greece...

a beautiful girl

is lighting the torch

oh yes we can bring the world to chicago

city that's solid from sears tower

to a small front porch

from churchs painted white

to scrapers in the sky

from islands with small bays

to America's great lakes

Zues give us the sign

to travel though the time

from ancient greece till now

Hermes show us how

Oh yes we can bring the olympic flame to Chicago.

somewhere in Greece

a marathon runner is carrying a torch

oh yes we can bring the world to chicago.

city that's solid from solidier field

to a small front porch

From shady olive groves

to a downtown that glows

from leonidas thrill

to the old wrigley field

Zues give us the sign

to travel through the time

from ancient greece till now

gods, show us how

oh yes we can bring the olympic flame to Chicago

imagine Michael Jordan

lighting the olympic flame!

oh yes we can bring the world to chicago

city of parks, arts, and a great lake front"

Ha!! The IOC's loss...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the next time Cape Town bids, I am sure they will get it if they do well in the World Cup and put together a good bid. So, I actually think that the US can win in either 2020 or 2024, whichever one Cape Town does not go for. However, after the humiliation vested on Chicago, I just don't see the support for another bid - certainly not in Chicago, New York or LA. That leaves only San Francisco, should the USOC decide to bid. But even then, I think the USOC should just not bid again until the IOC comes begging us for another bid. And then, like chitown 16 says, we give them Tulsa.

TULSA 2020

WE'RE #1 (IN FEWEST VOTES EVER FOR AN OLYMPIC BID!!!!)

Tulsa, Oklahoma - Home of -

County party office attacked

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/...office-attacked

But for me, as an employee of our state Democratic Party, very little about this weekend's incident comforts me - especially considering there have been previous incidents of vandalism and violence at Democratic Party headquarters, including in Colorado, in Arkansas, and in New Hampshire.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to weave together a conspiracy. But what I am trying to wrap my head around is the fact that I'm at our state party headquarters every day, working within our incredibly rich and historic political system in order to spread hope, promote equality and justice, and make our state a better place. And while I'm doing that, I know there are hundreds of people around me who see our work and want only to throw back hatred - in the form of rude phone calls, ruder emails, or rocks.

On a very basic and human level, I just don't understand that.

Oklahoma - A PERFECT state to welcome the world!!!!

Oh - and We want to retain 70% of U.S.-based Sponsorship and TV Rights, IOC!!!

CHItown '16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am happy that there has not been too much Rio bashing on this forum. Much like picking Beijing for 2008, the IOC really had no choice on this one.

The IOC has always been the world group that wants to make a statement, and for 2016, they did the right thing. With Rio being the winner, the IOC is showing the world that the OG's can happen in the two remaining continents that have not held the games (please don't talk about Antarctica)

Chicago had a chance, but much like Toronto had a chance against Beijing for 2008, it was not likely to happen. What surprised me was Chicago went out first! However, I was quite surprised how quickly New York went out for 2012. Both cities had good bids, but the votes were not there.... this is the problem with future US bids...where will the votes come from?

Bidding for 2020 will be very interesting? Can an African nation put up a bid good enough? Will the USOC bid again? What other cities in North America will challenge a USOC bid? (Toronto, Monterey, Havana, etc.) and more importantly, will Madrid bid for 2020? (they were 3rd for 2012 and 2nd for 2016, will they be number one this time around?)

I was pulling for Chicago, I really was!!!! (I had free accomodations)... but, I think there has been a message sent from the IOC and their membership.

"we are not looking at the US at this time"? For those who disagree...explain the last two summer games voting.

I would be very surprised if a city in North America isn't awarded the games of 2020. (Madrid is the only thorn on this one and only if they bid again) so look for a Toronto bid.

Just a thought.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am happy that there has not been too much Rio bashing on this forum. Much like picking Beijing for 2008, the IOC really had no choice on this one.

The IOC has always been the world group that wants to make a statement, and for 2016, they did the right thing. With Rio being the winner, the IOC is showing the world that the OG's can happen in the two remaining continents that have not held the games (please don't talk about Antarctica)

Chicago had a chance, but much like Toronto had a chance against Beijing for 2008, it was not likely to happen. What surprised me was Chicago went out first! However, I was quite surprised how quickly New York went out for 2012. Both cities had good bids, but the votes were not there.... this is the problem with future US bids...where will the votes come from?

Bidding for 2020 will be very interesting? Can an African nation put up a bid good enough? Will the USOC bid again? What other cities in North America will challenge a USOC bid? (Toronto, Monterey, Havana, etc.) and more importantly, will Madrid bid for 2020? (they were 3rd for 2012 and 2nd for 2016, will they be number one this time around?)

I was pulling for Chicago, I really was!!!! (I had free accomodations)... but, I think there has been a message sent from the IOC and their membership.

"we are not looking at the US at this time"? For those who disagree...explain the last two summer games voting.

I would be very surprised if a city in North America isn't awarded the games of 2020. (Madrid is the only thorn on this one and only if they bid again) so look for a Toronto bid.

Just a thought.....

As you said, the IOC wants to take their product places. So, between a Madrid, Rome and Cape Town battle for 2020--especially if South Africa stages a competent 2010 World Cup, it would be foolish for Rome, Madrid or any other city to take on a CapeTown '20 bid head on. I have never seen a more systematically, strategically, patiently built bid as what Cape Town is/will be mounting. They are biding their time and seem to be playing their cards right.

If Madrid or Tokyo bid again, then I'm glad I'm not a taxpayer in those cities because I sure as hell would not be supporting such foolish adminstrators. Madrid did well not because it has such a compelling case (FGS', they have been trying since 1966) but because of Samaranch patronage. The old coot is still able to muster his lackeys (but even he had his misgivings. Apparently it was only the hard-headed Madrid mayor who thought they had a legitimate chance.) Yeah, close...but no cigar. In any case, one should bear in mind the old aphorism: fooled me once, shame on you; fooled me twice, shame on me.

Even Toronto would be equally foolish since Canada will be hosting their 3rd Games in 3 months' time. Even a wise, blind man can see where 2020 is headed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am happy that there has not been too much Rio bashing on this forum. Much like picking Beijing for 2008, the IOC really had no choice on this one.

The IOC has always been the world group that wants to make a statement, and for 2016, they did the right thing. With Rio being the winner, the IOC is showing the world that the OG's can happen in the two remaining continents that have not held the games (please don't talk about Antarctica)

Chicago had a chance, but much like Toronto had a chance against Beijing for 2008, it was not likely to happen. What surprised me was Chicago went out first! However, I was quite surprised how quickly New York went out for 2012. Both cities had good bids, but the votes were not there.... this is the problem with future US bids...where will the votes come from?

Bidding for 2020 will be very interesting? Can an African nation put up a bid good enough? Will the USOC bid again? What other cities in North America will challenge a USOC bid? (Toronto, Monterey, Havana, etc.) and more importantly, will Madrid bid for 2020? (they were 3rd for 2012 and 2nd for 2016, will they be number one this time around?)

I was pulling for Chicago, I really was!!!! (I had free accomodations)... but, I think there has been a message sent from the IOC and their membership.

"we are not looking at the US at this time"? For those who disagree...explain the last two summer games voting.

I would be very surprised if a city in North America isn't awarded the games of 2020. (Madrid is the only thorn on this one and only if they bid again) so look for a Toronto bid.

Just a thought.....

Definitely agree on the Chicago/Rio - Beijing/Toronto parallel. I was going to post something of the liking a couple of days ago, but never got to it. I was also surprised that Chicago went out first too, unlike Toronto. Although, Toronto did lose by a very large margin to Beijing.

I do disagree, however, on the 2012/2016 USOC bid scenarios. For 2012, there was no way New York's bid was going to win when their stadium proposal totally disintigrated only a month before the 2012 IOC vote. Not to mention, New York wasn't ever looked upon as one of the favorites for 2012 when the field of global cities was of such high caliber & all from Europe. Plus, you also had the Vancouver 2010 factor (granted it was for winter, but it was still there).

For 2016, though, Chicago's bid was of very high quality compared to New York's, & 2016 was farly viewed as the "Americas" turn. So taken these aspects into account, Chicago should've had a better shot than in got, & certainly a much better shot than New York had.

For 2020, like many others have said, & I agree with, it would be foolish for the USOC to bid again, & especially if South Africa puts in a credible, decent bid & their 2010 World Cup mainly goes off without too many problems. Plus, in the IOC's view, the "Americas" have been taken care of, with Rio, for the next couple of cycles. If it's not Cape Town, I can easily see Rome or Tokyo taking off with the 2020 Grand Prize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...