U.S. Winter Bid for 2022 or 2026

[Athensfan]

No, they haven't.

Please just read this forum.

[intoronto]

Please just read this forum.

Congrats on your 5000 post

[Athensfan]

Objection!.. assuming facts not in evidence. We don't know what their motivation is for that decision. You're the one who has long said that the USOC should prioritize summer over winter, largely irrespective of who the candidates are. My take on this is still that they'll make it known they're pursuing 2024 and hope that the right candidate emerges. Like you've said.. the USOC pursuing 2024 is hardly a guarantee they'll bid. More than anything, it's probably just a strategy to pursue that they hope will pan out. Obviously they have more information than we're privy to so there might be options out there we're not aware of. Still, I'm not yet making the assumption they know what their options are as opposed to opening the floor believing those options could emerge.

This. Please tell us which posters have called 2024 "totally hopeless." Yes, people here have said that it doesn't appear that any decent cities want to bid (I offered up some info on Dallas, but was immediately shot down saying they're no good and what does it matter because Durban is going to win anyway. On that note, I don't think baron qualifies as "many posters" because I don't know too many other posters have pushed the Winter agenda as hard as he has.

You actually believe the USOC would come out and say, "We're bidding for the 2024 Olympics" without any idea of whether there's a viable candidate or not? You must have an extremely low view of the IOC. What do you think this exploratory committee is doing? Casting lots? Don't you think that part of their evaluation is considering whether or not there are competitive candidates? Ok, we don't have their brief in writing, but come on. Common sense dictates that a part of the evaluation must be the existence of bidders.

You persist in misrepresenting my position. I NEVER said the USOC should bid for Summer Games irrespective of which cities were interested. I'm not crazy. I wouldn't push for a Tulsa or Las Vegas candidacy just because they are Summer Games. I wouldn't hold out hope for Minneapolis (or even Dallas) either. I've said repeatedly that I see the best candidates as the big four, possibly plus Philly. I believe one of them will step up to the plate (which I've also said repeatedly). You will not find a post where I wrote that the US should proceed with a Summer bid irrespective of the bid city.

As for "totally hopeless" -- I admit that I was hyperbolic on that point, but you must agree that most posters (including yourself) underline the hurdles for a 2024 bid and quite a few push for a Winter bid instead. Apart from Baron, most stop short of saying 2024 is an impossibility. It was wrong of me to exaggerate that. You must admit though, that these forums are chock full of posts that expect the worst where USA 2024 is concerned.

[baron-pierreIV]

All the latest announcement from Salt Lake does is position itself for the USOC in that, if no summer city steps forward for 2024; then at least once city is almost completely ready for the next round.

[Quaker2001]

You actually believe the USOC would come out and say, "We're bidding for the 2024 Olympics" without any idea of whether there's a viable candidate or not? You must have an extremely low view of the IOC. What do you think this exploratory committee is doing? Casting lots? Don't you think that part of their evaluation is considering whether or not there are competitive candidates? Ok, we don't have their brief in writing, but come on. Common sense dictates that a part of the evaluation must be the existence of bidders.

You persist in misrepresenting my position. I NEVER said the USOC should bid for Summer Games irrespective of which cities were interested. I'm not crazy. I wouldn't push for a Tulsa or Las Vegas candidacy just because they are Summer Games. I wouldn't hold out hope for Minneapolis (or even Dallas) either. I've said repeatedly that I see the best candidates as the big four, possibly plus Philly. I believe one of them will step up to the plate (which I've also said repeatedly). You will not find a post where I wrote that the US should proceed with a Summer bid irrespective of the bid city.

As for "totally hopeless" -- I admit that I was hyperbolic on that point, but you must agree that most posters (including yourself) underline the hurdles for a 2024 bid and quite a few push for a Winter bid instead. Apart from Baron, most stop short of saying 2024 is an impossibility. It was wrong of me to exaggerate that. You must admit though, that these forums are chock full of posts that expect the worst where USA 2024 is concerned.

Actually.. yes, I do. I'm sure they've gotten a sense of what they have to work with out there, but again, I still don't assume they know who is or isn't a viable candidate. I'm sure, perhaps not unlike what we've been doing here, they have a list of potential candidate cities they'll be looking at. They don't have to wait until 1 or more of them emerge. If you believe that 1 of the big cities will step up to the plate, wouldn't it be a sound strategy for the USOC to make a pronouncement about 2024 that encourages them to start getting their house in order?

I don't have that low a view of the IOC where they're that desperate for U.S. bid that they'll accept anything the USOC throws at them (I don't believe that for Winter 2026 either, although the threshold for getting a less than ideal bid through will be lower). But I don't believe the USOC needs to (or should) wait until they've identified their candidates before they go on record saying 2024 is a go. On the contrary.. make that pronouncement earlier once you've determined it's your strategy to pursue a summer bid (as you've been pushing for for a while now) and give those cities more time to put their best foot forward knowing full well the USOC is interested in bidding, something Salt Lake has no guarantee of for 2026. And the worst thing that happens is either A) the USOC bids and loses or the USOC doesn't find that right candidate and eventually chooses to sit out 2024. There would be no shame in that if they don't think they have the right city.

And yes, I'm fully aware of some of the posts that have been made here, including ones that have come from me, which I continue to stand by. All things considered, geopolitics dictate the path to a Winter Olympics is easier than the path to a Summer. No question Summer is the bigger prize, but there are hurdles to be overcome, the least of which is the increased competition out there. You're right a lot of people expect the worst, but I can't say that I blame them. I just don't know where that solid winning bid plan is going to come from that's going to land the United States their next Olympics, winter or summer

[Athensfan]

It was a typo. I meant you must have a low view of the USOC. And it sounds like you sure do. Not only do you believe they could dive into a race without any hint of whether there is a potential candidate, you also seem to believe they lack the ability to judge which cities are capable of being competitive. If they are as incompetent as you suggest then it's a wonder the USOC is still in existence. I firmly believe the USOC wouldn't declare for 2024 without knowing they had at least one solid option.

What happened to you and FYI and others claiming that lack of publicity makes it clear that no city really wants 2024? There have also been statements about how these things need to be planned for many years and since they haven't been (an assumption) no American Summer bid can succeed.

Why reverse yourself now and say that the mere announcement of a 2024 bid will bring at least one of the top four (or five) running? You actually think they'd use the announcement as bait? They're just going fishing? That sounds reckless and irresponsible. I can't imagine they would do such a thing.

Doesn't it make more sense to believe that this evaluation committee is actually doing some WORK rather than just bandying opinions. Doesn't it make more sense that they would be in contact with the big four (or five)? They've been at this for MONTHS after all.

The key words in your last post were "I don't know." EXACTLY. You don't know. You're not the USOC. You don't have all the inside information. You and others make hypotheses based on matters of public record. You dismiss the gaps in information, make extrapolations and act as though you've got a complete picture and there's no way there can be any more to the story than the part you think you are aware of. I have never accepted that.

I have always acknowledged that you could end up being right about lack of 2024 interest, but I've also argued that you could be dead wrong. There isn't enough information to know yet. That's all there is to it.

[Quaker2001]

Oh my goodness. There are so many mis-interpretations of my post in what you just said that I don't even know where to start. You claim to say I misinterpret your position and then in the next breath say "I admit that I was hyperbolic on that point." Let me once again attempt to clarify my position so that it's a little clearer for you without quoting point by point here or without repeating exactly what I've already said..

I believe the USOC has some clue as to what they're doing. Don't know where you get I think they're incompetent . They are capable of judging what they believe to be a city they want to bid with. But that doesn't mean they have that solidly locked up right now. I do believe that the USOC would go forward without necessarily having that "one solid option." Maybe they have it, maybe they don't. But let's agree to disagree on that one.

I would love for you to find me the post where I've said it's clear no city really wants 2024. You also must have missed where I very clearly showed that Dallas wants 2024 (mostly because someone interjected saying we should only be talking about obvious eventual winner Durban). Yes, I've said the lack of information (or the information in what is being reported) can be an indication of a lack of interest. I stand by that statement. Where you deduce that into my position being it's clear no city really wants 2024 I have no idea.

Yes, I've said that advance planning does help. Ask the NYC folks. Not planning in advance certainly does not eliminate said city from emerging. That being the case though, all the more reason for the USOC to announce their intentions for 2024.. to allow any cities that may be hesitant about planning for an Olympics their country might not even bid for to know that the USOC is willing to back a bid (pretty much the opposite of what we're seeing with Salt Lake). I hardly call it a fishing expedition. To me, if you have a city that might want to initiate an Olympic bid, wouldn't they feel better about doing that if they know what they're shooting for?

Again, I get that you interpret this news that the USOC has something cooking for 2024 and that's why they'd make the announcement. I don't disagree with that, but at the same time, it certainly wouldn't hurt matters to come out now about 2024 rather than leaving their prospective bidders unsure if there's a 2024 for them to bid for. Not exactly automatic for every legitimate city with Olympic aspirations (and I'm sure they've been in contact with whoever they think is worth a phone call or an e-mail to) to want to jump into that until the USOC gives the go signal.


You still seem to have this opinion of me that anything I say has been taken as a binding, definitive statement. Please stop doing that. My opinion and your opinion are worth the same. We have the same amount of information, so stop this nonsense where you need to remind everyone what we do or don't know. It's getting old and it's really annoying. You're damn right I'm making guessing and extrapolations based on how I view the situtation. If you don't like that.. too freaking bad. Feel free to present your own argument then rather than to continue to attack my opinion, which would be a welcome change. I have NEVER acted in a manner where I believe I know everything or that my opinion is the be all end all and that there's no room for anyone else to dispute me and yet you continue to accuse me of it. And for you to say that to me is not only egregiously hypocritical, it's insulting.

I'm going to PM you because I don't need that part of this argument to continue in public and cause 1 or both of us to waste a lot of time and energy. Also because I might got myself warned and/or banned if I said what I was really thinking right now..

[zekekelso]

Please just read this forum.

I do. I read what is actually said. I don't make up "hyperbolic" exaggerations in order to pick fights, then complain that everybody is picking on me.

Anyway, to the point at hand...

I for one do have an extremely now opinion of the USOC. Like the IOC and most of the other NOCs, they are arrogant and corrupt. They give a black eye to the Olympic movement. But I don't think it's an attack on the USOC to say they could say they want a bid for 2024, without having any bidders lined up. If sure the Democratic and Republican parties want to run candidates for POTUS in 2024, but don't have any candidates lined up.

EDIT - That's an extremely *low* opinion of the USOC.

[Athensfan]

Apparently sometimes communication is flat out impossible.

I admitted I went too far. That isn't picking a fight. That's acknowledging a mistake -- which I do when I recognize I've made one. Way to twist things.

Quaker, extrapolate and hypothesize to your heart's content. Just don't be surprised or offended when I disagree. I'm not going to comb through 300 pages of the USA 2024 thread to point out all the ways you've argued against a bid.

Zeke, if you don't like the USOC, fine. Whether or not they or others are arrogant and corrupt, I don't think they're stupid. I would still be surprised if they announced they were targeting 2024 without any sense of a solid bid city.

The truth is, they could just as easily come out and say, "We're going for 2026" or "We look forward to our continuing role in the Olympic Movement, but will not be announcing any bid intentions at this time."

[baron-pierreIV]

How stupid would it be for the USOC to say 'they will or will NOT bid for 2024' and then there turns out to be NONE when all it takes if 5 or 6 phone calls to determine if there is even ONE serious bidder? I mean how fundamental is that?

And obviously, if they move on to a 2026 competition, then that means there wasn't a worthy bidder to present for 2024.

[Athensfan]

How stupid would it be for the USOC to say 'they will or will NOT bid for 2024' and then there turns out to be NONE when all it takes if 5 or 6 phone calls to determine if there is even ONE serious bidder? I mean how fundamental is that?

And obviously, if they move on to a 2026 competition, then that means there wasn't a worthy bidder to present for 2024.

I agree with all this.

[Quaker2001]

I was actually going to make a reference to presidential elections. Think about 2008.. how much people knew anything about Barack Obama more than a year or so before the election.

Let me state this one more time for the peanut gallery.. I believe the USOC has done their prep work here. I'm sure they've put out feelers to several cities and do have a baseline about who MIGHT be interested in bidding. That's the key word there. If the USOC holds back on committing to fielding a 2024 bid, then those cities may not be so eager to put in the effort it takes to formulate a bid. But if the USOC comes out and says we would like to bid for 2024, which clearly would be based on what they're hearing and seeing from cities they may be interested in working with, then maybe those cities are more willing to commit their resources knowing there is definitely a goal at hand. And yea, maybe it turns out they don't have the right bid city. But better to make this decision now than to wait and realize they didn't give cities enough time to prepare because they weren't sure what the USOC's intentions were. Especially when you have Salt Lake City over-eager to convince the USOC to go after a Winter Olympics.

And that's what I'm going to do. I'm not offended when you disagree. And I'm certainly not surprised because I generally understand your positions and viewpoints. I'm aware that I might be dead wrong every time I offer an opinion of what might be happening or what might eventually happen. That's still not going to stop me from offering my viewpoint and offering guesses/predictions. Please feel free to disagree. By all means, please ask me to elaborate on how I came to that hypothesis. But please don't remind me that I'm not the USOC or that I don't have the inside information. If that's not a given on this forum by this point, it never will be. To me, that would be like someone in the audience at a poker tournament yelling out every time a bet is made "You don't know what your opponents cards are! How can you bet like that!"

I for one do have an extremely now opinion of the USOC. Like the IOC and most of the other NOCs, they are arrogant and corrupt. They give a black eye to the Olympic movement. But I don't think it's an attack on the USOC to say they could say they want a bid for 2024, without having any bidders lined up. If sure the Democratic and Republican parties want to run candidates for POTUS in 2024, but don't have any candidates lined up.

I was actually going to make a reference to presidential elections. Think about 2008.. how much people knew anything about Barack Obama more than a year or so before the election.

Let me state this one more time for the peanut gallery.. I believe the USOC has done their prep work here. I'm sure they've put out feelers to several cities and do have a baseline about who MIGHT be interested in bidding. That's the key word there. If the USOC holds back on committing to fielding a 2024 bid, then those cities may not be so eager to put in the effort it takes to formulate a bid. But if the USOC comes out and says we would like to bid for 2024, which clearly would be based on what they're hearing and seeing from cities they may be interested in working with, then maybe those cities are more willing to commit their resources knowing there is definitely a goal at hand. And yea, maybe it turns out they don't have the right bid city. But better to make this decision now than to wait and realize they didn't give cities enough time to prepare because they weren't sure what the USOC's intentions were. Especially when you have Salt Lake City over-eager to convince the USOC to go after a Winter Olympics.

Quaker, extrapolate and hypothesize to your heart's content. Just don't be surprised or offended when I disagree. I'm not going to comb through 300 pages of the USA 2024 thread to point out all the ways you've argued against a bid.

And that's what I'm going to do. I'm not offended when you disagree. And I'm certainly not surprised because I generally understand your positions and viewpoints. I'm aware that I might be dead wrong every time I offer an opinion of what might be happening or what might eventually happen. That's still not going to stop me from offering my viewpoint and offering guesses/predictions. Please feel free to disagree. By all means, please ask me to elaborate on how I came to that hypothesis. But please don't remind me that I'm not the USOC or that I don't have the inside information. If that's not a given on this forum by this point, it never will be. To me, that would be like someone in the audience at a poker tournament yelling out every time a bet is made "You don't know what your opponents cards are! How can you bet like that!"

[Athensfan]

Ok-- for the record that supposed quote of mine is distorted and the date is definitely wrong. I'm assuming this was an accidental computing error -- not intentional, but that was written by Quaker -- not me.

[zekekelso]

when all it takes if 5 or 6 phone calls to determine if there is even ONE serious bidder?

Who exactly are you calling?

[Quaker2001]

Who exactly are you calling?

That's what I've always wondered too. Let's say the USOC wants to gauge interest from New York or Chicago? Who are they contacting? With Los Angeles, there is a starting point. Other cities (I'll keep saying Dallas until someone acknowledges I am in fact saying there is interest from that city) might have organizations in place. But it's not like the USOC can pick up the phone or send out an e-mail and say "hello, New York? Interested in the 2024 Olympics?"

[baron-pierreIV]

Who exactly are you calling?

Well, it would be the mayor's office. Who else? Something like an Olympic bid cannot get anywhere without the blessing, support and at least knowledge of City Hall. It would be best equipped to know the temper of their city vis-a-vis something like an Olympic bid.

[Athensfan]

It's not just the Mayor's office. It's civic leaders, the corporate movers and shakers, the visionaries, the big donors. It's not one phone call: "Hi, do you want the Olympics?" It's a whole series of conversations and relatiinships with key players -- people with money, power and know-how. It's not mysterious. It's just a matter of being very well-connected.

I'm really perplexed when people say, "who do you talk to to find out if a city wants the Games? We're stumped. The only way the USOC can know is if an organizing committee approaches them." That's really not true and it makes it very difficult for me to take someone seriously when they also claim that virtually all the key information is already public and if anyone wanted to bid it waid already be all over the Internet.

That's not the way the world works.

Read "would already be all over the Internet."

[baron-pierreIV]

It's not just the Mayor's office. It's civic leaders, the corporate movers and shakers, the visionaries, the big donors. It's not one phone call: "Hi, do you want the Olympics?" It's a whole series of conversations and relatiinships with key players -- people with money, power and know-how. It's not mysterious. It's just a matter of being very well-connected.

Well, ultimately, it has to be City Hall because remember, the bid and the contracts will all be in the City's name. And even if private parties get the ball rolling, at some point or another, they will NEED the time and use of City Departments -- and who else to grant those permits and extra-outside-use of City resources, but the Mayor and his administration? Besides, City Hall, too, knows pretty much what's going on (for/vs/neutral) in something civic like an O bid.

Perfect example: the last Chicago bid finally moved forward because Daley belatedly saw the possible benefits of it for his city. But years before that, Chicago didn't even figure in USOC talks because the top honcho simply wasn't interested in it.

[zekekelso]

It's not just the Mayor's office. It's civic leaders, the corporate movers and shakers, the visionaries, the big donors. It's not one phone call: "Hi, do you want the Olympics?" It's a whole series of conversations and relatiinships with key players -- people with money, power and know-how.

Well stated, I totally agree.

Personally, I don't think those converstions can be kept silent. If the USOC was actively engaged, it would be public.

[baron-pierreIV]

Personally, I don't think those converstions can be kept silent. If the USOC was actively engaged, it would be public.

It doesn't really matter whether they' public or transparent. If no consensus on moving forward is reached, and if the IOC ultimately doesn't think that say, a Cincinnati bid, is all that attractive -- then what's the point whether conversations like that are open or not? Personally, all that behind-the-scenes stuff should be kept private if only to protect the privacy of donors,etc., who may wish to remain anonymous until such a time as they see fit to go public.

[FYI]

^what about potential donors for SLC 2026 then? They've gone public, so does that risk their position.

I see some things don't change, though. The only difference is that this particular issue has moved from the 2800+ pages of the USA 2024 thread to here. As been said there as well. I can't see how having such high-profile contacts with all those key people could be held under wraps for too long, like some here are suggesting. That doesn't make too much sense. Something, some detail would be unvailed before too long, especially in this day & age of social media. It's like trying to keep the senior prom at a high school all hush-hush two weeks before its' suppose to be held.

If anything, any interested city in 2024 would at least form an "exploratory committee" just like Salt Lake & Denver did, And especially when a bid also needs citizenry support just as much as it needs City Hall & it's civie leaders. And keeping things that "top secret" would only accomplish the opposite whenever they did come public.

[baron-pierreIV]

^what about potential donors for SLC 2026 then? They've gone public, so does that risk their position.

Well, that is their choice. Can't argue with that. All I'm saying...since this is a private effort thru most of the early stages, some donors (who may have say, offices, in other cities) MAY just wish to keep quiet at the start. I mean this isn't like a PAC or something. But hey, if everybody wants to open their closets, who am I to say 'no'?

[Athensfan]

Well, ultimately, it has to be City Hall because remember, the bid and the contracts will all be in the City's name.

Eventually it is City Hall, but it most likely doesn't start there. The local government's name may be on the contract, but it's NOT the local government that delivers the Games or launches the Organizing Committee. Without powerful backers in the business community, nothing gets done. You talk to the movers and shakers first, then the movers and shakers get City Hall on board. Much of this is a political game and it is indirect. If you call up any mayor and ask if he wants the Games, it's a pointless question because he cannot possibly answer it on his own. It's all about the deep pockets and the people who make things happen. Those people are very rarely members of local government (though they certainly have great influence over it). It wouldn't even surprise me if Rahm Emanuel changed his tune (though I am not expecting this). If several of his powerful buddies wanted to put their backs (and pocketbooks) into an Olympic bid, I think Emanuel would go for it.

[Athensfan]

^what about potential donors for SLC 2026 then? They've gone public, so does that risk their position.

I see some things don't change, though. The only difference is that this particular issue has moved from the 2800+ pages of the USA 2024 thread to here. As been said there as well. I can't see how having such high-profile contacts with all those key people could be held under wraps for too long, like some here are suggesting. That doesn't make too much sense. Something, some detail would be unvailed before too long, especially in this day & age of social media. It's like trying to keep the senior prom at a high school all hush-hush two weeks before its' suppose to be held.

If anything, any interested city in 2024 would at least form an "exploratory committee" just like Salt Lake & Denver did, And especially when a bid also needs citizenry support just as much as it needs City Hall & it's civie leaders. And keeping things that "top secret" would only accomplish the opposite whenever they did come public.

I really disagree with this. Sure we live in the information age, but not everything is public information. Timing is everything. Success demands perfect timing. Successful people know how to control the flow of information to get the timing they want. That's a key part of who they are and what they do. It's not as impossible as some would argue.

I don't know who is interested in 2024, but lack of information simply doesn't indicate a lack of interest.

We don't know what the USOC will do. Despite the buzz that seems to favor 2024, I don't think one can make a safe prediction one way or the other at the moment.

[baron-pierreIV]

Eventually it is City Hall, but it most likely doesn't start there. The local government's name may be on the contract, but it's NOT the local government that delivers the Games or launches the Organizing Committee. Without powerful backers in the business community, nothing gets done. You talk to the movers and shakers first, then the movers and shakers get City Hall on board. Much of this is a political game and it is indirect. If you call up any mayor and ask if he wants the Games, it's a pointless question because he cannot possibly answer it on his own. It's all about the deep pockets and the people who make things happen. Those people are very rarely members of local government (though they certainly have great influence over it). It wouldn't even surprise me if Rahm Emanuel changed his tune (though I am not expecting this). If several of his powerful buddies wanted to put their backs (and pocketbooks) into an Olympic bid, I think Emanuel would go for it.

Sorry, I don't agree. City Hall may resent that it has been excluded early in the stage and play hard ball in certain parts. No; you don't go behind the sitting Admin's back. In reverse, note the example of the rogue Vegas developer. He tried to bypass his City Hall and the USOC, and the IOC just told him it's got to be done the other way. So, no, you talk with City Hall and they know who their powers and movers and shakers are; and let them get their act together. Yes, a civic group like Billy Payne might get the ball started, but eventually, the USOC asked him to get City Hall involved as the bid progressed because a lot of outlay of time and logistics would eventually land on City Hall's lap.

But hey, maybe you guys know better. You always seem to do anyway.