Jump to content

U.S. Winter Bid for 2022 or 2026


Soaring

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
The key point here is that I did not say the USOC can't consider bidding for both 2024 and 2026. They can consider it. They just have to know that if the existence of a 2026 bid is known within the IOC then they are scuppering their own 2024 efforts. It looks like they've got a back-up plan and like they don't have full confidence in the caliber of the 2024 bid.

That's where you and I disagree. The IOC is hard up for Winter hosts that keep the continental rotation going. By awarding the US 2026, the IOC can give the Americans a little attention, get some variety in Winter locales and still reserve the big prize of Summer Games for somebody other than the US. I believe that line of thinking will appeal to a lot of the IOC.

Problem is I don't think that's what is in the best interests of the US. I'm not even convinced it's in the long-term best interests of the Olympic Movement.

Do you assume they won't know that? Or are you now implying the USOC doesn't know what they're doing and could be making a big mistake. I'd like to think though that if "they have to know" that they will, but I don't think that's the case, so I won't be surprised if their actions speak otherwise

I understand what your position is. I understand why you think that way. I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt that this isn't you pushing your USOC "must focus on Summer Games" agenda as a basis for your making these points. Still, I believe you're over-thinking if you believe the IOC voters are going to be all that concerned what the USOC might do for 2026 and that it will affect their 2024 voting.

Here's what's probably going to win or lose the 2024 vote if the USOC is in the running.. how good or bad the bid city is. It's a radical theory, I know. Of course there will be all sort of geopolitical factors that we're years away from even being able to talk about. If you're trying to tell me you don't think it's advisable for the USOC to be working on a Summer bid and a Winter bid at once because they need to focus on 1 and only 1 and that 2026 planning would hamper 2024 plan, I understand that and wouldn't totally disagree with it. But where the logic extends to saying the 2024 vote would be hampered by the existence of a theoretical 2026 bid (nothing would need to be official at that point), that I don't agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way the USOC, so far, from this bleacher-sitter's POV, is handling this, is problematic. Again, it's something in-between Turkey's frowned-upon IOC 2020-Euro 2020 run, France's double candidacy of Barcelona/Albertville for 1992, AND Fifa's 2018-2022 tandem awards. It is NOT bound to end well, especially for the 2024 candidate. This just gives the impression that the USOC is again pushing its weight around because of its size and is one of the few nations that can host the 2 events back-to-back if it came to that. But we know that that's NOT going to happen. If I were a not very American-friendly IOC member (and God knows there are a number of those, regardless of whether than revenue-sharing deal has salved the friction), knowing that the U.S. is all ready with a 2026 back-up plan in case their 2024 candidate should fail, I would really be tempted to vote any other candidate BUT the US one and instead reserve my vote for the US winter candidate for 2026. That's how I feel the USOC is putting itself into -- the Paris 1992 candidacy painted itself into a corner because Samaranch & friends would make sure that the Frenchies at least got the consolation prize of the Winter Games. The timing this time is not synchronized but the dynamics are going to be pretty much the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the fact that the votes are not held together (like `92 Winter/Sumer, like FIFA 2018-2022, and to a lesser extent like Euro 2020 and 2020 Olmpics) make the dynamics a lot different.

My understanding of history is that the 1992 bids were very much manipulated by Samaranch. After it was widely assumed Barcelona would get the Olympics, he encouraged Paris to enter the race to give them some comeptition. Then he got worried about growing support for Paris so he invites Amsterdam and Birmingham into the race to try and draw some votes away from Paris. And then of course, the vote order goes that the Winter city is selected first and there was all sorts of vote trading, mostly from Barcelona backers voting for Albertville. So you had a highly politicized set of circumstances that IMO seems unlikely to play out with 2 sets of votes that are 2 years apart.

Turkey is also a different situation. That's 2 events in the same year and yes, 1 of them definitely was a backup to the other and the IOC forced Istanbul's hand to make a choice. Which will be interesting if Istanbul doesn't get the Olympics.. will UEFA reconsider awarding them Euro 2020 instead of this nonsensical idea to let 12 different countries host. And might that be reason for IOC members with ties to FIFA to vote for Tokyo to restore order for UEFA (although I'll admit that one seems a little far-fetched)

So what of the USOC? I don't see this being like the late 80s/early 90s where they submitted a bid for every race available to them. They stepped away from 2020 (obviously the revenue deal and relations with the IOC didn't help matters) and will have gone at least 24 years between Winter bids. I don't view this as them all of a sudden trying to flex their muscle and go for 2 things at once. If the votes were at the same time it would be one thing, but they're not. I'd like to think they got a dose of humility from the 2012 and 2016 losses and are learning a lesson from it. Time will tell. Either way.. I still think the effects of 2026 on the 2024 vote. It's easy for us here to take the long view and look ahead. Maybe I'm misreading the IOC voters, but I think they're more likely to look at what's in front of them rather than to say "we don't need to give this one to the United States, let's just give them the next one instead." That's especially true if the 2024 competition is strong, meaning the US candidate probably wouldn't stand much of a chance in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" That's especially true if the 2024 competition is strong, meaning the US candidate probably wouldn't stand much of a chance in the first place.

Which just means that that's another US city burnt the first time around and won't be throwing their hat in for another 30-40 years. Which then brings us back to 2026 where the US has a much stronger, surer chance than a Summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> They just have to know that if the existence of a 2026 bid is known within the IOC then they are scuppering their own 2024 efforts.

That's your theory, and you are welcome to it. But lets be upfront that it's just something you pulled out of your keister. The IOC has never said it, never hinted at it. (This is the same group that hasn't hesitated to say that a Euro 2020 bid harms Istanbul's chances.)

And it's clear the NOC's don't believe it. Pretty much every country capable of bidding for both SOG/WOG hasn't done anything to hide their desire for a WOC when bidding. These people know the IOC members, they work with them all them, many of them *are* IOC members. If the IOC members felt expressing interest in a WOG harmed SOC bids, they wouldn't do it. Yet they all do.

Now it's possible you have read the minds of the IOC better than the people who know them best. But you still only have a completely unsupported theory - a guess. So, no, the USOC doesn't "just have to know" it.

I'm sorry but there's a difference between inventing pure fiction and analyzing current dynamics.

No one knows what the future holds, but I certainly think my concerns make sense based on what we've seen and I think the USOC will consider that line of thought.

I don't care if you do or not. Fortunately it's not up to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but there's a difference between inventing pure fiction and analyzing current dynamics.

No one knows what the future holds, but I certainly think my concerns make sense based on what we've seen and I think the USOC will consider that line of thought.

I don't care if you do or not. Fortunately it's not up to you.

So what exactly is it that we've seen that leads you to believe that? Let's be fair about this situation.. unless something has changed for you, you want the USOC to go after a Summer Olympics. You've made that very clear. You've also made it clear that you think the USOC going after a Winter Olympics and potentially landing 2026 would be a disaster for their pursuit of a Summer Olympics. You may be right on that, but we've gotten little indication of what the USOC's intentions are. If anything, what became evident in the past week is that they haven't chosen a course of action. Maybe the USOC will think along the same lines that you have, but I'm still a little hazy why you believe that will happen aside from what seems to be a personal bias for them to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what exactly is it that we've seen that leads you to believe that? Let's be fair about this situation.. unless something has changed for you, you want the USOC to go after a Summer Olympics. You've made that very clear. You've also made it clear that you think the USOC going after a Winter Olympics and potentially landing 2026 would be a disaster for their pursuit of a Summer Olympics. You may be right on that, but we've gotten little indication of what the USOC's intentions are. If anything, what became evident in the past week is that they haven't chosen a course of action. Maybe the USOC will think along the same lines that you have, but I'm still a little hazy why you believe that will happen aside from what seems to be a personal bias for them to do so.

The question was whether the USOC could simultaneously pursue 2024 and 2026 without the 2026 plans undercutting the 2024 bid. In my opinion, the answer is no. I believe the 2026 plans would make the IOC less likely to vote for the 2024 bid.

For the record, I'd like to see the US host SOGs next. I do think OWGs in 2026 would further delay American SOGs. If the USOC opts to bid for 2026, I hope it will be with Denver because I believe it's the only electable OWG candidate.

I have no idea what the USOC will do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

, I hope it will be with Denver because I believe it's the only electable OWG candidate.

I have no idea what the USOC will do.

Uh-huh. Yeah. Give the IOC another chance to smack down the ONE CITY in HISTORY that turned them down. You just substituted the possible dislike of a 2024 US bid to 2026. So, it's really STUPID to even run Denver there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it is impossible for the USOC to entertain two bids at one time - 2024 and 2026. I just don't think it is wise. Depending on what cities are interested, the USOC needs to prioritize which games they want to continue to focus on (summer or winter). Obviously, their priorities have been a summer games in the recent past, with respect to the 2012 and 2016 bids. I think they need to look at all of the dynamics, and what cities they have to work with, and then decide from there.

If they want to bid for both 2024 and 2026, they should keep the 2026 bid secret until after the 2024 vote. Any hint will have an effect on the 2024 decision, and I think there are enough cards stacked against another U.S. summer games already, that by adding on the Winter 2026 bid will only add one more reason why an IOC member should not vote for a U.S. city in 2024. They won't feel so bad voting for another city if they think that they can just give the Americans a "consolation prize" in 2026.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All Quebec needs to do is invest in expanding the height of Cap-du-Salut say 200 or so meters, or diverting the river located at Acropole des Draveurs (which has the height, but ends up at a river).

It basically has the arena problem solved and there's plenty of minor arenas in the city.

PEPS at Laval University would therefore be solely serving the athletes, a good boost for their bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All Quebec needs to do is invest in expanding the height of Cap-du-Salut say 200 or so meters, or diverting the river located at Acropole des Draveurs (which has the height, but ends up at a river).

All?? :wacko:

You can't seriously think great feats of geo-engineering, like raising mountains or diverting rivers, would be acceptable for the organisation of a two week sports carnival?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All?? :wacko:

You can't seriously think great feats of geo-engineering, like raising mountains or diverting rivers, would be acceptable for the organisation of a two week sports carnival?

Umm... it's a lasting legacy duh. Quebec get's the 800m vertical permanently so it can host Men's Downhill competitions in the future. A new ski resort is opened. It's not just for the Olympics, and would not make a temporary ramp setup look like a waste of 25 - 50 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt the world eco movement would allow him to continue in that role if he ever seriously suggested such rubbish!

Nah, the bid books will be carefully written with the eco-minded in mind.

It would suggest that any trees cleared will be replanted, lumber used sustainably etc. Natural rock would be used wherever possible etc. It will also boast that the Cap-du-salut location is preferable than Acropole-des-dravuers as it will certainly leave less ecological damage as only the mountainside needs to be heightened, with trees cleared, as opposed to the case of Acropole, which needs the river diverted, dedicated roads built, general infrastructure etc.

Just look at PyeongChang, it's Men's Downhill site is supposedly just an undeveloped mountain, it has it's eco critics and environmental crazies, yet that's still going ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, the bid books will be carefully written with the eco-minded in mind.

It would suggest that any trees cleared will be replanted, lumber used sustainably etc. Natural rock would be used wherever possible etc. It will also boast that the Cap-du-salut location is preferable than Acropole-des-dravuers as it will certainly leave less ecological damage as only the mountainside needs to be heightened, with trees cleared, as opposed to the case of Acropole, which needs the river diverted, dedicated roads built, general infrastructure etc.

Just look at PyeongChang, it's Men's Downhill site is supposedly just an undeveloped mountain, it has it's eco critics and environmental crazies, yet that's still going ahead.

PC aint raising mountains or diverting rivers. No matter how much you'd try to market it to gild the turd, no halfway eco-conscious democratic society, much less those prococateurs par excellence the Canucks, would let such a proposal stand without MASSIVE opposition and protest. It just wouldn't fly.

I think you've missed your vocation in designing secret lairs for Bond super-villains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet PC is building their ski slopes for downhill competitions on a protected forest area.

There was protest for the 2002 bid, so what? Who cares? If it does fly, in the end people (those that weren't protesting of course) would realize that it was all worth it. As long as it's done in an environmentally sound matter and doesn't cost too much, it's a much more sound investment than a temporary ramp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC aint raising mountains or diverting rivers. No matter how much you'd try to market it to gild the turd, no halfway eco-conscious democratic society, much less those prococateurs par excellence the Canucks, would let such a proposal stand without MASSIVE opposition and protest. It just wouldn't fly.

I think you've missed your vocation in designing secret lairs for Bond super-villains.

We are talking 100ft or 30metres. The current height of the Le Massif is 806m and that mountain goes down to the shoreline.

Work the rail track to create a Wengen like route under a bridge, create a barrage out in the St Lawrence so stands could be positioned on the St Lawrence, and finishing the course parallel to the St Lawrence are all technically feasible and unlikely to result in massive opposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...