U.S. Winter Bid for 2022 or 2026

[Lord David]

Denver, Reno, forget them all, just go with Lake Placid USOC!

You can do it and make sure it's a smaller scaled games, which is done right from the start!

[Quaker2001]

Denver, Reno, forget them all, just go with Lake Placid USOC!

You can do it and make sure it's a smaller scaled games, which is done right from the start!

No, you can't. Lake Placid is too small to handle a 21st century Olympics. You can't put it on a small enough scale to make the size acceptable for that area. Again, this is a popularity contest. The Lake Placid folk would get laughed out of the room if they think the USOC is going to present them to the IOC. If there were literally no other city in the world bidding for the Olympics, Lake Placid still would not be it. Cannot and will not be done.

But it is worse in Denver for two reasons. First, they have a history. Whether it is fair or not doesn't matter. The fact that CO voters jilted the IOC 40 years ago does mean they face extra scruitney. Then their is the very real issue that the political process is different in CO than in NY or IL. They not only have a very powerful ballot initiative in CO, they voters in CO have shown they are willing to use that process to buck they system. They were willing to do use the process in the 70's to skuttle the Olympics, they just used it to legalized weed.

So is there really an equivalency for something that happened 40 years ago? Is it fear that situation could happen again? (did that prevent Munich from landing an Olympics just over 2 decades removed from the events of World War II and only 30 years on from the Nazi Olympics of 1936?) Because Colorado voters are more empowered than those in New York? I mean, New Yorkers could never scuttle an Olympic bid in the way Colorado residents did in 1972, could they?...

Obviously not quite the same since 1 was only a bid (which wasn't going to win anyway, even without the stadium mess that came to be just a few weeks before) and not an awarded Olympics, but this goes to my point.. to be concerned that Denver could see a repeat of 1972 is to not understand the circumstances which caused that in the first place. There are so many things that are different about Denver and Colorado now (not to mention the Olympics themselves) that you could almost argue what happened then is something that they learned from and use to make their bid stronger. The irony is that what many of the locals feared would happen to the city and the state if the Olympics came to town occurred anyway. What happened back then is so unlikely to repeat itself now for so many reasons so the idea there should be concern because of ballot initiatives or the usual NIMBY activists that almost any Olympic bid city has to deal with is to not understand the situation then or now.

That all said, you're right that history probably won't be fair to Denver, although folks with their bid committee have acknowledged that there is negative history and they're not trying to run from it. Yes, Denver's bid will face additional scrutiny, but it is possible to overcome that and inspire confidence in the IOC that they can feel comfortable voting for them. Again, as I keep saying, all of this only comes into play if Denver is well-prepared and has the edge over their US competition. And with the IOC.. sure they'll always have their motivations for voting. But the issues that killed Sion 2006 and Chicago 2016 were very much issues of the present, not of the past from 4 decades earlier. Find me the vote where a city lost over an issue that plagued the IOC that long before the vote and I'd rather compare it to that.

We all know all 3 of the main winter candidates have baggage. It's on the USOC to choose which of those candidates they believe had the best shot at getting elected should they choose to pursue a Winter bid. Even given all this, I still think the USOC should roll the dice with Denver. Sell it as a story of redemption for a city and state that wasn't ready for the Olympics then but is the right choice for them now. Personally, I think the IOC might just be willing to embrace that rather than for these voters to just say "screw you Denver, we're not interested."

[FYI]

Find me the vote where a city lost over an issue that plagued the IOC that long before the vote and I'd rather compare it to that.

Find me a city that threw the Olympics back in the IOC's face & I'd rather compare it to that.

Like I've said before, I'm not to the point of extreme that some people are against Denver, but I wouldn't be as casual to totally dismiss it either simply cuz the Denver diss happened 4 decades earlier.

Some members are bound to take their history seriously. And again, in a tight race, all you need is a couple of "screw you, Denver" votes, & it's game over.

[Lord David]

No, you can't. Lake Placid is too small to handle a 21st century Olympics. You can't put it on a small enough scale to make the size acceptable for that area. Again, this is a popularity contest. The Lake Placid folk would get laughed out of the room if they think the USOC is going to present them to the IOC. If there were literally no other city in the world bidding for the Olympics, Lake Placid still would not be it. Cannot and will not be done.

[Lord David]

Lake Placid will draw from it's strengths of having the Ski Jumps, Sliding Center and Biathlon/Cross country course already there, as well as a reasonably sized arena.

The event would be spread out in the Tri-Lakes area, where Tupper Lake and Saranac Lake will host 2 events each (based on my old 2022 Olympic plan of course)

Tupper Lake to host Curling and all of Snowboard, whilst Saranac Lake would get a new ski resort and host the alpine portion of Freestyle Skiing, as well as get a minor arena for the College and host Ice Hockey II. Lake Placid will host the remaining ice events in temporary arenas. The capacity for arenas will not exceed the current capacity of Herb Brooks Arena, which is at 7,700 (to ensure that the games are kept small scale and that Ice Hockey rightfully has the largest venue for finals and remains number 1). This arena would be upgraded with individual seating on the upper tier, and a new video scoreboard, as well as other minor improvements.

A temporary 35,000 seater theater would be setup at the site of the 1980 Opening Ceremony and would serve ceremonies and medal ceremonies.

The transport system which plagued 1980 will be solved. Adirondack Regional Airport would be expanded to a full domestic one, with dedicated flights at the very least during the winter season. The Adirondack Scenic Rail serves as a snowmobile trail during winter. This will be taken to full advantage. The bus routes and charter buses acquired for the 1980 games will be used at a slightly larger scale. A mix of modern technology and lessons learned from 1980 will be implemented. To ensure clear roads, temporary laws/programs will be implemented to ensure the local population avoids using such roads for local traffic during the games.

Accommodation for 10,000 in the immediate region, with a further 50,000 within say 80km of Lake Placid. Media would be housed in it's own accommodation, in a purposely built media village. The Main Press Center would be a heavily expanded Lake Placid High School (used during the 1980 games for that purpose), at 5 levels, as well as a new Gym/Fieldhouse, at an expected 15,000 sqm minimum of overall space. The Speed Skating Oval next door will not be used for competitions, a new oval will be constructed nearby, either permanent or temporary. The International Broadcasting Center would be a new facility, temporary, with a minimum of 45,000 sqm of space.

I think it can work, a mix of existing facilities and sentimentality will support a Lake Placid bid.

Funny you say if there were no other bid, Lake Placid got the 1980 games because of that.

[Rob2012]

Find me a city that threw the Olympics back in the IOC's face & I'd rather compare it to that.

Like I've said before, I'm not to the point of extreme that some people are against Denver, but I wouldn't be as casual to totally dismiss it either simply cuz the Denver diss happened 4 decades earlier.

Some members are bound to take their history seriously. And again, in a tight race, all you need is a couple of "screw you, Denver" votes, & it's game over.

London handed the IAAF back their World Athletics Championships that were to be held in 2005 - the very same year as the Olympic vote! It's not a perfect comparison, but I do think if Tony Blair could hand back an event like this and only a few years later successfully lobby for an Olympics for the same city, then Denver's worries might be overstated.

Denver isn't London, sure, and the IAAF isn't the IOC, but the links are strong between the two bodies and we're comparing one city who handed back an event they were due to host the year of the IOC vote, and another whose Olympic hopes come almost half a century after they did similar:

Not that I'm disagreeing with you FYI by posting this example. Like you, I don't you think you can necessarily write off Denver's history. It could have an effect. But the London example does at least show that a good bid, with the right wind behind it is more than capable of overcoming history. I don't believe for a second what happened in the 70s would be anything like the dominant factor some are claiming!

The British Government has abandoned plans to stage the 2005 World Athletics Championships at Picketts Lock.

It has decided that the project to develop a 43,000-seater stadium at the north London site would have cost too much money.

The government now wants to stage the event in Sheffield although the world athletics body, the IAAF, says the British bid was dependent on the championships being held in London.

Ministers will meet with the IAAF president on Friday to try to persuade him to allow the event to be moved to Sheffield.

An IAAF spokesman said on Thursday that the bidding would have to be re-opened but that if Sheffield were to enter, its proposal would be considered.

However, the credibility of any British bid may now be too badly damaged and it appears likely that the 2005 championships will not be held anywhere in the UK.

The decision to scrap the Picketts Lock project follows a review by troubleshooter Patrick Carter which identified the original £87m scheme would actually cost significantly more.

Sports Minister Richard Caborn and Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell came to the conclusion after lengthy discussions with UK Athletics.

"It would have cost almost a quarter of a billion pounds to stage it at Picketts Lock and we could not justify that," said Caborn.

"It's an awful lot of tennis rackets, an awful lot of sports coaches and an awful lot of football pitches."

The outcome is a huge embarrassment for the government, which had promised to bring the championships to the UK in its election manifesto.

The failure to go ahead with the London championships is the first time in the modern sporting era that a major economic power has failed to meet a promise to hold a major sports event.

It is also a big blow for British hopes of staging the 2012 Olympics.

The IAAF is not due to make any decision on the venue until its 27-man council meets in November.

Caborn, Jowell, Carter and UK Athletics chief executive David Moorcroft will meet IAAF president Lamine Diack on Friday to try to persuade him to accept the new plan.

However, the IAAF has previously said that if the Picketts Lock project did fall through, it would not allow UK Athletics to simply change the venue to another city.

"The championships were awarded to London and to change the city is impossible." said IAAF spokesman Giorgio Reineri.

"Like the Olympics, if you change the city you change everything."

The government wants to hold the event at the Don Valley Stadium in Sheffield.

The venue, built in 1990 and host of the World Student Games in 1991, currently seats 25,000 so would need extending.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/1577797.stm

[baron-pierreIV]

/\/\ Not the same. That's just ONE sport. Denver threw back the WHOLE kit and caboodle.

[deawebo]

But Denver's issue happed a loooong time ago, the IOC perhaps hasn't forgoten but may give them another chance. As for know I don't see them too enthusiastic to bid again... So I don't think Denver might bep the city.

*be

[Quaker2001]

Find me a city that threw the Olympics back in the IOC's face & I'd rather compare it to that.

Like I've said before, I'm not to the point of extreme that some people are against Denver, but I wouldn't be as casual to totally dismiss it either simply cuz the Denver diss happened 4 decades earlier.

Some members are bound to take their history seriously. And again, in a tight race, all you need is a couple of "screw you, Denver" votes, & it's game over.

You mean like Chicago? Or is 1904 far enough in the past that we don't hold that against them since St. Louis essentially just usurped the games from Chicago?

Once again.. I'm not casually dismissing what happened. Denver has history. They know that. We know that. The IOC knows that. I just think its an over-reaction to treat Denver as a liability to host the 2026 Olympics as if history could repeat itself. We don't know how the IOC voters would react to seeing Denver in a vote. The Olympics have been held 4 times in the United States since then (2 of those with bids against actual competition!), so obviously it wasn't held against the country. Will voters hold a grudge against the city as a result? Maybe, maybe not. But last I checked, there are close to 100 voters for a Winter Olympics. Salt Lake won in the first round with 54 out of 89 votes. So it takes more than a few votes for it to be "game over."

[Quaker2001]

I think it can work, a mix of existing facilities and sentimentality will support a Lake Placid bid.

Funny you say if there were no other bid, Lake Placid got the 1980 games because of that.

No.. it's not going to work. You want a high school to be the press center? And where exactly are you going to find accommodation for 10,000 people in the area, let alone 50,000 in the region.

Again, the size and scale of the Olympics has increased dramatically since 1980. Lake Placid barely pulled it off then and that was when there was no other city interested in bidding. This plan you're offering has ZERO chance of beating the competition. Nor does the village of Lake Placid have the money to spend on this effort. It's not happening.

[baron-pierreIV]

Once again.. I'm not casually dismissing what happened. Denver has history. They know that. We know that. The IOC knows that. I just think its an over-reaction to treat Denver as a liability to host the 2026 Olympics as if history could repeat itself. We don't know how the IOC voters would react to seeing Denver in a vote. The Olympics have been held 4 times in the United States since then (2 of those with bids against actual competition!), so obviously it wasn't held against the country. Will voters hold a grudge against the city as a result? Maybe, maybe not. But last I checked, there are close to 100 voters for a Winter Olympics. Salt Lake won in the first round with 54 out of 89 votes. So it takes more than a few votes for it to be "game over."

But it would be a surer thing with Reno-Tahoe or Salt Lake. Denver will lose.

[Athensfan]

But it would be a surer thing with Reno-Tahoe or Salt Lake. Denver will lose.

The loss would be a surer thing with the other two.

[baron-pierreIV]

The loss would be a surer thing with the other two.

NOPE. They have no negative baggage.

[FYI]

You mean like Chicago? Or is 1904 far enough in the past that we don't hold that against them since St. Louis essentially just usurped the games from Chicago?

We don't know how the IOC voters would react to seeing Denver in a vote. The Olympics have been held 4 times in the United States since then (2 of those with bids against actual competition!), so obviously it wasn't held against the country. Will voters hold a grudge against the city as a result? Maybe, maybe not. But last I checked, there are close to 100 voters for a Winter Olympics. Salt Lake won in the first round with 54 out of 89 votes. So it takes more than a few votes for it to be "game over."

Chicago didn't throw back the Games. The World Expo organization which were already having there thing in St Louis, threatened to have their own sports festical what would 'eclipse' the Olympic Games if they weren't moved from Chicago. So the IOC gave in & moved the Games to St. Louis. So not the same thing in the least.

And come on, Q01, now you're starting to sound like someone else with the "we just don't know" rhetoric. Of course we don't know how the IOC will vote. We never do. But like in any other discussions on these boards, we can speculate. ANd yes, sometimes all it takes IS just a few votes for it to be game over. Just ask PyeongChang how their first two losses were, missing out by just a "few votes". Not every bid will be won Salt Lake City 2002 style. And even then, some would still argue with you that Salt Lake won from buying the votes.

[baron-pierreIV]

Besides, unless it's changed drastically, if Denver uses Vail as the other cluster of snow events, the corridor between Denver & Vail will be very problematic. So just because Denver has the bigger metro area & arenas, their snow component is far from functional. So, its negative baggage, PLUS unsetted snow venues-transportation issues, makes Denver far from an attractive host.

And do they still have widespread popular support? Haven't seen any recent figures to support that. Seems like they are afraid to face brass tacks if a poll is forced. And would the IOC go to a setting where pot is legalized?? How would that play with the IOC's drug-testing protocol? Which would have precedence? Colorado's laws or the IOC's??

[Quaker2001]

And come on, Q01, now you're starting to sound like someone else with the "we just don't know" rhetoric. Of course we don't know how the IOC will vote. We never do. But like in any other discussions on these boards, we can speculate. ANd yes, sometimes all it takes IS just a few votes for it to be game over. Just ask PyeongChang how their first two losses were, missing out by just a "few votes". Not every bid will be won Salt Lake City 2002 style. And even then, some would still argue with you that Salt Lake won from buying the votes.

Or how Paris lost by 4 to London and we're all left to wonder if Chirac's disdain for British food might have cost them a potential win?

I'm more than happy to speculate over how the IOC would treat Denver. Some here think that many IOC voters would hold a long-standing grudge and wouldn't vote for Denver. I think it would be relatively few and those who would vote against Denver are the same folks that would vote against any U.S. candidate regardless. So that's the risk the USOC would be taking with a 2026 bid. The question becomes is there another city that gives them a better shot of winning? If you believe that Denver vs. whatever other hypothetical candidates our there would be a tight race and the Denver factor costs them, do they stand a better chance if it's Reno-Tahoe or Salt Lake or anyone else that's not Lake Placid. Right now, I don't think there is. If Denver can put together a workable plan (and that remains a big if as we all know), I think the USOC is playing the odds by going with Denver, along with their baggage, versus the other options they could throw out there.

Besides, unless it's changed drastically, if Denver uses Vail as the other cluster of snow events, the corridor between Denver & Vail will be very problematic. So just because Denver has the bigger metro area & arenas, their snow component is far from functional. So, its negative baggage, PLUS unsetted snow venues-transportation issues, makes Denver far from an attractive host.

And do they still have widespread popular support? Haven't seen any recent figures to support that. Seems like they are afraid to face brass tacks if a poll is forced. And would the IOC go to a setting where pot is legalized?? How would that play with the IOC's drug-testing protocol? Which would have precedence? Colorado's laws or the IOC's??

Yes, that first part I do agree with. I'm certainly not ready to hand the nomination over to Denver because they have a lot of technical issues to deal with on their own. Again, if there were a way to combine Denver's ice component and Tahoe's snow component, that would make for an excellent bid. But transportation was an issue in the 1970s and it's still an issue now, so it's something they'd have to figure out.

That you brought it up.. are there support figures for Reno/Tahoe? I'd be curious to see that as a potential basis of comparison.

[baron-pierreIV]

That you brought it up.. are there support figures for Reno/Tahoe? I'd be curious to see that as a potential basis of comparison.

Haven't seen any yet either -- but I'll wager to say it's close to 250%!!

[Athensfan]

NOPE. They have no negative baggage.

SO disagree.

No venues. Cheeseball gambling town. Bribery scandal. Just hosted a scant 11 years ago.

Baggage.

[baron-pierreIV]

No venues.

Yes, they do. Did Sochi or PY have all its venue 15 years before the event??

[Athensfan]

Yes, they do. Did Sochi or PY have all its venue 15 years before the event??

Is Reno proposing new construction on the scale of Sochi and PC? You quoted one of the organizers as saying "it is what it is."

[baron-pierreIV]

Is Reno proposing new construction on the scale of Sochi and PC? You quoted one of the organizers as saying "it is what it is."

They will attempt to put in all the required venues if picked. Why put them up now if they're not going to get picked? Kinda stupid if they did, doncha think so?

[Athensfan]

They will attempt to put in all the required venues if picked. Why put them up now if they're not going to get picked? Kinda stupid if they did, doncha think so?

Attempt?

Don't they have to guarantee them? And not just guarantee them, but guarantee a level of quality that will keep pace with Sochi and PC? What plans outline such guarantees? Who will fund them?

[FYI]

If you believe that Denver vs. whatever other hypothetical candidates our there would be a tight race and the Denver factor costs them, do they stand a better chance if it's Reno-Tahoe or Salt Lake or anyone else that's not Lake Placid. Right now, I don't think there is. If Denver can put together a workable plan (and that remains a big if as we all know), I think the USOC is playing the odds by going with Denver, along with their baggage, versus the other options they could throw out there.

Actually, I don't believe that. I was using the term 'tight race' as a hypothetical, which is plausible. But then again, it may not turn out to be that way.

The funny thing, when SLC announced that they wanted to bid again (& this was when 2022 was still an open window), the immediate thought was, "yeah, right. They just hosted not that long ago". But now that the 2022 ship has sailed (& combined with the other negatives from the other cities) SLC is starting to make the most sense now that we're talking about 2026 or beyond.

They wouldn't have the transportation issue between the ice & snow clusters, they have the venues already built & they wouldn't have the history of throwing back the Games, on the contrary. They hosted successful Winter Olympics. Some see the bribery scandal as a negative, but the IOC already fried the bid that was responsible for that (Sion 2006). All Salt Lake did was play along with the piper,

[baron-pierreIV]

Attempt?

Don't they have to guarantee them? And not just guarantee them, but guarantee a level of quality that will keep pace with Sochi and PC? What plans outline such guarantees? Who will fund them?

Rn't u getting way ahead of yourself? I mean the USOC hasn't even decided if they're going for 2026 or not -- so why should a wannabe commit so early and so foolishly if nothing's going to happen anyway? U need 2 chill, dude.

Actually, I don't believe that. I was using the term 'tight race' as a hypothetical, which is plausible. But then again, it may not turn out to be that way.

The funny thing, when SLC announced that they wanted to bid again (& this was when 2022 was still an open window), the immediate thought was, "yeah, right. They just hosted not that long ago". But now that the 2022 ship has sailed (& combined with the other negatives from the other cities) SLC is starting to make the most sense now that we're talking about 2026 or beyond.

They wouldn't have the transportation issue between the ice & snow clusters, they have the venues already built & they wouldn't have the history of throwing back the Games, on the contrary. They hosted successful Winter Olympics. Some see the bribery scandal as a negative, but the IOC already fried the bid that was responsible for that (Sion 2006). All Salt Lake did was play along with the piper,

Yeah, Salt Lake 2026 would really make the most sense. Just need a new FS venue. And it would be 24 years between its 2 hostings -- that's 4 more than the Squaw Valley 1960 - LP 1980 - and SLC 2002 sequence.

[Quaker2001]

The funny thing, when SLC announced that they wanted to bid again (& this was when 2022 was still an open window), the immediate thought was, "yeah, right. They just hosted not that long ago". But now that the 2022 ship has sailed (& combined with the other negatives from the other cities) SLC is starting to make the most sense now that we're talking about 2026 or beyond.

They wouldn't have the transportation issue between the ice & snow clusters, they have the venues already built & they wouldn't have the history of throwing back the Games, on the contrary. They hosted successful Winter Olympics. Some see the bribery scandal as a negative, but the IOC already fried the bid that was responsible for that (Sion 2006). All Salt Lake did was play along with the piper,

24 years is still a relatively short period of time for the same city to host. I mean, we're talking about 40 years maybe not being enough for Los Angeles, and that's with another city having having hosted more recently. The IOC of late hasn't exactly shown a penchant for choosing repeat hosts over newer opportunities. I could certainly see them changing their tune if Salt Lake is presented to them, but the flipside of that is who says there aren't some voters out there who would hold the bribery scandal against Salt Lake and use that as an excuse to vote against them. Certainly the Swiss and anyone loyal to them might be pursuaded, so that's a risk for them just like what's attached to Denver.

Yeah, Salt Lake 2026 would really make the most sense. Just need a new FS venue. And it would be 24 years between its 2 hostings -- that's 4 more than the Squaw Valley 1960 - LP 1980 - and SLC 2002 sequence.

They probably need to differentiate the city portion of things a little more. There's a lot of room around the arena to where they could build a new one across the street. So maybe they put up the new arena to hold figure skating/short track (and build it to specs that would be friendlier for a full-sized ice surface than the Delta Center was). Before they demolish the old arena (which will be nearly 40 years old by 2026.. certainly not ancient, but still 1 of the older venues in the NBA), use that as Ice Hockey 1. E Center is your Ice Hockey 2. And maybe build something new on University of Utah's campus to use for curling. Could give a new Olympics a different feel to condense it more around Salt Lake instead of stretching all the way from Ogden to Provo