U.S. Winter Bid for 2022 or 2026

[Lord David]

And where does it say that a wannabee host is SUPPOSED TO have the right venues 12 years before they are even picked? DUH!! Really a stupid supposition. Have you never heard of plans and blueprints??

Nowhere, but it's an AMERICAN mid-sized city. You'd expect such a city like RENO to at least boast one minor arena that can host an ice rink, but it does not at the moment.

[FYI]

It can impede both. I'm not trying to have it both ways. I'm just saying if you're going to assume the IOC holds 1972 against Denver, then I'm saying that some IOC voters might hold the bribery scandal against Salt Lake. Yes, the end result was that SLC hosted an excellent Olympics, but the IOC (in large part through their own doing for sure) got embarassed as a result. Who is to say some voters (and that's why I brought up the Swiss.. they may have been the whistleblowers, but they may still have anger they want to take out on someone else) wouldn't vote against any U.S. city as a result.

Then we'll have to just agree to disagree. Cuz those are two different arguments. Since again, there's no direct correlation between the two situations. Just like the others pointed out that your attempt with the New York stadium debacle was not comparable either. Denver directly dissed the IOC, Salt Lake was merely playing their game at the time. Two totally different scenarios.

[zekekelso]

>> Yes, and do you know why the voters rejected the bond issue? It's because costs for the Olympics were much higher than anticipated (this being in the days when the Olympics were anything but a money-making proposition)

Huh? The Olympics today are anything buy a money-making proposition. A Denver Olympics today will require vastly more government funds than the $5m bond issue rejected back in the '70s.

> So this notion that because Colorado still have ballot initiatives and because they're all still tree-hugging hippies means that they could (or would) do that again and that Denver organizers need to live in fear of that fact is ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous? Not only is CO still free of tree-loving hippies, it's now a hotbed of anti-government, anti-spending, xenophobic Tea Partiers.

> To think they didn't learn from that experience makes it seem like Colorado 1970 hasn't changed in 40 years, which is completely untrue.

Yes, people learned from the experience. One thing they learned is that the voters of CO are willing to skuttle the Olympics. What makes you think that has changed. They just voted to legalize pot... who knows what they would do. I don't claim they *would* vote to skuttle the games, but I don't see how anybody can have any confidence they won't.

> But IF they can do that, it is possible to acknowledge their history and make a legitimate effort to land another Olympics without fear that somehow the citizens of the state will rise up to stop them.

But how do you do that? Sure, if you can do it, Denver would be a great host. But - to me - this feels like the Quebec supports saying "if we can just find a solution to the no-mountain problem."

> In the age of instant media and dysfunctional government, good luck with an effort like that succeeding now like it did then.

I think you have it exactly wrong. In the area of instant media (including social media) and dysfunctional government it's much easier to organize an anti-government/olympic movement.

[baron-pierreIV]

That aside, define "have a crack at it" Reno-Tahoe (along with Denver) were candidates in the late 80s and early 90s and they got passed over for Salt Lake. The USOC is under no obligation to put Reno-Tahoe in front of the IOC before Denver. All things begin equal between Reno-Tahoe and Denver, this wouldn't be a discussion. But Denver's shortcomings do not help Reno-Tahoe's profile. Denver should not have to wait for Reno-Tahoe to bid first if the USOC does not believe they are capable of winning. I'm still far from convinced they have the goods for reasons that have nothing to do with what Reno looks like.

yeah, yeah, yeah...the point is Denver not only f*cked themselves but others too. There is a discussion on Innsbruck 1976's Closing ceremony which could've been Denver's. http://www.gamesbids.com/forums/topic/22285-innsbruck-76/#entry382357

I'd really hate to be in the shoes of the several hundred Olympic enthusiasts in Denver who just grit their teeth an bang their heads against the wall with every passing Olympic Games, and that they could've already been part of that select family of Olympic hosts if only they didn't have their heads up the wazoo. And of course, now that they have passed the "pot' legalization issue, I really wonder if the IOC or the USOC will even bother to put them up knowing the legal minefields such a situation presents. Yeah, they may have the ice venues, etc., etc. But they also have that big black cloud hanging over their heads, I am sure the same old NIMBY's and tree-huggers there PLUS the whole pot-IOC issue now. I say to the IOC...forget about Denver; too many problems. There are other less troublesome cities who didn't kick ya in the balls!!

[zekekelso]

. And of course, now that they have passed the "pot' legalization issue, I really wonder if the IOC or the USOC will even bother to put them up knowing the legal minefields such a situation presents. !!

There are no, zip, nada legal minefields with having legal pot and the Olympics in CO.

[baron-pierreIV]

There are no, zip, nada legal minefields with having legal pot and the Olympics in CO.

Why, is pot on the allowed IOC-list of drugs? Won't it show up on the urine tests?

[Athensfan]

None of that addresses Reno's venue problems.

[zekekelso]

Dude, they legalized pot. They didn't make it manditory. /shakes head

[Quaker2001]

Then we'll have to just agree to disagree. Cuz those are two different arguments. Since again, there's no direct correlation between the two situations. Just like the others pointed out that your attempt with the New York stadium debacle was not comparable either. Denver directly dissed the IOC, Salt Lake was merely playing their game at the time. Two totally different scenarios.

Obviously I'm in the minority here, but I still think it's being over-estimated how much history is going to work against Denver. If Denver 2026 can position itself as being the best candidate of the bunch (and I'm aware what a difficult task that will be), I believe they can win. Regardless, should the USOC decide to put in a bid for 2026, I think it would be foolish of them to present a lesser city for their bid because they're scared of how the IOC might react to Denver. It's not like they haven't been in the discussion before and there's a pretty good bet they will be again in the future. All things considered, I still like their chances over Reno-Tahoe.

Huh? The Olympics today are anything buy a money-making proposition. A Denver Olympics today will require vastly more government funds than the $5m bond issue rejected back in the '70s.

No one was as aware back then as cities are today what a risky and potentially costly proposition the Olympics are. Montreal hadn't yet learned that the hard way and this was before Los Angeles came along and made money. Officially, the Salt Lake Olympics generated a $100 million profit. I know the total cost of the Olympics go beyond that, but so do the revenue they generate.

Why is it ridiculous? Not only is CO still free of tree-loving hippies, it's now a hotbed of anti-government, anti-spending, xenophobic Tea Partiers.

Yes, people learned from the experience. One thing they learned is that the voters of CO are willing to skuttle the Olympics. What makes you think that has changed. They just voted to legalize pot... who knows what they would do. I don't claim they *would* vote to skuttle the games, but I don't see how anybody can have any confidence they won't.

Yes, and those xenophobic Tea Partiers did a fine job in the past 2 presidential elections where a state that has almost always gone Republican voted for Obama. The thing about those tree-loving hippies who voted to stop the 1976 Olympics in Denver.. their battle was against over-development of their state. Well, they lost that battle shortly thereafter. They didn't stop all the ski resorts from popping up all over the state like they feared would happen from the Olympics. So in retrospect, they probably made a mistake turning down what would have led to federal funding. Beyond that, the population of Colorado in the early 70s was a little over 2 million. It's more than doubled since then.

So what did we learn? The voters of Colorado in the 1970s were willing to skuttle the Olympics. Should we come up with a list of things that could happen or did happen in the 70s that are inconsequential now? Different times and I still don't buy the ballot initiative factor as a major cause for concern.

But how do you do that? Sure, if you can do it, Denver would be a great host. But - to me - this feels like the Quebec supports saying "if we can just find a solution to the no-mountain problem."

Little easier convincing people to back something than to artificially change a mountain. It's going to be a tough sell for a city/state to invest in an Olympics. But that goes for any city in any state for the most part. The citizens of Colorado were against the Olympics in the early 70s largely for reasons that aren't the same today. And yes, it was an ill-conceived plan that made those problems seem worse. I believe they've learned from history. The region has changed from what it was back then. It doesn't erase what happened back then when Denver probably wasn't ready to handle an Olympics. But again, a lot has changed since then. Enough to convince the USOC and the IOC to give them another shot? Difficult, but still far from impossible.

Dude, they legalized pot. They didn't make it manditory. /shakes head

I can see it now.. any athlete who tests positive for marijuana will use the Ross Rebagliati defense... "it was a contact high, someone else at the party I was at was smoking pot, not me!"

[baron-pierreIV]

Dude, they legalized pot. They didn't make it manditory. /shakes head

No. They didn't but u still haven't answered my ? Is POT on the banned or approved list of drugs on the IOC list? Because if it shows up on an athlete's results, then can he claim that it's OK because it's legal in CO? Will the IOC bend their rules for Colorado? Or will they not? So, until you clarify that point, then it is a muddled issue.

[Rob2012]

No, it's not, and you're talking rubbish now,.

You know as well as anyone athletes have been banned for taking painkillers, cold remedies, eating the wrong things. Our only British skiing medal was taken away after Salt Lake 2002 because Alan Baxter hadn't realised Vicks Inhalers in the US contained a banned ingredient the UK inhalers didn't!

Many banned substances are legally available in every country in the world! Are you going suggest host cities which sell Vicks Inhalers would have trouble bidding for and winning an Olympics?

It's the regulations the athletes have to abide by. If they don't, or even if they fall foul of them by accident, they're not an Olympic athlete.

[zekekelso]

No one was as aware back then as cities are today what a risky and potentially costly proposition the Olympics are. Montreal hadn't yet learned that the hard way and this was before Los Angeles came along and made money. Officially, the Salt Lake Olympics generated a $100 million profit. I know the total cost of the Olympics go beyond that, but so do the revenue they generate.

Aren't you arguing against yourself? If CO voters were willing to reject the Olympics before Montreal, before anyone knew how risky they could be financially... doesn't it mean they will be more, not less likely to reject them now?

And if SLC officially generated a $100m profit, shouldn't they have paid back some of the half billion in federal bailout Mitt arranged for them, or all the state and local money spent on the games?

? Is POT on the banned or approved list of drugs on the IOC list? Because if it shows up on an athlete's results, then can he claim that it's OK because it's legal in CO?

Are you seriously this stupid?

[baron-pierreIV]

Are you seriously this stupid?

Don't be IDIOTIC!! U have NOT addressed the issue...therefore U DON'T have an answer. Therefore I am right; and u are wrong.

[zekekelso]

I'll take that as a "yes" Baron.

[baron-pierreIV]

whatever. the whole thread's turned idiotic anyway...

[Quaker2001]

Aren't you arguing against yourself? If CO voters were willing to reject the Olympics before Montreal, before anyone knew how risky they could be financially... doesn't it mean they will be more, not less likely to reject them now?

And if SLC officially generated a $100m profit, shouldn't they have paid back some of the half billion in federal bailout Mitt arranged for them, or all the state and local money spent on the games?

It was never entirely about the money though. Don't forget, after Montreal, you have Los Angeles and Salt Lake who set a new template on how to handle the games financially. Not to mention that leading up to the 1972 vote wasn't the terrorist massacre in Munich, so I'm guessing that was weighing on some people's minds that they could potentially be inviting that into Denver.

Back in 1972, The folks of Colorado were worried about the world descending upon their state and that's what freaked out the environmentalists moreso than spending money on a project like the Olympics. What they wanted to stop was uncontrolled development across the state. Well, unfortunately for them, that's exactly what happened anyway. So yes, Colorado is still full of tree-hugging environmentalists, but they since lost the battle against all the tourism and development that they were trying to keep away in 1972. That ship has long since sailed. I don't think those same folks are worried about spending too much money, certainly no moreso than in any other state. I'm betting some probably have second-guessed turning down that funding in the first place when it might have done the state some good.

I found this article online recently.. The Olympics that weren’t

That tells a good history of what happened then and what has changed since then. It's also why a future Denver bid will use all this as part of their narrative instead of running from it and pretending like it never happened. Doesn't mean they're going to be able to pull it off, but it's foolish to dismiss them simply because of their history.

[Quaker2001]

No. They didn't but u still haven't answered my ? Is POT on the banned or approved list of drugs on the IOC list? Because if it shows up on an athlete's results, then can he claim that it's OK because it's legal in CO? Will the IOC bend their rules for Colorado? Or will they not? So, until you clarify that point, then it is a muddled issue.

Is pot on the banned list of drugs on the IOC list?.. YES

If it shows up on an athlete's results, can he claim that's ok?.. NO

Will the IOC bend their rules for Colorado?.. NO

Nothing muddled about this issue, baron. The rest of us seem to understand it just fine. But I think we can take your little mini-tantrum as an admission that you realize you're wrong, so thank you for clearing that up for us.

[FYI]

I've seen articles where they've referenced it. The 1 quote I remember is something like "Denver has history, we're not trying to run away from it."

Hey, there's a great Olympic ('comeback') campaign slogan! Much like Reno's 'it is what it is'! Yeah, go with that one, Denver!

Doesn't mean they're going to be able to pull it off, but it's foolish to dismiss them simply because of their history.

I don't think anyone here is 'simply dismissing' them bcuz of their history. But it's also just as 'foolish' to think that it's not going to come up or that it'll matter to some of the people that matter.

[Quaker2001]

I don't think anyone here is 'simply dismissing' them bcuz of their history. But it's also just as 'foolish' to think that it's not going to come up or that it'll matter to some of the people that matter.

Well, 1 person would certainly like to, of course.

I've never argued that other extreme though and I don't know why you think otherwise. It's going to come up. It should come up. Denver deserves that scrutiny because of their history (and because of any lingering perception over what Denver and Colorado are about). It's probably the first thing the IOC will question them about. Unlike baron though, I think they'll have an answer for it instead of sitting there dumbfounded as if they didn't expect that one. And I'm sure it would be part of their narrative to convince the IOC members how the city and state have changed in 40+ years.

[baron-pierreIV]

Is pot on the banned list of drugs on the IOC list?.. YES

If it shows up on an athlete's results, can he claim that's ok?.. NO

Will the IOC bend their rules for Colorado?.. NO

Nothing muddled about this issue, baron. The rest of us seem to understand it just fine. But I think we can take your little mini-tantrum as an admission that you realize you're wrong, so thank you for clearing that up for us.

Mini-tantrum? Screw u, you condescending ass-h*le. It was never clear to me; and my questions were sincere.

So if "pot" shows up on an athlete's drugtest for a hypothetical Denver Olympics, and he loses a medal...then he can countersue and say, well, it's legal in Colorado...therefore how can it be illegal in the IOC's eyes since the Coloradoans are only staging the event for them BUT their laws take precedence over the IOC's. And the athlete can take that to the CAS; and he has every right to win since the events take place in the jurisdiction of Colorado where it is legal -- regardless of what event it is.

So does that NOT muddle the future chances of an Olympics there? So how COULD I BE WRONG in that regard, dumkoff?

U r not only a patronizing son-of-a-bitch but a tedious one at that.

[FYI]

Well, 1 person would certainly like to, of course.

I've never argued that other extreme though and I don't know why you think otherwise.

Bcuz you always take issue with whomever brings their history up, regardless if it is that one person, or not.

I think most can agree that their history will be somewhere in the middle.

[zekekelso]

So does that NOT muddle the future chances of an Olympics there?

No. You fail to understand that the IOC can choose to ban legal drugs for their competitors.

[baron-pierreIV]

No. You fail to understand that the IOC can choose to ban legal drugs for their competitors.

But the IOC has no legal standing in the US. If there is a law on the books allowing something that the IOC condones, thne tough titties for the IOC. Either they comply with the local jurisdictional law or they can move their dog-and-pony show elsewhere. They complied with the no-drinking laws of Utah; they should be able to accommodate the liberal drug laws of Colorado. They don't have to stick around a certain locale AND impose their rules when they are ONLY a visiting entity. So they either allow pot to show in drug tests...or they get out of Dodge. I don't think that law had any clauses which took into account something as draconian as an Olymipcs. It muddles the waters.

[Quaker2001]

So if "pot" shows up on an athlete's drugtest for a hypothetical Denver Olympics, and he loses a medal...then he can countersue and say, well, it's legal in Colorado...therefore how can it be illegal in the IOC's eyes since the Coloradoans are only staging the event for them BUT their laws take precedence over the IOC's. And the athlete can take that to the CAS; and he has every right to win since the events take place in the jurisdiction of Colorado where it is legal -- regardless of what event it is.

So does that NOT muddle the future chances of an Olympics there? So how COULD I BE WRONG in that regard, dumkoff?

We're trying to explain to you where you're wrong here so we're trying to clear this up for you. Besides, Colorado isn't the only place marijuana is legal. Should we kill Seattle from future consideration from an Olympics because of that? Or what if the Olympics come back to Salt Lake and an athlete travels to Colorado, smokes some pot, and then returns to Utah. Is that a defense for a failed drug test because he went to a state where it was legal?

Unless I'm mistaken here, the IOC banned drug list doesn't make exception for what is or isn't legal in a particular country or state. RobH brought up Alain Baxter who got stripped of his 2002 medal because of a Vicks inhaler and who went through a length appeal with the IOC. I believe there was a biathlete in 2006 who took an over-the-counter pain medication that contained a banned substance and she lost a medal. I'm sure there's been a couple of other similar instances where an athlete legally took a medication or other drug that contained a banned substance.

Marijuana use may be legal in the state of Colorado now, but the IOC and their sport federations set the rules for what is or isn't allowed for athletes competing in their competitions. They don't need legal standing to decide what is acceptable to participate in their events. If WADA says a substance is not allowed, their word is the law when it comes to competition. End of story. Every athlete knows these rules and is expected to abide by them. If an athlete were to compete in Colorado (and forget the Olympics, they also have World Cup ski events contested there).. he/she can legally use marijuana. But if he/she shows a positive from a competition drug test, I think they'll have a tough time appealing to CAS saying the law supersedes the WADA's regulations. There is nothing muddling about this. The change in Colorado's laws on marijuana is not an impediment towards Denver landing an Olympics

[zekekelso]

But the IOC has no legal standing in the US. If there is a law on the books allowing something that the IOC condones, thne tough titties for the IOC.

Always thought you were just trolling, but I'm starting to thing you really don't know the first thing about about sports, do you?

Anyway, It isn't a legal issue, but a competitive issue. It's legal to leave the starting line before the gun goes off in Colorado. That doesn't mean the IOC has to allow it, does it?