U.S. Winter Bid for 2022 or 2026

[baron-pierreIV]

Nah, the WOGs are NOT going to return to Denver. They had their shot; they blew it. Next...

[zekekelso]

I agree with Lord David on this one. The IOC felt cheated, deceived and embarrassed by SLC. .

I can't think of the slightest bit of evidene the IOC felt cheated, deceived and embarassed by SLC.

The IOC continues to rig their rules to allow Sead Dizdarevic to gain vast millions in scalping profits off Olympic tickets in exchange for modest kickbacks to the NOCs. Sead was the key moneyman of the SLC bribery scandle. He not only hasn't been shunnted by the IOC, he's embraced by the IOC.

[Athensfan]

Really? How about eliminating bid city visits and suspending the implicated members? What do you think motivated that?

[Quaker2001]

Denver is different. The people involved are the citizens of Colorado. They are still there. And in addition to the tree huggers, you've got the Tea Partiers as well. There's nobody who can stand up and say the bond vote was huge mistake, no one to guarantee it will happen again.

Dick Lamm has said before he thinks it may have been a mistake. His reasoning is that while it seemed like the right decision at the time since the city and the state probably weren't ready for the Olympics, having the Olympics might have done the state some good. Again, you have to look at why the citizens of Colorado were so opposed to the Olympics then. It's not simply because they're tree huggers. They were worried about growth and development in the state. Guess what.. they lost that battle. Big time. And they know that to this day. All that money that could have been spent on the Olympics could have been an investment in the state, including the millions in federal funding that could have gone towards building the ski resorts and other infrastructure that went up anyway, but without the benefit of that government money. That's a key part of the story there.

So flash forward to present day. Denver's history can't (and shouldn't) be ignored. But does that really make their environmentalists and anti-Olympic activists that much more powerful because of what happened. And good job by the Tea Partiers in Colorado who went 0 for 2 in trying to beat Obama. I mean, let's look at the list of winning Olympic bids that didn't have their share of opposition

................

.....

............

..................

...........

They all have. Yes, the citizens of Colorado stood up and succeeded where others haven't. That doesn't mean history is likely to repeat itself. Is it a guarantee that the current Denver organizing committee can make? Probably not. Public support and funding will obviously be key for them. But what exactly would the citizens of Colorado be fighting against? The problem back then was that they were trying to fend off new developments and private resorts that they didn't want, much less the huge influx of people. A future Denver Olympics would use venues and infrastructure that's largely already there. It's not like they don't already have a large amount of non-residents making use of their ski resorts, the ones that would likely be used for an Olympics. Sure there would be some building and a few people would probably object to that, but I don't see it being an issue where the citizens will stand against it, even if there's no definitive guarantee behind that.

There are Coloradans that know they missed a golden opportunity way back when. A lot of what those darn tree huggers are bothered by to this day may have been built and designed better if the Olympics and the money that would have gotten spent were the impetus behind all that development. To make it seem like nothing has changed in 40+ is not being fair to why the citizens of Colorado objected to the Olympics in the first place. Think about it.. if Denver had never been in the running for the `76 Olympics and this was their first serious go at it, would you still view Colorado's population in the same manner? Probably not. So much is different with the city and the state now then it was back then. Does Denver deserve another chance? Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I still think that more than 4 decades after they screwed it all up though, they're worth a look before they're dismissed because of fears about their history.

[/end rant]

[Athensfan]

Denver was elected host in 1970 and rejected the Games in 1972. Consequently, the 1976 Winter Olympics took place in Innsbruck.

It is interesting to note that the IOC's oldest serving member, Vitaly Smirnov, was elected in 1971. The second oldest serving member, Peter Tallberg of Finland, was elected in 1976.

This means only one current IOC member was present at the time Denver rejected the Games.

Just some trivia.

[FYI]

Yeah, so that automatically means that all the other IOC members have no clue about their own history. They all were just left in the dark about Denver's big faux-paux.

It's also interesting to note, that whenever Denver is mentioned in some Olympic story, it's always brought up that they were "the only city ever" to reject the Games after winning them. Denver will always have that achilles heel attached to their name.

[paul]

The IOC would be lucky to ever get Denver to bid, it's quit simply the perfect combination of mega sports focused large mountain city with international cache sitting on the edge of a stunningly beautiful dramatic world renowned alpine range dotted with resorts and communities of all size and types from modest to mega LUXURY. There’s a huge international airport and capable multiple regional airports. Extensive arts and culture focused city, multiple existing modern stadiums and venues, etc etc ect.
Not mention the headquarters of the USOC and the Olympic Training Center located in nearby Colorado Springs. Everybody here knows all this and so does the IOC.

Denver is not my favorite winter destination, only because I prefer a bit more low key alpine getaway, but I’ve spent many many holidays and excursions in the Rockies, Aspen, Breck, Vail, Beaver Creek, skied most of the other hills multiple times, been hut skiing in the back country and spent cumulatively many months in the city on business, really it’s just about PERFECT in every respect for a huge OWG.

Can they get over the snub or are they even interested??? But this is the type of dream location with geography and resources many other places wish they could boast.

I don't even think the city cares or feels bad that they tossed the 76 games back. It didn't hold up their modern progress or profile in any way. In fact it's kinda nice the IOC has no claim on Denvers progress. Perhaps Denver should be an example of how nessesary the games are. It's true they don't have the fond memories of games moments, but at what cost are those to citys that host?

In some ways I hope Denver just stays out of the Olympics sites.

[FYI]

The IOC doesn't have the mentality that they should feel "lucky" in having cities bid. Their take is "you should feel honored that we chose you in the first place". That's how a self-centered organization like the IOC thinks. Especially the members that really think that they can change the world through the Olympic Games themselves.

[Quaker2001]

Yeah, so that automatically means that all the other IOC members have no clue about their own history. They all were just left in the dark about Denver's big faux-paux.

It's also interesting to note, that whenever Denver is mentioned in some Olympic story, it's always brought up that they were "the only city ever" to reject the Games after winning them. Denver will always have that achilles heel attached to their name.

[sarcasm]Right, that's definitely the same take-away I got from AF's comments. Everyone in the IOC is stupid and doesn't know any better about Denver.[/sarcasm]

Seriously though.. this is something that happened 40+ years ago. We all know what type of organization the IOC, but are the current members going to hold a grudge against Denver because of what happened before any of them were a part of the IOC? As if that automatically taints any future Denver bid? I think there's a fine line between acknowledging Denver's history and attaching a stigma to them that present day Denver as a result. There's a story behind what happened back in 1972. It didn't just happen because it happened. Should (as AF alluded to in another thread) Denver have to pay for the sins of their fathers? No question they deserve additional scrutiny, especially from an international body. There's no way around that. But it seems short-sightened to evaluate Denver based on their past rather than their present. I know this is the IOC we're talking about, but I'd like to give them at least a little credit that they can be forward thinkers. If they believe that this is the same Denver they're dealing with, then by all means they should reject them. But I don't think that will be the case. Either way, if Denver is going to lose, let it be because of the present, not the past. Again, that may be wishful thinking when dealing with the IOC and Denver has so many other hurdles to deal with. This shouldn't be the biggest one though.

[FYI]

There's a story behind what happened back in 1972. It didn't just happen because it happened. Should (as AF alluded to in another thread) Denver have to pay for the sins of their fathers? No question they deserve additional scrutiny, especially from an international body. There's no way around that. But it seems short-sightened to evaluate Denver based on their past rather than their present. I know this is the IOC we're talking about, but I'd like to give them at least a little credit that they can be forward thinkers.

Actually, that's an agrument that AF used SLC. The thing is, I doubt the IOC really cares "why it happened". They'll only see that it happened, period. And if Denver is in a competition that offers just as, or less, competitive a bid that their competitors can present, then what makes you so sure that the deciding factor in a bidding scenario like that couldn't be what happened in 1972.

I never said that it's their "main" weakness, I said it's their achilles heel. So I'm in no way being short-sighted. What's short-sighted is that you think that it really won't register at all. And in a very competitive competition, your opponents could contructively use those weaknesses against you. And you're darn right, this is the IOC we're talking about. An international, fastidious sporting organization that could trivially vote against you bcuz you just happened to offend the native cuisine of a couple of the voting members.

[Quaker2001]

Actually, that's an agrument that AF used SLC. The thing is, I doubt the IOC really cares "why it happened". They'll only see that it happened, period. And if Denver is in a competition that offers just as, or less, competitive a bid that their competitors can present, then what makes you so sure that the deciding factor in a bidding scenario like that couldn't be what happened in 1972.

I never said that it's their "main" weakness, I said it's their achilles heel. So I'm in no way being short-sighted. What's short-sighted is that you think that it really won't register at all. And in a very competitive competition, your opponents could contructively use those weaknesses against you. And you're darn right, this is the IOC we're talking about. An international, fastidious sporting organization that could trivially vote against you bcuz you just happened to offend the native cuisine of a couple of the voting members.

Did you actually read what I wrote? Every time I post about Denver, you think my view is that the IOC is going to gloss over what happened in 1972 and discard it. That's not true it all. My argument is that it will register. But it should register for a reason, not simply because there's a supposed grudge involved here which I'm less than convinced exists. Even if this weren't the IOC we're talking about here, it would register. But it should register for reasons that apply to a current bid, not simply because there was an incident. By that logic, wouldn't Munich be hampered by what happened with them and their Olympics? That's not just a stain on the IOC's record.. that's a bloodstain. Without question Munich's next Olympics would have tighter security than the last edition, but by your argument, shouldn't it be the same "They'll only see that it happened, period" and the IOC would vote against them? I know we all are thinking in terms of bidding here, but the entire world knows what happened in Munich in 1972 and hold them accountable for it. That's not the case with Denver until you bring it up.

I know it could swing a couple of votes in a close race, but we could point to any number of geopolitical factors that could be responsible for that, just like in any race. And I'm not saying that you are short-sighted. I'm saying it would be short-sighted of the IOC to not care why Denver gave back the Olympics in 1972. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but I also don't think that's something other candidates will use against them. To do that would be to cover up for their own weaknesses instead of promoting their strengths. Besides, if Denver offers a less competitive bid than their opponents, they're probably not winning anyway. I just don't think the IOC will take this at face value rather than looking further at the history. Pretty sure I'm not misinterpreting your post when you suggest that's exactly what they would do. To which I'll continue to ask the question.. why? Don't say it's because the IOC can make trivial voting decisions, because this isn't trivial. You're saying they're going to make a calculated decision based on the assumption that don't know better from their history. And even if Denver was the strongest candidate in the 2026 field, we know better than to assume that will be enough to get them the win.

As we've had this discussion before, let's once again agree to disagree. But don't paint me into the same corner you have before. I'm not saying it won't register. I have NEVER said it won't register. It's the same argument I've made this whole time.. it will register, but it will register because history plays a role with Denver/Colorado. I don't think it will register simply because it's history and for no other reason.

And btw, "achillies heel" usually refers to a main weakness, if not THE one and only fatal weakness. They're pretty much one in the same.

[FYI]

Did you actually read what I wrote? Every time I post about Denver, you think my view is that the IOC is going to gloss over what happened in 1972 and discard it. That's not true it all.

As we've had this discussion before, let's once again agree to disagree. But don't paint me into the same corner you have before. I'm not saying it won't register. I have NEVER said it won't register. It's the same argument I've made this whole time.. it will register, but it will register because history plays a role with Denver/Colorado. I don't think it will register simply because it's history and for no other reason.

I'm not painting anything. You're doing the same with me, but in the opposite manner, when this come up. That you think that my view is that 1972 is just a 'bid killer' for Denver, when that's not what I'm saying at all.

And yeah, we have discussed this before (along with Baron & AF) ad nauseam, but you seem to like to call me out (like you did here) on a position that I don't entirely hold. It is going to be DOA for Denver? No, that's not what I'm saying at all. But it's certainly not an aspect that colors Denver in a pretty light, like all of their other nice attributes. It's definitely a (big) blemish on a pretty surface that can get noticed. And depending on how finicky the buyer is, it can mean the difference between a sale or no-sale. That's all I'm saying.

[FYI]

Btw, your comparison between Munich & Denver is certainly not a fair one. Denver flat out rejected the Games, while Munich made a grave mistake & totally miscalculated their security plans. It's like if Atlanta ever bid again, I'm sure their over-commercialism, tacky street vendors, technical glitches & ill-trained bus drivers, would be viewed against them moreso than the Centennial Park bombing would.

[Lord David]

^^ Not to mention that if Atlanta were to bid again, they would have assured that the transport problems and over commercialization of the 1996 Games would never happen again.

[baron-pierreIV]

Denver is doomed.

[Athensfan]

[sarcasm]Right, that's definitely the same take-away I got from AF's comments. Everyone in the IOC is stupid and doesn't know any better about Denver.[/sarcasm]

Excuse me. Did I say that? I just pointed out some interesting facts about which IOC members were elected when. Facts. Indisputable truths. I offered no interpretation. There was zero editorializing. You (as usual) are ascribing a viewpoint to me that I do not hold and chastising me for it. And of course FYI chimes in to make it the oh-so-predictable chorus of two. What else is new.

Denver is doomed.

Hope springs eternal, eh?

[Quaker2001]

I'm not painting anything. You're doing the same with me, but in the opposite manner, when this come up. That you think that my view is that 1972 is just a 'bid killer' for Denver, when that's not what I'm saying at all.

And yeah, we have discussed this before (along with Baron & AF) ad nauseam, but you seem to like to call me out (like you did here) on a position that I don't entirely hold. It is going to be DOA for Denver? No, that's not what I'm saying at all. But it's certainly not an aspect that colors Denver in a pretty light, like all of their other nice attributes. It's definitely a (big) blemish on a pretty surface that can get noticed. And depending on how finicky the buyer is, it can mean the difference between a sale or no-sale. That's all I'm saying.

I'm calling you out because you consistently mis-interpret my position on Denver time and time again. And then you get it wrong on what I think your view of Denver is (because I don't think that's your view at all).

To me, this isn't about whether Denver's past is a bid killer or not. The question we're debating is how far-reaching the ramifications will be on a future Denver bid and how their history is viewed. Your position seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) is yes, the IOC will view it as a negative, no context needed or wanted. And that it wouldn't make it a bid killer, but that this is the IOC and because they're finicky, it's probably going to be an issue. My point is, and always has been, that it could be viewed as a negative, but that IOC members should (and probably would) put it into the proper context. I've said it before.. it's a part of their history. They can't run from it. They shouldn't run from it. In their presentation for 2026 (should they get to that point), I guarantee you their pitch would be how the city and state has changed, how they weren't ready for the Olympics in the 1970s but they're absolutely ready now. The Denver folks of today aren't naive enough to think the IOC voters won't care or won't notice. Where you and I disagree is how history gets applied when they're making a judgment about a Denver bid.

That's the point I keep trying to make though. I never said it wouldn't register or that it wouldn't matter. That's why it irks me that you mis-interpret my comments that way. With Denver, you look at the history and apply that You're sound like you're saying it's an equivocal yes because that's just how the IOC is. I'm saying yes, BUT look at the story behind it. Examine the whole situation, not just what's on the surface. That's how the IOC will view Denver IMO.

Btw, your comparison between Munich & Denver is certainly not a fair one. Denver flat out rejected the Games, while Munich made a grave mistake & totally miscalculated their security plans. It's like if Atlanta ever bid again, I'm sure their over-commercialism, tacky street vendors, technical glitches & ill-trained bus drivers, would be viewed against them moreso than the Centennial Park bombing would.

^^ Not to mention that if Atlanta were to bid again, they would have assured that the transport problems and over commercialization of the 1996 Games would never happen again.

Let's see if I can help show my viewpoint here..

Your line earlier was "I doubt the IOC really cares "why it happened". They'll only see that it happened, period." If that's the case then why is Denver's transgressions different from Munich or Atlanta? So yea, Denver rejected the games and embarrassed the IOC. You know what though.. pretty sure no one died from that mistake at the hands of the IOC and the organizing committee they put in charge. But if we're applying that history to a future vote, a hypothetical IOC voter probably wouldn't be concerned about that with Munich. Why not? Because you trust that Munich would handle security better this time around. Then you have Atlanta. Why would the over-commercialism register in a future vote moreso than the bombing? Probably because you trust that they'll take care of security better. But it sounds like you are worried about a repeat of the errors in commercialism and transportation and other such technical glitches. It's a question of why 1 failure matters for a future bid and another doesn't. And let's be clear.. Denver's past matters. But the IOC wouldn't be doing their homework if they took the "Denver is still full of hippies, we can't trust th

Again, this is my whole point with Denver.. you're picking and choosing circumstances and deciding which would concern you in the future. Their history IS a concern, I've never questioned that. The IOC has every right to be curious about Denver's commitment to the Olympics because of what happened in 1972. But the line of inquiry should be something along the lines of "you city wronged our organization a number of years ago, explain to us why this time will be different?" That's applying history. As opposed to the IOC coming at them with "your city wronged our organization, we're still angry that happened" and then just moving on from it. What Denver/Colorado need to do is to allay those fears and tell the story of what that happened then and why it wouldn't happen now. And if the IOC is not convinced (key word: "if"), then Denver is screwed. But that's them doing their homework.. asking them about 1972, getting more insight what happened. THAT is where we differ in opinion because you seem to believe that won't be the case because "They'll only see that it happened, period."

[baron-pierreIV]

Denver will fail. I hope they do.

[Quaker2001]

Excuse me. Did I say that? I just pointed out some interesting facts about which IOC members were elected when. Facts. Indisputable truths. I offered no interpretation. There was zero editorializing. You (as usual) are ascribing a viewpoint to me that I do not hold and chastising me for it. And of course FYI chimes in to make it the oh-so-predictable chorus of two. What else is new.

Apparently your sarcasm detector isn't working (which I tried to specify). I wasn't ascribing a viewpoint.. actually, I was poking fun at FYI for trying to do that to you. If anything, I'm chastising him.

[FYI]

Well, I don't need your chastising, Quaker. So please stop taking your Athensfan pills. I don't misinterpret your posts anymore than you do mine. It "irks" me just as much. And we certainly aren't going to be the last ones on here to 'misinterpret' people's posts.

[zekekelso]

For what it's worth, the tacky overcommercialization of Atlanta '96 is pretty much the norm these days.

[Sir Rols]

For what it's worth, the tacky overcommercialization of Atlanta '96 is pretty much the norm these days.

Errr, no actually. Atlanta's not criticised for its sponsors etc – as you say, that's the norm now (and was the norm pre-1996 as well). What they do get criticised for is the tacky gypsy camp of small vendors selling all sorts of manner of licensed, and unlicensed, goods, cluttering all the streets from Peachtree, through Centennial Park, down to the Georgia Dome. All handed out permits like confetti by the Atlanta city fathers to boost the coffers, and many of whom complained themselves during and after the event that there were too many of them for anybody to make any type of return on their stalls. I've mentioned before, when I went to the Atlanta Games, I didn't know better and thought this was the norm. Maybe it did happen in past games (though I don't think so), but it certainly hasn't happened since - and the IOC has stamped down on it as well. The two I've attended since then, Sydney and London, had no such tacky carnival side show hangers on – all souvenirs etc were confined to the official big OCOG stores at the various venues. At the end of the day, probably a better return to the OCOG anyway, and far cleaner and less tacky than the streets of Atlanta during their games.

[Quaker2001]

Well, I don't need your chastising, Quaker. So please stop taking your Athensfan pills. I don't misinterpret your posts anymore than you do mine. It "irks" me just as much. And we certainly aren't going to be the last ones on here to 'misinterpret' people's posts.

That's the weird thing.. we've been over this before, I've clarified my position, and yet you still get it wrong every time. That your take from my post is still that I "think that it really won't register at all".. seriously, where do you get that from? I just don't see where you extrapolate that from what I'm saying as being my viewpoint. But whatever.. like you said, as if it's the first time someone else misinterpreted someone else's argument on this site.

I do think it's also interesting that you've now pretty much taken 2 jabs at Athensfan and he hasn't said anything. Yet he jumps on me from offering a sarcastic reply to another comment. Which is funny because the line I was referencing was you saying "Yeah, so that automatically means that all the other IOC members have no clue about their own history. They all were just left in the dark about Denver's big faux-paux." That sure sounds like sarcasm to me, unless that actually was your take-away on AF's original info on current IOC members.

[Athensfan]

I'm calling you out because you consistently mis-interpret my position on Denver time and time again. And then you get it wrong on what I think your view of Denver is (because I don't think that's your view at all).

Love this. It's fun being chastised for a point of view that you don't even hold, isn't it?

[ofan]

Errr, no actually. Atlanta's not criticised for its sponsors etc – as you say, that's the norm now (and was the norm pre-1996 as well). What they do get criticised for is the tacky gypsy camp of small vendors selling all sorts of manner of licensed, and unlicensed, goods, cluttering all the streets from Peachtree, through Centennial Park, down to the Georgia Dome. All handed out permits like confetti by the Atlanta city fathers to boost the coffers, and many of whom complained themselves during and after the event that there were too many of them for anybody to make any type of return on their stalls. I've mentioned before, when I went to the Atlanta Games, I didn't know better and thought this was the norm. Maybe it did happen in past games (though I don't think so), but it certainly hasn't happened since - and the IOC has stamped down on it as well. The two I've attended since then, Sydney and London, had no such tacky carnival side show hangers on – all souvenirs etc were confined to the official big OCOG stores at the various venues. At the end of the day, probably a better return to the OCOG anyway, and far cleaner and less tacky than the streets of Atlanta during their games.

Ya, they've cracked down on "ambush marketing".