Jump to content

U.S. Winter Bid for 2022 or 2026


Recommended Posts

It might be arrogant to say, "The IOC owes us," but Blackmun has consistently eschewed that kind of thinking. After two decisive losses how is it arrogant to say the IOC doesn't want to come to the U.S.?

It came across as arrogant (maybe that's far too strong a word actually) because it's making an assumption that the vote was about a message to America, when quite frankly it wasn't. It's viewing the vote completely through the prism of Chicago's loss rather than Rio's win, which is how the rest of the world sees it.

The message, if any, sent by the IOC was that they very much wanted Rio, an exciting, exotic new frontier and America's bid (along with the other two losing cities) was collatoral damage. I'd even go as far as to say that if Rio wasn't in the race, Chicago could easily have won - an opinion which goes against the idea that the IOC isn't interested in the USA.

"Two decisive defeats?" Even that phrase implies the IOC were more interested in "deafeating" America above all else. Maybe it's worth revisiting the votes:

NYC's bid was perceived to be flaky and was in a race where it was expected to leave early. It was in a sense unlucky in that it was in a race of big hitters as well.

Chiago was unlucky in that it came up against the tsunami that was Rio 2016. But so were Tokyo and Madrid. When everything came out in the wash it ended up with the fewest votes but is that really a "loud and clear" message that the IOC doesn't want the US, or is it just a freak result which happened because Rio swept all before it? Are the same noises coming from other losing cities about the IOC's perception of their nation?

I wonder whether people read too much into these things sometimes. I'm not saying their aren't problems that need fixing, and nor am I saying that there weren't IOC members who wanted to send a message to the US. What I am saying is that Blackmun's interpretation is far too black and white and arguably, although it would be unfair to say this given his role, too US-centric a spin on things.

FYI is right in saying that message was very much for domestic ears. It's saying we're not going to waste time, money, the President's airmiles etc unless we know what we're doing. And I'm sure that's a wise strategy. And I'm sure that message has gone down well. But outside the US it's easy (if maybe a bit unfair, because the message wasn't aimed at foreigners) to interpret it as a very US-centric view of what happened in Copenhagan.

I hope you can see where I'm coming from. I don't want to come across as bashing Chicago or America or its bids (I was a Chicago supporter after all), but Blackmun's comments, for me, immediately conjured the image of a kid crying because his classmate was awarded a trophy and he wasn't. That comment irked as soon as I read it, but as FYI said, it wasn't for my ears so I'm not getting worked up in any way, just explaining how it came across to me.

Edited by RobH
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It came across as arrogant (maybe that's far too strong a word actually) because it's making an assumption that the vote was about a message to America, when quite frankly it wasn't. It's viewing the

The thing that surprises me the most in this thread is that there are so many people who are unwilling to just be patient. Is it really that hard to wait and put forward a top-drawer American bid when

And do u really think they will turn down the whatever $.5 million deposit for over a year + all the interest it can add to its coffers, at the outset--just to put US supporters' mind at rest? And wh

Rob, I understand what you are saying, and I agree that the statement can be perceived as offensive to those outside the U.S.

As I have said many times before, it is not so much that Chicago lost, but it is more about the manner in which it lost. Comparing to more recent races, Chicago was a perceived frontrunner, but it ended up receiving close to the amount of first round votes as Istanbul, Cape Town and Buenos Aires (no disrespect to those cities, but they weren't perceived frontrunners). Even NYC was able to an additional vote in a 5 city race with more cards stacked against it. It was just a tremendous blow, and it looked as though the IOC was becoming less enticed to have the U.S. host.

I honestly think that given the poisonous environment between the USOC and IOC in 2009, the IOC would not choose to come to the U.S. unless it absolutely had to. I know many forumers on here probably felt or feel the same way.

I think that we need to look at the 2016 vote more like the 2008 vote. Rio was destined to win, just as Beijing was. The IOC/Evaluation Commission paved the way, and RIo made a compelling case backed up with strong lobbying. Paris was left with only 15 votes in the first round for 2008, and it came back to almost win 2012 (they could have one if London didn't do such an outstanding job). I surely hope that the USOC can bridge the gap with the IOC, and that the next time we put forth a bid, the timing is right. Timing is everything.

Sadly, my great city probably will not be able to stomach another bid anytime soon. If we went to a final round, and lost on a closer vote with Rio, things might be different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob, I understand what you are saying, and I agree that the statement can be perceived as offensive to those outside the U.S.

That's what I've been trying to say all along, but Athensfan thinks he knows best with, you know, 'all his years spent living outside the U.S. & having worked in a variety of cultures'. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob, thanks for your perspective. I can see where if you felt Blackmun was interpreting the votes primarily in terms of the message they sent to the U.S. then that could be perceived as self-centered.

I totally agree that New York deserved to lose and I'm not the least bitter about it. As for Chicago, the loss was more painful, but also understandable.

I absolutely believe that the primary message of the 2016 vote BY FAR was "We want to go to South America and we like what Rio is showing us." A much smaller, more peripheral message would be, "The U.S. has had more than their fair share of Games. We're not thrilled with their behavior lately and we feel like we have very solid reasons to choose another bid instead." The fact that Blackmun made a comment about this smaller aspect does not necessarily mean that's all he's taking away from the vote.

Thanks for acknowledging that Blackmun's remarks were really aimed at a domestic audience. As I've said, I think that when one looks at his body of statements it becomes pretty clear that he's putting a premium on hearing and responding to the concerns of not only the IOC, but the international sport federations. He seems very intentional about trying to move away from the "me, me, me" mentality that has plagued the USOC recently. That's why I defended him. I just don't see Blackmun as more of the same. Perhaps I'm just foolishly optimistic....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but now it seems like you're back peddling from your initial stance.

First you said that "how can anyone" miscontrue Blackman's comments as arrogant & offensive, & now you're saying that you can understand how they could've been misinterpreted & self-centered. Is it the semantics? Because really, what's the difference between self-centered & arrogant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but now it seems like you're back peddling from your initial stance.

First you said that "how can anyone" miscontrue Blackman's comments as arrogant & offensive, & now you're saying that you can understand how they could've been misinterpreted & self-centered. Is it the semantics? Because really, what's the difference between self-centered & arrogant.

I don't know that I'm backpedalling exactly. Rob's post made sense. I think of arrogance as "We're the best, better than everybody else." I think of self-centeredness as being so excessively focused on one's own concerns that one is blind to everything else going on. It seemed like that's what Rob was getting at (he himself said he wasn't sure "arrogance" was the right word.) I can see where it might SEEM like Blackmun's comment (particularly taken out of context) was focused solely on American concerns and blind to the bigger issues affecting the vote. I do think, however, that if you look at everything else he's said it's pretty unlikely that you'd come away with that view.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It came across as arrogant (maybe that's far too strong a word actually) because it's making an assumption that the vote was about a message to America, when quite frankly it wasn't. It's viewing the vote completely through the prism of Chicago's loss rather than Rio's win, which is how the rest of the world sees it.

The message, if any, sent by the IOC was that they very much wanted Rio, an exciting, exotic new frontier and America's bid (along with the other two losing cities) was collatoral damage.

The vote is rarely about one city, and I think this debate revisits the underlying divergent set of beliefs surrounding Chicago's first place loss.

- One set argues that by ensuring Chicago's elimination in the first round, a clear message was sent to the USOC that the IOC is not interested in a US games at this point in time

- The second set argues it is only an accident of voting that Chicago was eliminated in the first round, and that a first round elimination is no different to a runner up placing

I'm obviously in the first camp. The IOC is not a naive body of voters. Most of these folks have been in their positions for many, many years and have been through many, many rounds of votes. As Dick Pound clearly pointed out, there is a lot of crafting that goes around the final cities and the vote itself. To say that Chicago was eliminated in round one by accident, ignores that most of the IOC voters are very savvy.

Now, if one subscribes to the view that Chicago was eliminated in round one by design, then the message part is easy. The IOC knows that it takes an extraordinary amount of citizen and political will to commit a major US city like NYC or Chicago to the games. They also thus know that an early elimination is likely to destroy that political and citizen will for a repeat bid, and even if someone that politicians and civic leaders DID manage to mount another bid, the private funds required to fund another bid by the same city will just not be there. In choosing to eliminate Chicago first, the IOC knew that the chance that Chicago will submit another bid in the next few decades is practically zero. If you're prepared to eliminate from future contention the one US city which had the strongest US bid ever, and could arguably be the greatest US games host ever, then it seems (to me at least) that you are clearly sending a message.

As to the point on Rio ruining Chicago's chances, I'd say that if Rio wasn't in the running, today we'd be talking about Madrid 2016. Remember, Madrid got 1/3 of the final vote. I can't see any of that 1/3 going to Chicago if it was Chicago vs. Madrid. So, of the remaining votes, you would have to believe that more than 5/6 of the Africa block, the South America block and the Asia block would have to support Chicago over Madrid for it to win. That seems practically impossible to me.

Now, onto the USOC comments. Given the above, which the USOC probably subscribe to, I can't see the comments as arrogant. It would be irresponsible for US cities to keep wasting >$80 million on unwinnable bids. I view the USOC message more as a wake-up call to US cities to NOT start wasting money on exploratory bids and consultants, until the USOC believes the time is right for another US bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't automatically assume that if Rio wasn't in the running, that it would mean that Madrid would have won. Rio's absence would change the entire dynamics of a vote. It's kinda funny to me here that people know how the IOC is thinking so exactly. It was Rio's year more than anything, IMO.

Edited by nykfan845
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think it was Chicago's own fault. They miscalculated their 1st round votes; i.e., depended very heavily on those 3 Arab votes. The collective gasp emitted when C's elimination was announced belies the fact that the IOC as a collective body wished to dump Chicago. Was it JR or Samaranch who said that the Asian and European cities played the game better than Chicago? I intepret that to mean that they would not have been so naive as Chicago was to just count on "26 votes" for the first go. They probably would've had safety margins of 35+ votes (thus a higher error margin of 25% or more).

Chicago was just rather naive. And I too was shocked that it went to spending $80 million whereas in the domestic selection, one of the USOC requirements was "...to have a warchest of at least $35 million only." I think if Ryan had NOT raised AND spent so much (privately riased) money (nearly 130% over what NYC, a city slightly more than 2x CHicago's size and stature, spent 4 years earlier), it really would NOT have hurt so much.

[When SF's stadium plan fell apart, SF immediately cut its losses at $365,000. That included returning a $5 million promissory note from one of the Yahoo founders. Also in the 2012 race, Bloomberg and Doctoroff who put up most of NYC's costs, established cutoff points to the private monies they were expending on the bid.)

Finally, what really hurt Chicago's chances more than the overblown USOC-IOC relations is that there was NO American IOC member on the Executive Board or as influential or long-standing as Havelange. Notice that Madrid had the Samaranches; Tokyo had what'sisname...Igawa or something...and Rio had Havelange. Chicago/the US only had Easton and deFrantz who are NOT among the most charistmatic of IOC members. That is what the US needs to to offset its small regional 1st round voting bloc...an influential and higher-up insider.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't automatically assume that if Rio wasn't in the running, that it would mean that Madrid would have won. Rio's absence would change the entire dynamics of a vote. It's kinda funny to me here that people know how the IOC is thinking so exactly. It was Rio's year more than anything, IMO.

I agree. The final outcome showed that 2/3rds of the IOC still did NOT want to send the SOGs to the same continent consecutively; and to a technically inferior bid vs. the more perfect Madrid one. What it shows is that they are very savvy at the rotation game.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think it was Chicago's own fault. They miscalculated their 1st round votes; Chicago was just rather naive.

I do agree that we were naive, but can't really see how you can say it is Chicago's fault. For them to be at fault for the outcome implies that there was some corrective action they could take. Even if the bid was not naive, and came up with an exact count of 18 votes, what could we have done? The bid certainly lobbied to the full extent permitted by the rules. The only incremental action Chicago could have taken was to buy votes, and that was not an option. So, naive? yes. At fault? not really.

Finally, what really hurt Chicago's chances more than the overblown USOC-IOC relations is that there was NO American IOC member on the Executive Board or as influential or long-standing as Havelange. Notice that Madrid had the Samaranches; Tokyo had what'sisname...Igawa or something...and Rio had Havelange. Chicago/the US only had Easton and deFrantz who are NOT among the most charistmatic of IOC members. That is what the US needs to to offset its small regional 1st round voting bloc...an influential and higher-up insider.

The counter-point would be that in the time Avery Brundage was president of the IOC, we didn't get the SOGs despite numerous great bids.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't automatically assume that if Rio wasn't in the running, that it would mean that Madrid would have won. Rio's absence would change the entire dynamics of a vote. It's kinda funny to me here that people know how the IOC is thinking so exactly. It was Rio's year more than anything, IMO.

Firstly, agreed that it was Rio's year. Even if Chicago was in the final two, Rio would still have won it. To me, this debate is not about why Rio won, it's about why arguably the best bid ever mounted by the US has left the majority of the citizens of bid city with an $80 million conviction to never allow another Olympic bid from their city.

Secondly, I'm not assuming that I know what the IOC is thinking. What I am assuming is that they definitely were thinking, and that Chicago's elimination wasn't like a bunch of Floridians voting for a consumer activist in an election and thereby ending up with the exact opposite of their own interests. I am assuming that the hard thinking, political animals that comprise the IOC had a far, far better insight into how the votes would turn out - within a couple of votes margin of error - than anyone on the bid committee, or on this forum, had. That means I am assuming that a Chicago supporting IOC member who wanted to cast a sympathy vote for, say, Tokyo would have been acutely aware that Chicago was very near the edge, and would not have made the mistake of voting for Tokyo in the first round.

Thirdly, sure, Rio's absence would change the dynamics of the vote. Maybe if we had Doha, Madrid, Tokyo, Chicago we would have had Doha out in Round 1, and a shoot-out between the rest for the final two. My view is based on the logic that the 1/3 of IOC members that were so solidly in the Madrid camp and were rather prepared to give Europe two games in a row than go to the attractiveness of a solid bid from a great city in a new frontier, were not going to change their view no matter who was with Madrid in the final round. That means that all Madrid had to do was pick up another 1/6 of the vote to win it. To me that seems a heck of a lot easier to believe than that Chicago could get a win with 1/3 of the vote not even on the table for anyone other than Madrid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The counter-point would be that in the time Avery Brundage was president of the IOC, we didn't get the SOGs despite numerous great bids.

But...and I think we already discussed it here...Brundage was that rare duck out of water. He, I think, greatly discouraged the success of any bidding American city on the grounds that it would place him at the center of a conflcts-of-interest issue. He seemed to have been a very principled man compared to say...that gnat from Catalan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That means I am assuming that a Chicago supporting IOC member who wanted to cast a sympathy vote for, say, Tokyo would have been acutely aware that Chicago was very near the edge, and would not have made the mistake of voting for Tokyo in the first round.

I think this is where the other 3 forces got to Chicago. They were able to convince those few crucial Asian votes to go Tokyo the first round, and then keep their word to Chicago afterwards.

Was watching the latest SURVIVOR episode last night...and this maneuver was never more clearly illustrated than in last night's Tribal Council. The (idiot) Tyson was told by his ringleader BostonRob to vote for Russell; instead Russell sweet-talked the doofus into voting for Pavrati. Well, after Russell gave his hidden immunity idol to Pavrati--a move which BostonRob foresaw, that rendered all of the Pavrati votes (4) null and void. Russell/Pavrati mustered 3 votes vs. Tyson. So after Pavrati's votes were thrown out, there were 3 votes for Tyson and just 2 for Russell. Thus, Tyson..and he admitted later what a fool he was...in effect, voted for own demise. A tied Russell-Tyson vote at 3 apiece, Rob's hoped-for scenario, would've forced a revote. In a revote, the Rob forces would've mustered the votes needed to finally kick Russell out once and for all.

I think the USOC should immediately draft Rob or Russell on there as their next bid strategists!! :lol:

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I'd read that Dick Pound WAS rather concerned about Chicago being voted down in the first round. Not so much that Chicago failed, obviously.

I also wonder if Rio's bid would have won IF South Africa had given up on the WC. To some degree, the IOC got caught be one-upped, but at least Rio was in place at the right time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really liked your analysis of Chicago's weaknesses, Baron.

I think there were MANY factors involved in the outcome (continental rotation, US/IOC relations, Rio, etc, etc, etc. I'm not sure we'll ever be able to boil it down to percentages (i.e. how many IOC members were actually surprised by Chicago's 1st round elimination vs. how many IOC members meant to teach the US a lesson, etc.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was watching the latest SURVIVOR episode last night...and this maneuver was never more clearly illustrated than in last night's Tribal Council. The (idiot) Tyson was told by his ringleader BostonRob to vote for Russell; instead Russell sweet-talked the doofus into voting for Pavrati. Well, after Russell gave his hidden immunity idol to Pavrati--a move which BostonRob foresaw, that rendered all of the Pavrati votes (4) null and void. Russell/Pavrati mustered 3 votes vs. Tyson. So after Pavrati's votes were thrown out, there were 3 votes for Tyson and just 2 for Russell. Thus, Tyson..and he admitted later what a fool he was...in effect, voted for own demise. A tied Russell-Tyson vote at 3 apiece, Rob's hoped-for scenario, would've forced a revote. In a revote, the Rob forces would've mustered the votes needed to finally kick Russell out once and for all.

Okay, that just made my head spin! Now I remember why I stopped watching survivor :) Fun analogy :)

I thought I'd read that Dick Pound WAS rather concerned about Chicago being voted down in the first round.

And if that is the case, it supports that the early exit was likely crafted by members of the IOC

I think there were MANY factors involved in the outcome (continental rotation, US/IOC relations, Rio, etc, etc, etc. I'm not sure we'll ever be able to boil it down to percentages (i.e. how many IOC members were actually surprised by Chicago's 1st round elimination vs. how many IOC members meant to teach the US a lesson, etc.)

Fair point - at the end of the day it is a confluence of factors. However, what does make this discussion very useful, in my opinion, is that if Chicago was intentionally eliminated early by the IOC, then it means the USOC really needs to think long and hard before submitting another bid. If, on the other hand, posters who argue that Chicago's early elimination was simply an accident are correct, then there is absolutely no reason we shouldn't be right back in the game with a bid for 2020.

A largely correct understanding of the dynamics that led to Chicago's round 1 dismissal is critical for the USOC. Getting it wrong would mean another $80+ million down the drain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, it was known that Chicago's most dangerous round would be the first, and the last. I think many of us had that opinion about Rio as well.

Even if Chicago made it to the final, Rio would have been victorious, but at least it wouldn't have been as embarrassing. Also, two likely IOC members to vote for Chicago were not able to attend, so the first round could have been closer in that respect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, two likely IOC members to vote for Chicago were not able to attend, so the first round could have been closer in that respect.

Interesting. Then Chicago really should've been counting a "30" vote for the first round to get past it.

But anyway, one lives and learns. I think the US has to first view the propsective field, the continental successions before it launches another summer bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But anyway, one lives and learns. I think the US has to first view the propsective field, the continental successions before it launches another summer bid.

Agreed. I'm just a little suprised we seem to be so slow in learning...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, as a Northern Cali native I am excited about the prospect of bring the winter games to the region.

Were you all aware that Reno has been trying to create a mass transit system that would link the airport with downtown and the university?

Reno has spent a lot of money improving it's downtown. At great expense they buried a busy rail line into a tunnel that used to go through downtown at grade.

They've also turned the Truckee river walk into a very pleasant experience. In terms of urban planing Reno is doing a pretty good job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh for goodness sake . . .

Why did you take a reputation point away from me nyfan? As many have indicated on here, Reno does have a tacky/cheap image. Was it bad for me to ask if they are doing any tangible things to change that?

Chicago has had a reputation as a corrupt gangster town. Certainly Mayor Daley has tried to improve the city's image over the last two decades. Obviously, some of the mayor's actions, along with former governor criminal/ethical investigations have not helped.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...