Jump to content

U.S. Winter Bid for 2022 or 2026


Soaring

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

In recent times, the SOG have twice been held in coutries that are capably of hosting a WOC. In both cases, there was an active plan to bid for a WOC two years later (SLC in 1998, Harbin in 2010) when the country was selected as SOC host.

I continue to be baffled why people think entertaining more than one big is a kiss of death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about that. It depends how they lose. If they get walloped, then 2026 makes sense. If they lose in a nail-biter they have to decide if they try again for 2028. The US will always have a much easier time getting Winter Games.

This goes to what I was saying earlier.. a commitment to 2024 shouldn't completely close the door on even thinking about 2026. I don't think it's a negative in the 2024 vote (should the USOC choose to submit a candidate) to line up a candidate for 2026. If after the 2024 vote, they think 2028 what they want, then tell your Winter city "thanks, but no thanks, maybe we'll try again down the line." But at least have that option as a possibility in case the 2024 vote means you want to give it a shot, particularly if that 2024 candidate is soured on a future bid much like New York and Chicago seem to be. I've always said that the USOC's most ideal strategy would be to find a city that's interested and stick with them until they win. Odds are that's not going to happen though, so as much as it hurt the long term strategy, they may need to take these bids, particularly on the Summer side, 1 by 1 as they come along.

In recent times, the SOG have twice been held in coutries that are capably of hosting a WOC. In both cases, there was an active plan to bid for a WOC two years later (SLC in 1998, Harbin in 2010) when the country was selected as SOC host.

I continue to be baffled why people think entertaining more than one big is a kiss of death.

A very big +1 to this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously I'm in the minority here, but I disagree that it absolutely has to be either/or and that bidding for 2024 totally precludes a bid for 2026. The United States would hardly be the first country to have a summer bid in the works and at the same time also be looking at winter. I know you're going to tell me that the countries that have done that have won Winter and not Summer (i.e. Italy and Russia), to which of course I'll counter that the last Summer host that is even on the Winter map was Atlanta 1996.

Madrid 2020

Barcelona - La Molina 2022

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither Madrid nor Barcelona has any traction whatsoever. Both are dead ducks. Of all the bid strategies one might emulate, I certainly wouldn't choose the Spaniards.

You are ignoring the point. Even if Madrid is a week bid, the Spaniards aren't stupid. They work closesly with the IOC members day in and day out. They have many friends in the IOC. Heck, some of them are IOC members.

Yet, they have no worries that a 2022 bid will doom, or even harm, their 2020 chances. What do you know that they do not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are ignoring the point. Even if Madrid is a week bid, the Spaniards aren't stupid. They work closesly with the IOC members day in and day out. They have many friends in the IOC. Heck, some of them are IOC members.

Yet, they have no worries that a 2022 bid will doom, or even harm, their 2020 chances. What do you know that they do not?

The Spaniards have had three ill-timed bids in a row (not counting the failed Jaca bid). They bid for everything regardless. And they lose. You can't harm a bid that's already dead -- especially with another bid that has no chance of success.

Why would the USOC copy them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Spaniards have had three ill-timed bids in a row (not counting the failed Jaca bid). They bid for everything regardless. And they lose. You can't harm a bid that's already dead -- especially with another bid that has no chance of success.

Why would the USOC copy them?

Madrid is a dead duck in a 3 city race? After they finished AHEAD of Tokyo in the 2016 bid? I know the Spanish economy is probably going to sink them on this one, but how is the USOC copying them if they were to consider both 2024 and 2026 after sitting out the last 3 bids? You keep making this point that if the USOC is serious about 2024, they need to make it clear that 2026 is completely off the table. Yet I can think of at least 4 countries off hand who have done exactly that, the least of which is Spain.

If the USOC is copying Spain in that regard, they're also copying Italy and Canada and Russia. If you want to tell us that strategy is foolish and that Rome, Toronto, and Moscow was hampered as a result, that's fine. But let's not make it seem like the USOC bidding for 2024 while also taking a long look at 2026 is some sort of unprecedented strategy that no one has ever done this before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Spaniards have had three ill-timed bids in a row (not counting the failed Jaca bid). They bid for everything regardless. And they lose. You can't harm a bid that's already dead -- especially with another bid that has no chance of success.

Why would the USOC copy them?

OK, then copy the US, which got the '96 games with an open '98 bid, or copy China which got '08 wth an open 2010 bid.

But getting back to the Spaniads, do you have special knowledge they don't have? Or do you think they are aware that a '22 bid will doom their '20 bid and are pursuing it anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, then copy the US, which got the '96 games with an open '98 bid, or copy China which got '08 wth an open 2010 bid.

But getting back to the Spaniads, do you have special knowledge they don't have? Or do you think they are aware that a '22 bid will doom their '20 bid and are pursuing it anyway?

The USA is n

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops.

Barcelona can't harm Madrid. Madrid has no shot (despite Quaker's protestations) because of the economy. Barcelona has no shot because its going to be up against superior European competitors. So it doesn't matter what Spain does. At this point they're not a factor and certainly not a model for success.

Bringing up Atlanta is pointless because it was a different era when the IOC didn't have the options they have now. They were enjoying the rennaisance provided by LA 84 and had lackluster options to choose from for the centennial Games. The USA seemed a safe bet. The idea of a winter bid was beside the point at that time.

Beijing was as heavy a favorite as there has ever been for 2008. They could do anything they pleased. Harbin was just more evidence of their firmness of purpose.

An American bid for 2024 doesn't line up with any of the above scenarios. It's not going to be a handicapped, quixotic pursuit like Madrid. It's not going to be a golden era of rampant American hosting due to recent American success and limited alternatives like Atlanta. It's definitely not going to be the heavy favorite that Beijing was due to emerging super-power status, giant population, etc.

The American bid for 2024 (if there is one) will come on the heels of prolonged dissension with the IOC. It will follow decades in which America's global popularity has diminished due to wildly unpopular war and foreign policy. The US is still the somewhat resented top dog that many would like to see diminish in influence. And we have an annoying way of doing well in the medal count. Put all that together and even a new revenue deal and thawing international relations will not make this a slam dunk. It will be very political and very delicate. If the US wants 2024, the last thing they should do is signal that they might be happy with 2026.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barcelona can't harm Madrid. Madrid has no shot (despite Quaker's protestations) because of the economy. Barcelona has no shot because its going to be up against superior European competitors. So it doesn't matter what Spain does. At this point they're not a factor and certainly not a model for success.

Bringing up Atlanta is pointless because it was a different era when the IOC didn't have the options they have now. They were enjoying the rennaisance provided by LA 84 and had lackluster options to choose from for the centennial Games. The USA seemed a safe bet. The idea of a winter bid was beside the point at that time.

Beijing was as heavy a favorite as there has ever been for 2008. They could do anything they pleased. Harbin was just more evidence of their firmness of purpose.

An American bid for 2024 doesn't line up with any of the above scenarios. It's not going to be a handicapped, quixotic pursuit like Madrid. It's not going to be a golden era of rampant American hosting due to recent American success and limited alternatives like Atlanta. It's definitely not going to be the heavy favorite that Beijing was due to emerging super-power status, giant population, etc.

The American bid for 2024 (if there is one) will come on the heels of prolonged dissension with the IOC. It will follow decades in which America's global popularity has diminished due to wildly unpopular war and foreign policy. The US is still the somewhat resented top dog that many would like to see diminish in influence. And we have an annoying way of doing well in the medal count. Put all that together and even a new revenue deal and thawing international relations will not make this a slam dunk. It will be very political and very delicate. If the US wants 2024, the last thing they should do is signal that they might be happy with 2026.

Yes, that is clearly a protest on my part to disagree with 1 of your opinions. Which I find odd since if it were the other way around and you felt Madrid had a shot and I said there was no way, I'd probably get a "you don't know that.. how can you make such a definitive statement" or something of the like. And you wonder sometimes why others find it curious when you do that to us. Probably a good time to remind you that the handicapped, quixotic pursuit had the most votes in the 1st round of 2016 voting. But I digress..

We get that you think the strategy for the USOC is to put all their eggs in 1 basket and only go for summer or only go for winter. And I agree that they need to be careful how they approach any bid, especially a Summer bid, if they hope to win. But as we've learned in the past couple of days, the USOC hasn't made that decision yet, nor have they implied 1 rules out the other. Again, the problem with that strategy is that it would take 6 years to reset from Summer to Winter. If a 2024 bid eliminates work on a 2026 bid, then the earliest Winter bid would be 2030. Should the USOC lose for 2024, that means the same thing for 2028/2030 and you're back to the same issue looking at 2034.

You can tell us how the circumstances were different for those past bids or use 20/20 hindsight to say that Beijing had it in the bag. You might be right that the best strategy is to focus on Summer and tell Denver, Salt Lake, and Reno-Tahoe all to go take a hike. But I disagree with the logic that says if the USOC really wants 2024, then they absolutely need to push any thoughts of 2026 aside when numerous countries have done exactly that. I don't think it's as a foolish strategy as you and some others believe unless it's the USOC's goal to only land a Summer Olympics and not be willing to accept the consequences of instead landing a Winter Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I didn't say the USOC has to "push aside all thoughts of 2026." They can think about it. They can pursue it. They just can't let word get out about that until the 2024 vote is in the books. I do believe that if the IOC thought the US would certainly come back for 2026, that would lame the 2024 bid.

It is true that a while back I was writing about not underestimating the Spaniards, but I think that too much time has gone by and now that ship has sailed. I feel like Madrid is 2020s version of Annecy. Annecy had some very nice traits, but there was no way they were going to win.

As for speaking from hindsight, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who didn't believe that Beijing would walk away with 2008.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I didn't say the USOC has to "push aside all thoughts of 2026." They can think about it. They can pursue it. They just can't let word get out about that until the 2024 vote is in the books. I do believe that if the IOC thought the US would certainly come back for 2026, that would lame the 2024 bid.

It is true that a while back I was writing about not underestimating the Spaniards, but I think that too much time has gone by and now that ship has sailed. I feel like Madrid is 2020s version of Annecy. Annecy had some very nice traits, but there was no way they were going to win.

As for speaking from hindsight, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who didn't believe that Beijing would walk away with 2008.

Neither did I. You missed the part where I said "if the USOC really wants 2024..."

This seems like 1 of those scenarios where we might be over-thinking what the IOC's motives may be. Again, I agree with what you've said about the USOC needing to be careful about how they approach the bid. I just don't know how much the voters will factor that into their decision. Let alone that the USOC could be thinking about 2026, not letting getting word out until what would probably be only a few months before the submission deadline. Pretty sure it's not possible to keep that one under wraps, especially when there's dates on the timeline before the 2024 vote that the USOC would need to adhere to.

And just as an aside on Madrid.. I think the economy is going to do them in, but they have a better shot than "no shot" and they did beat 2 other cities in both 2012 and 2016, 1 of which in each race was an entry from the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with the logic that says if the USOC really wants 2024, then they absolutely need to push any thoughts of 2026 aside when numerous countries have done exactly that.

Mentioning 2024 makes no difference. I will restate what I wrote in my last post, plus the 2024 bit. If the US wants 2024, they don't have to banish all thoughts of 2026. They just can't let the IOC know that they are contemplating it or the IOC will turn on the Summer bid, knowing they can go with Winter next time around.

It doesn't matter what other countries have done at other times. All that matters is the nature of the USOC's relationship with the IOC during this particular campaign. It's not generic. It's ultra-specific. Just because it didn't affect China in 2001 or just because its a moot point for Madrid 2020 does not mean it can't hurt an American bid for 2024. These are apples and oranges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mentioning 2024 makes no difference. I will restate what I wrote in my last post, plus the 2024 bit. If the US wants 2024, they don't have to banish all thoughts of 2026. They just can't let the IOC know that they are contemplating it or the IOC will turn on the Summer bid, knowing they can go with Winter next time around.

It doesn't matter what other countries have done at other times. All that matters is the nature of the USOC's relationship with the IOC during this particular campaign. It's not generic. It's ultra-specific. Just because it didn't affect China in 2001 or just because its a moot point for Madrid 2020 does not mean it can't hurt an American bid for 2024. These are apples and oranges.

If the USOC is contemplating 2026, I don't know how you expect the IOC to be completely unaware of it when the 2024 vote comes along. There's no way a country could be that secretive to keep things under wraps for that long and expect that it won't hinder that 2026 bid. And won't it look silly if that becomes apparent after the 2024 vote as if the USOC had something to hide. That certainly wouldn't help the already tenuous USOC-IOC relations that they're trying so hard to repair (fortunately, 2017 is a lot of time to work on that).

Let's agree to disagree on this one. You think talk of 2026 would hurt a 2024 bid because IOC voters might think "the USOC has a plan B" or "we don't need to give them this one, let's just give them Winter as a consolation prize." And you would like the USOC should conduct their affairs as such. I don't think that's as big hindrance as you believe and disagree that their 2024 chances would be hurt unless they take that tact. It could be a small factor, but nothing so serious that they need to suppress talk and planning for 2026 to aid their 2024 bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the USOC is contemplating 2026, I don't know how you expect the IOC to be completely unaware of it when the 2024 vote comes along. There's no way a country could be that secretive to keep things under wraps for that long and expect that it won't hinder that 2026 bid. And won't it look silly if that becomes apparent after the 2024 vote as if the USOC had something to hide. That certainly wouldn't help the already tenuous USOC-IOC relations that they're trying so hard to repair (fortunately, 2017 is a lot of time to work on that).

Let's agree to disagree on this one. You think talk of 2026 would hurt a 2024 bid because IOC voters might think "the USOC has a plan B" or "we don't need to give them this one, let's just give them Winter as a consolation prize." And you would like the USOC should conduct their affairs as such. I don't think that's as big hindrance as you believe and disagree that their 2024 chances would be hurt unless they take that tact. It could be a small factor, but nothing so serious that they need to suppress talk and planning for 2026 to aid their 2024 bid.

Well, yes. And I've said exactly that about the difficult of keeping 2026 confidential. Other posters seem to think it's possible to work on both bids while keeping 2026 quiet and then pulling it out at the last minute. Personally, I'm skeptical.

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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


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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair to Athensfan's point though, the Euros & the Olympics are two SEPERATE mega events that would interfere with each other, logistically, financially & resourcefully if held only a couple of months apart from each other in the same locale. So of course the IOC would raise a red-flag about it. Playing geopolitics with something that is totally within the IOC's control, in this case, winter & summer bids, is something totally different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...