Jump to content

U.S. Winter Bid for 2022 or 2026


Soaring

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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

I never said that it was ideal. I said that out of the lot of 3, SLC is starting to look like the most sensible. And we're talking about the Winter Olympics here, not the summer counterpart. How many times are there discussions here that the Winter Games are not as competive as the Summer Olympics to get, & that there are also less & less likely hosts to come about nowadays for the Winter Games due to the topography & the growth the Winter Games have seen in the last 20 years. So while 40 years may not seem like enough to some for L.A. (a summer candidate), 24 years might be more acceptable for a repeat Winter candidate, especially when the competition is less fierce & topography is the name of the game.

And why would the Swiss hold SLC accountable for the scandal? Unlike Denver that directly threw the Games back, it's not like the Utah capital blew the whistle on the bribing, it was one of their very own Swiss IOC members that did. And like you said before about Denver's slip from 4 decades earlier, even if that was the case, why would the scandal matter over two decades later when you mention only present matters are what the IOC are most concerned in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight: IF the US announces they plan to bid for 2026, Reno is superior to Denver because AFTER the US makes this announcement they will suddenly build the many absent venues and build them to a quality that will keep pace with other recent hosts -- all this despite the comment made by an organizer and quoted by Baron, "It is what it is."

I'm not convinced at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said that it was ideal. I said that out of the lot of 3, SLC is starting to look like the most sensible. And we're talking about the Winter Olympics here, not the summer counterpart. How many times are there discussions here that the Winter Games are not as competive as the Summer Olympics to get, & that there are also less & less likely hosts to come about nowadays for the Winter Games due to the topography & the growth the Winter Games have seen in the last 20 years. So while 40 years may not seem like enough to some for L.A. (a summer candidate), 24 years might be more acceptable for a repeat Winter candidate, especially when the competition is less fierce & topography is the name of the game.

I still think the difference between a 20 year gap and a 24 year gap is pretty minimal. As we go further on, then it bodes better for Salt Lake's chances. Even though the Winter bidding tends to have less competition than the Summer, there are still a number of potential host cities that the IOC haven't been to before, most notably China who will probably be in the mix by 2026, if not sooner. Again, until we see the IOC change their tune about going back to repeats of recent hosts, Salt Lake may seem sensible, but I'd still question their chances at winning.

And why would the Swiss hold SLC accountable for the scandal? Unlike Denver that directly threw the Games back, it's not like the Utah capital blew the whistle on the bribing, it was one of their very own Swiss IOC members that did. And like you said before about Denver's slip from 4 decades earlier, even if that was the case, why would the scandal matter over two decades later when you mention only present matters are what the IOC are most concerned in.

What happened to hidden agendas? This is as good a reason as any for sure. Sure it's not the Salt Lake organizers' fault that the Swiss were the whistleblowers in the bribery scandal, but who's to say they're not still pissed at the situation and will vote against the United States as a result. Let alone that they finished 2nd in the 1976 voting. It's easy for us to recognize that was 2 different cities, but do you think the Swiss would make a distinction between Denver and Salt Lake in that regard? And to your last point.. maybe enough time will have passed for Salt Lake to not feel the after-effects of the bribery scandal. But if that's the case, why would they be absolved and not Denver for their trangressions decades before that? I'm sure you (and others) will argue that Denver accepting the Olympics and then not coming through on their promise to host is a bigger deal than the bribery scandal. Maybe I just don't know my history here, but I feel like the IOC's reputation getting dragged through the mud is a lot worse than a host city re-negging when they were relatively quick to find a replacement.

Either way.. if we're going to attach baggage to Denver because of their history, let's not pretend Salt Lake is without baggage themselves, even if its somewhat undeserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way.. if we're going to attach baggage to Denver because of their history, let's not pretend Salt Lake is without baggage themselves, even if its somewhat undeserved.

Yeah, but SLC:

1. Was absolved by a federal judge;

2. they redeemed themselves by staging spectacular games.

3. They DIDN'T return the honor after it was bestowed upon them and caused embarrassment for the IOC. If u can't tell the difference, then maybe you Denver-lovers deserve the rude surprise you may be in for.

Yet Reno is supposedly a mid-sized city (for a US city that is), but doesn't even have an arena (it has arenas yes) that's suitable to hold an Ice Rink.

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?? :rolleyes:

So let me get this straight: IF the US announces they plan to bid for 2026, Reno is superior to Denver because AFTER the US makes this announcement they will suddenly build the many absent venues and build them to a quality that will keep pace with other recent hosts -- all this despite the comment made by an organizer and quoted by Baron, "It is what it is."

I'm not convinced at all.

U're not that stupid, r u? Do u really think an aspiring city cannot line up the required set of venues to the best of its ability? And u can interpret "it is what it is" all u want. I really think u're quite stupid at this game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but SLC:

1. Was absolved by a federal judge;

2. they redeemed themselves by staging spectacular games.

3. They DIDN'T return the honor after it was bestowed upon them and caused embarrassment for the IOC. If u can't tell the difference, then maybe you Denver-lovers deserve the rude surprise you may be in for.

A scandal is still a scandal though. Was the Duke lacrosse rape case not a scandal since the players were eventually found innocent? Just because Salt Lake was found innocent of any wrongdoing does not mean that they and the IOC weren't dragged through the mud as a result. And yes, Salt Lake did stage an excellent games (I know because I was there for the entire there), but that doesn't mitigate the fact that the scandal caused embarassment for the IOC, perhaps more than what they endured because of Denver. I know this is a site focused on Olympic bids, but I think you're losing some perspective if you think the bribery scandal was no big deal. And I love how it's the nature of this website that I get labelled as a Denver-lover because I am showing a viewpoint in their favor. Let alone that apparently whatever happens to them, I get lumped in with. Not everyone has an agenda here like some of us do. I know it's your wish to see another Olympics come to the United States in your lifetime, but if you're that dead set on putting Reno-Tahoe forth ahead of Denver, I'm not the one who could be in for a rude surprise.

Oh, and 1 more thing. Athens has been responding to this line from you..

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

So in what is 100% an argument over wording, he's poking fun at where you say if Reno gets picked, at that point they'll only attempt to put in the required venues. I thought about saying something myself, but it's definitely much more fun to let him go at it on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in what is 100% an argument over wording, he's poking fun at where you say if Reno gets picked, at that point they'll only attempt to put in the required venues. I thought about saying something myself, but it's definitely much more fun to let him go at it on this one.

yeah...whatever. pick-a-ninnies. I DON'T understand u nutsos are being so hard on a city who wants to host just like any other. If it gets picked, then it will build. If it doesn't, then why should it? IS THAT ROCKET SCIENCE TO UNDERSTAND? Is that because that is such basic, logical common sense?

Really dumb do-dos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah...whatever. pick-a-ninnies. I DON'T understand u nutsos are being so hard on a city who wants to host just like any other. If it gets picked, then it will build. If it doesn't, then why should it? IS THAT ROCKET SCIENCE TO UNDERSTAND? Is that because that is such basic, logical common sense?

Really dumb do-dos.

Much like some of us don't understand you being so hard on Denver. It's almost like you still take what happened in 1972 really really personally.

You always remind us (as if we need reminding) how much it costs to bid for an Olympics. We all know it's an expensive proposition. So for an area like Reno-Tahoe, is it really worth the time and expense to bid for an Olympics (and risk investing that money in a bid for nothing). Then if they do get an Olympics, is that area going to see a lasting benefit from having the Olympics there? As I understand history, before the 1960 Olympics, the Squaw Valley area was largely undeveloped. Those Olympics left an important legacy for that area. What would a Reno-Tahoe Olympics do other than serve as a 2 week long party that may or may not be a useful investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. is it really worth the time and expense to bid for an Olympics (and risk investing that money in a bid for nothing).

2. Then if they do get an Olympics, is that area going to see a lasting benefit from having the Olympics there? As I understand history, before the 1960 Olympics, the Squaw Valley area was largely undeveloped. Those Olympics left an important legacy for that area.

3. What would a Reno-Tahoe Olympics do other than serve as a 2 week long party that may or may not be a useful investment.

1. I cannot speak for them over there, but since they are going thru the trouble, I imagine they know what they are facing. But hey, it's not my money, so...

2. Why not?

3. What would a Denver? Salt Lake? Sion? Munich 2-week long party do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I cannot speak for them over there, but since they are going thru the trouble, I imagine they know what they are facing. But hey, it's not my money, so...

2. Why not?

3. What would a Denver? Salt Lake? Sion? Munich 2-week long party do?

Always found that curious about your reasoning for these things. You like to say how the USOC and bid cities should use discretion when spending money for a 2024 bid since if Durban is there, they'd just be throwing money down the drain. Ditto for Denver since you give them little to no chance of winning (at least not on the first try) so why should they waste their millions. Yet with Reno-Tahoe, it's "hey, it's not my money, so why not?" That's awfully nice of you to care about Colorado not making a poor investment but encouraging the states of Nevada and California to go all out when they don't exactly have a ton of money. I heard 2 businessmen from Tulsa are going through the trouble.. doesn't mean they know what they're facing. I know the Reno-Tahoe folks have been at this for a long time so I'm sure they have some clue as to what they're doing, but that doesn't make their plans that much better as a result.

Salt Lake's Olympics left a huge legacy on that city and that region. It's not just that they made money that those Olympics were a success but what got left afterwards continues to be useful to the state of Utah. Denver (much like Salt Lake and Vancouver) has a mix of currently in place venues and new construction that they can benefit from. I just don't see Reno getting the same type of legacy from that. They are not Sochi who has billions upon billions of dollars to spend to create a self-contained Olympic city. They are not PC who is trying to build a winter resort in a part of the world where they don't have many (much like Squaw Valley in the late 50s). So the question becomes, and I don't expect you to necessarily have the answer for this but it's something the Reno-Tahoe folks need to come up with.. what is the narrative for a Reno-Tahoe Olympics that makes them the right choice for the IOC? Not to mention the USOC. It's not like they haven't been thinking about this for years now (more like decades).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike Denver that directly threw the Games back, it's not like the Utah capital blew the whistle on the bribing, it was one of their very own Swiss IOC members that did. And like you said before about Denver's slip from 4 decades earlier, even if that was the case, why would the scandal matter over two decades later when you mention only present matters are what the IOC are most concerned in.

There's a huge difference between Denver and SLC. The people involved in the bribary scandal are gone. Appologies were made. The system was changed to prevent it from ever happening again. With Denver, nothing has changed. The CO voters are still around. The ballot initiative system is still there. No appologies, no fixes, nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>> Even though the Winter bidding tends to have less competition than the Summer, there are still a number of potential host cities that the IOC haven't been to before, most notably China who will probably be in the mix by 2026, if not sooner.

But if you believe in continental rotation, there are few potential host cities in North America that the IOC hasn't been to. What are the choices

1) Repeats (Calgary, SLC, etc.)

2) Mountainless East Coast Cities

3) Small cities (Bozeman, Anchorage, etc.)

4) Semi Repeats (Tahoe, Seattle)

5) No way in hell will they want to host environmentalists (Portland)

6) Denver

What am I missing? All have flaws. If the IOC wants to come back to North America, they have to accept a less than perfect host city. Not sure what the IOC will view as the least offensive flaw. For me, it's the repeats.



>> Always found that curious about your reasoning for these things.

His reasoning is simple. He wants the games in Reno, so he tears down every other possible host city. Haven't you figured that out by now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think the difference between a 20 year gap and a 24 year gap is pretty minimal. As we go further on, then it bodes better for Salt Lake's chances. Even though the Winter bidding tends to have less competition than the Summer, there are still a number of potential host cities that the IOC haven't been to before, most notably China who will probably be in the mix by 2026, if not sooner. Again, until we see the IOC change their tune about going back to repeats of recent hosts, Salt Lake may seem sensible, but I'd still question their chances at winning.

Like I said earlier, it's not ideal, but considering the options, there's not too much to chose from. And are there really a "still a number of potential host cities that the IOC haven't been to before"? There's already mixed criticism about Beijing being that candidate (not to mention that any Chinese choice would still also have the great distance between the snow & ice clusters), & in a way, they would also be a recent repeat host. And I don't see the likes of the Ukraine & Kazakhstan being any major sites that the IOC are oogling over anytime soon, not when relatively nearby Sochi offers more or less the same for that part of the world. Not to mention, that we're now seeing the likes of Oslo & St. Moritz starting to get cold feet about moving forward with a bid, & Munich is still up in the air, based on Bach's personal ambitions, so that doesn't leave too many credible options left.

And to your last point.. maybe enough time will have passed for Salt Lake to not feel the after-effects of the bribery scandal. But if that's the case, why would they be absolved and not Denver for their trangressions decades before that? I'm sure you (and others) will argue that Denver accepting the Olympics and then not coming through on their promise to host is a bigger deal than the bribery scandal. Maybe I just don't know my history here, but I feel like the IOC's reputation getting dragged through the mud is a lot worse than a host city re-negging when they were relatively quick to find a replacement.

This is *your* constant argument, so I'm just throwing it back at you. Why can the scandal impede SLC city two decades later but not Denver's slip-up from 4 decades earlier. Either the past matters, or it doesn't. Can't have it both ways. And yeah, Denver renegged, while SLC went on in hosting one of the most successful Winter Olympics in the midst of post 9/11. There's was talk about cancelling the Olympics soon after NYC & DC were attacked, but the nation went on to host. I would think that would account for something, too.

A scandal is still a scandal though. Was the Duke lacrosse rape case not a scandal since the players were eventually found innocent? Just because Salt Lake was found innocent of any wrongdoing does not mean that they and the IOC weren't dragged through the mud as a result.

Unlike the Duke players which were found innocent in the end, the IOC actually *expelled* 10 of their own members for their wrong-doing. Remember the adage; "it takes two to tango"? The IOC was much at fault over the scandal as Salt Lake was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His reasoning is simple. He wants the games in Reno, so he tears down every other possible host city. Haven't you figured that out by now?

Actually, I like to see the vistas of Lake Tahoe splattered across the screens of the world. As I've mentioned before, most footage for the ice events in a WOG happen inside the stadia and arenas, so I'm not particularly attached to Reno...other than that is the anchor city of a Reno-Tahoe bid. And I want to see a smaller city succeed where a larger one already spoiled its own chances. They made their bed; let them lay in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I like to see the vistas of Lake Tahoe splattered across the screens of the world. As I've mentioned before, most footage for the ice events in a WOG happen inside the stadia and arenas, so I'm not particularly attached to Reno...other than that is the anchor city of a Reno-Tahoe bid. And I want to see a smaller city succeed where a larger one already spoiled its own chances. They made their bed; let them lay in it.

The single most important thing the Reno/Tahoe promoters need to do is drop the word Reno from Reno-Tahoe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a huge difference between Denver and SLC. The people involved in the bribary scandal are gone. Appologies were made. The system was changed to prevent it from ever happening again. With Denver, nothing has changed. The CO voters are still around. The ballot initiative system is still there. No appologies, no fixes, nothing.

This is actually a good point. Apologies were made for the scandal. Did Denver ever make such apologies. Not that I'm aware of. If they plan to bid, they better make some kind of reference to it.

Another point that Denver defenders like to make is that everyone involved with the events of 1972 are long gone. Well, so is everyone that was involved in the scandal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The single most important thing the Reno/Tahoe promoters need to do is drop the word Reno from Reno-Tahoe.

I thought the 2 areas should incorporate as Tahreno.

Another point that Denver defenders like to make is that everyone involved with the events of 1972 are long gone.

Actually, Richard Lamm is still around. Plus the whole oddity has NOT vanished from IOC records. And IOC members are NOT exactly history-ignoramuses. I can just see Albert Grimaldi or Sergei Bubka in the Q&A session going: And how can you assure us that your populace is NOT going to pull another 1972 stunt on us?? I mean, lightning does strike twice... And you can hear a pin drop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah...whatever. pick-a-ninnies. I DON'T understand u nutsos are being so hard on a city who wants to host just like any other. If it gets picked, then it will build. If it doesn't, then why should it? IS THAT ROCKET SCIENCE TO UNDERSTAND? Is that because that is such basic, logical common sense?

Really dumb do-dos.

Baron, can you list a single Reno venue that has yet to be constructed but already has a designated site and preliminary plans? I am not aware of one.

This idea of "Give us the Games and then we'll build whatever you want" doesn't hold water for me. Of course some venues need to be constructed, but there must be a certain critical mass already in place -- particularly when a city has gone on record by saying that it will NOT imitate the extravagant expenditures of PC and Sochi. It begs the question "What and where will these ultra-low cost venues be?"

The IOC must evaluate what they see in front of them coupled with the credibility of the promises that are made for the future. Reno doesn't have much to show right now and it's promises are so generic, so lacking in detail, so undercut by promises of frugality that I don't see how they will ever win over the IOC.

The reality is that trying to make Denver look bad doesn't make Reno look any better. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said earlier, it's not ideal, but considering the options, there's not too much to chose from. And are there really a "still a number of potential host cities that the IOC haven't been to before"? There's already mixed criticism about Beijing being that candidate (not to mention that any Chinese choice would still also have the great distance between the snow & ice clusters), & in a way, they would also be a recent repeat host. And I don't see the likes of the Ukraine & Kazakhstan being any major sites that the IOC are oogling over anytime soon, not when relatively nearby Sochi offers more or less the same for that part of the world. Not to mention, that we're now seeing the likes of Oslo & St. Moritz starting to get cold feet about moving forward with a bid, & Munich is still up in the air, based on Bach's personal ambitions, so that doesn't leave too many credible options left.

They're certainly out there. We don't know if they'll jump into a particular race or not, but if we're talking about this in the context of a U.S. bid, we're looking more towards 2026 than 2022. To zeke's point though, if continental rotation does favor North America, then it's 1 non-ideal bid versus another from the USOC. Salt Lake may wind up being the most sensible host, especially if Denver doesn't have their act together. But all it might take is 1 or 2 of those other cities to submit a bid and then a still fairly recent U.S. host city may or may not seem so appealing.

This is *your* constant argument, so I'm just throwing it back at you. Why can the scandal impede SLC city two decades later but not Denver's slip-up from 4 decades earlier. Either the past matters, or it doesn't. Can't have it both ways. And yeah, Denver renegged, while SLC went on in hosting one of the most successful Winter Olympics in the midst of post 9/11. There's was talk about cancelling the Olympics soon after NYC & DC were attacked, but the nation went on to host. I would think that would account for something, too.

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.

This is actually a good point. Apologies were made for the scandal. Did Denver ever make such apologies. Not that I'm aware of. If they plan to bid, they better make some kind of reference to it.

Another point that Denver defenders like to make is that everyone involved with the events of 1972 are long gone. Well, so is everyone that was involved in the scandal.

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." They're not going to pretend it didn't happen. I'm not either. And maybe it would be foolish to play up some sort of redemption angle to repair their misdeeds of 1972. But that's why I think it's such a false argument to say that "With Denver, nothing has changed." Everything has changed since then. That's why I don't buy this argument that because ballot initiatives are different in Colorado than in say, New York, that it's something the IOC needs to concern themselves with now (would a future NYC summer bid have to answer for the failed West Side Stadium plan?.. if Denver has to acknowledge their past, I hope you'd hold New York accountable for that as well). To connect 1 to the other is to not understand why that happened in the first place and why Denver's current aspirations for an Olympics differ so greatly from an ill-conceived plan back in the 1970s that they were never prepared to handle. So yea, I think they'll absolutely address it because it could play into their narrative as some sort of positive. Again, as I keep saying.. they won't be to consummate their bid with the USOC unless they've addressed these issues in the first place.

Actually, I like to see the vistas of Lake Tahoe splattered across the screens of the world. As I've mentioned before, most footage for the ice events in a WOG happen inside the stadia and arenas, so I'm not particularly attached to Reno...other than that is the anchor city of a Reno-Tahoe bid. And I want to see a smaller city succeed where a larger one already spoiled its own chances. They made their bed; let them lay in it.

Those would certainly make for some lovely images. But as I remember from watching Vancouver and Torino on TV and having been in Salt Lake for those Olympics, they showed plenty of those cities from the outside, not just in the arenas. And if you're asking the IOC to evaluate a Reno-Tahoe bid, it's not something they're not going to notice. You have to take the good with the bad, just like Denver who has an excellent city core to work with, but issues dealing with the mountain venues if they're trying to bring the 2 together. The fact of the matter remains that it's unlikely we're going to see a smallish city win a bid unless A) the competition doesn't provide a grander option and/or B) the IOC is interested in executing the Winter Olympics on a smaller scale.

Actually, Richard Lamm is still around. Plus the whole oddity has NOT vanished from IOC records. And IOC members are NOT exactly history-ignoramuses. I can just see Albert Grimaldi or Sergei Bubka in the Q&A session going: And how can you assure us that your populace is NOT going to pull another 1972 stunt on us?? I mean, lightning does strike twice... And you can hear a pin drop.

It's something I'm sure they'll bring up, but it's a question the Denver folks (hypothetically, should they get that far) will absolutely have an answer for. Do you really think the Denver organizers won't be prepared for that? To think they won't be able to respond to that is to not understand what happened then and why now is different? Again, that's a part of their narrative.. how the city and the state have changed dramatically in the past 40 years. It's not something they're going to run away from. They will be able to put to rest most of the fears anyone in the IOC might have about their ability to host the Olympics. They will not have gotten to that point if they hadn't done that already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> (would a future NYC summer bid have to answer for the failed West Side Stadium plan?.. if Denver has to acknowledge their past, I hope you'd hold New York accountable for that as well

In Denver, the voters went out and said, f***-you IOC, we don't want the Olympics. In New York, they changed the plan from having a stadium in Manhattan to having a stadium in Queens. I'm baffled why you equate the two.

You say we don't understand what happened in the first place, and then you talk about Denver's ill conceived plan. Denver's ill conceived plan isn't what killed the bid. Had the voters not forcable rejected the bond issue, the Denver games would have happened, ill conceived plan or not. One thing and one thing only skuttled the games --- the voters. They rejected a bond issue in an election that was a proxy for whether Denver should host the games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those would certainly make for some lovely images. But as I remember from watching Vancouver and Torino on TV and having been in Salt Lake for those Olympics, they showed plenty of those cities from the outside, not just in the arenas. And if you're asking the IOC to evaluate a Reno-Tahoe bid, it's not something they're not going to notice. You have to take the good with the bad, just like Denver who has an excellent city core to work with, but issues dealing with the mountain venues if they're trying to bring the 2 together. The fact of the matter remains that it's unlikely we're going to see a smallish city win a bid unless A) the competition doesn't provide a grander option and/or B) the IOC is interested in executing the Winter Olympics on a smaller scale.

Uhmmm...Reno;s 220,000 (est) to Salt Lake's 189,000 (est). So how come one is qualified but the other isn't? :blink: NO...there is just outstanding bias and prejudice on this board for something they don't know that can be accomplished. And most folks here are absolutely immoral in turning a blind eye to Denver's self-inflicted wound which should really ALLOW others to have a crack at it first before they do again. I will campaign for that and really remind Denver's foreign rivals to NOT drop the ball if and when that stupid mountain city with pot in its mind, gets to run again. Yes, I take the slight personally.

Also, the cameras always find photogenic angles regardless of the actual intrinsic beauty (or lack thereof) of the subject, So I am NOT worried by the grossly exaggerated dislike of one poster here. I mean the city & its environs are good enough for nearly 1/4 of a million people. He has to deal with his problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> (would a future NYC summer bid have to answer for the failed West Side Stadium plan?.. if Denver has to acknowledge their past, I hope you'd hold New York accountable for that as well

In Denver, the voters went out and said, f***-you IOC, we don't want the Olympics. In New York, they changed the plan from having a stadium in Manhattan to having a stadium in Queens. I'm baffled why you equate the two.

You say we don't understand what happened in the first place, and then you talk about Denver's ill conceived plan. Denver's ill conceived plan isn't what killed the bid. Had the voters not forcable rejected the bond issue, the Denver games would have happened, ill conceived plan or not. One thing and one thing only skuttled the games --- the voters. They rejected a bond issue in an election that was a proxy for whether Denver should host the games.

Absolutely no comparison. NYC's stadium issue was an internal implosion which did NOT affect anyone outside of the NYC bid. Denver's f&cking the IOC impacted an international organization which hands out these honors and privileges to cities and towns who have asked for them. It had international repercussions. Denver was an absolute turncoat and ingrate. They should wait their turn in another 20 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say we don't understand what happened in the first place, and then you talk about Denver's ill conceived plan. Denver's ill conceived plan isn't what killed the bid. Had the voters not forcable rejected the bond issue, the Denver games would have happened, ill conceived plan or not. One thing and one thing only skuttled the games --- the voters. They rejected a bond issue in an election that was a proxy for whether Denver should host the games.

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) and Dick Lamm turned a bunch of citizens into activists by playing into their fears of over-development. You know what happened anyway even after Denver rejected the Olympics? Over-development. And instead of using state and federal funds to make that happen, they had to use their own money. Even Lamm has since admitted that what he and his voters attempted to stop happened anyway. 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. 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. I acknowledge that Denver has hurdles to overcome because of this, and yes, to garner support which they may ultimately not be able to get. 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. In the age of instant media and dysfunctional government, good luck with an effort like that succeeding now like it did then.

Denver's f&cking the IOC impacted an international organization which hands out these honors and privileges to cities and towns who have asked for them. It had international repercussions. Denver was an absolute turncoat and ingrate. They should wait their turn in another 20 years.

Denver is a city, not a person. It's been 40 years since that happened. If you think that's not long enough to wait, fine. But it's not their responsibility to wait until everyone else has had their shot before they're allowed to step into the ring again. Both of them (along with Salt Lake and Anchorage) were at this 30 years ago. They have presented their case multiple times to the USOC and they'll all get to do so again. And if the USOC thinks Denver gives them a better chance to land an Olympics than the other options, then they should bid with Denver.

Uhmmm...Reno;s 220,000 (est) to Salt Lake's 189,000 (est). So how come one is qualified but the other isn't? :blink: NO...there is just outstanding bias and prejudice on this board for something they don't know that can be accomplished. And most folks here are absolutely immoral in turning a blind eye to Denver's self-inflicted wound which should really ALLOW others to have a crack at it first before they do again. I will campaign for that and really remind Denver's foreign rivals to NOT drop the ball if and when that stupid mountain city with pot in its mind, gets to run again. Yes, I take the slight personally.

Funny...tearing down a potential rival instead of trumpeting your city's own assets. Yup, that's exactly how the IOC wants it...diss your rivals instead of beating your own chest.

Population of the metropolitan area of Salt Lake City - well over 1 million

Population of the metropolitan area of Reno-Sparks - around 400,000

You really do take the Denver fiasco personally. 1 of these days you'll have to explain to us why it means that much to you that you'll go out of your way to suppress their bid aspirations. Of course, if people listen to you and take your suggestions to heart as much as we do here, well then Denver has nothing to worry about! :D

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhmmm...Reno;s 220,000 (est) to Salt Lake's 189,000 (est). So how come one is qualified but the other isn't? :blink: NO...there is just outstanding bias and prejudice on this board for something they don't know that can be accomplished. And most folks here are absolutely immoral in turning a blind eye to Denver's self-inflicted wound which should really ALLOW others to have a crack at it first before they do again. I will campaign for that and really remind Denver's foreign rivals to NOT drop the ball if and when that stupid mountain city with pot in its mind, gets to run again. Yes, I take the slight personally.

Also, the cameras always find photogenic angles regardless of the actual intrinsic beauty (or lack thereof) of the subject, So I am NOT worried by the grossly exaggerated dislike of one poster here. I mean the city & its environs are good enough for nearly 1/4 of a million people. He has to deal with his problem.

Ok.

But you didn't answer a single question about the serious lack of venues and apparent absence of planning or funding for new/temporary ones. That's a pretty concrete, objective problem for a bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...