Jump to content

U.S. Winter Bid for 2022 or 2026


Soaring
 Share

Recommended Posts

Any US city will bend to WADA. They don't have to change legislation for the whole state, they just have to say, "We're hosting your event. We will back you up 100% and require Olympic competitors to play by your rules -- even if in a few cases they are more stringent than our own." It's not a big deal.

Andreea Raducan lost her gold medal because of cold medicine. Obviously cold medicine isn't illegal in Sydney. It just happened to be on WADA's list of banned substances -- which Sydney agreed to support. Legislation of the host city is irrelevant. This whole debate is over a non-issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any US city will bend to WADA. They don't have to change legislation for the whole state, they just have to say, "We're hosting your event. We will back you up 100% and require Olympic competitors to play by your rules -- even if in a few cases they are more stringent than our own." It's not a big deal.

Andreea Raducan lost her gold medal because of cold medicine. Obviously cold medicine isn't illegal in Sydney. It just happened to be on WADA's list of banned substances -- which Sydney agreed to support. Legislation of the host city is irrelevant. This whole debate is over a non-issue.

Oh really? I can think of a certain city which turned down the chance to host an Olympics given the chance. I wouldn't bet on it in so litigious a society as the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT. I have not denied that. Now, is it in the language of the Colorado passage that their new legislation abides with that sport prohibition? I don't know the language and do not care to research it. So where does not using marijuana before or after hitting the slopes, how many minute before or after sweating, constitute a violation of the WADA stricture? Do the Colorado voters even recognize that they fall under the WADA rules? Only official sports abide by that WADA thing. Therefore, the new Colorado law may NOT adhere to the WADA rules and is open to challenge. This may open a whole can of worms insofar as the popular will of Colorado's electorate and the "rules" of a non-jurisdictional entity like WADA or the IOC. There is a major difference between "law" and "rules" (as only those created by an organization, like WADA).

In essence, Colorado and Washington have allowed something that regardless of what WADA says or prohibits, they deem legal in their territory. Colorado and Washington courts may rule that their laws trump regardless of what is in the WADA list--which really only covers professional sport but has never been challenged in a case like this...and because they would happen in Colorado and Washington territory. I would think the 2 states have legitimate reason for not necessarily going along with WADA.

I'm flabbergasted we're still having this discussion. And I am amazed that you still fail to understand the situation. But I'll keep at it because you're right that there is a major difference between the "law" and "rules"..

When a sporting event is held, whether it's the Olympics or a regular season baseball game, that event and the athletes participating in it are subject to the rules and regulations of the governing body that organizes it. So, let's take the U.S. Grand Prix snowboard event this week at Copper Mountain in Colorado. That is an FIS-sanctioned event. I have to imagine that they adhere to WADA and USADA rules and regulations. Any athlete who competes in the event understands that they need to abide by those regulations. The law does not trump that set of rules if FIS and the organizers agree to them (which they would no matter what the law says.. if they didn't, FIS probably wouldn't want to hold the event there). The voters of Colorado are not competitors in this event and if they were, they're still held accountable for breaking the rules, even if the state has determining that smoking marijuana is now legal. FIS and the organizers are allowed to run their competition how they see fit. They are the ones who hand out the medals. They have also (presumably) empowered WADA to administer drug tests and determine if someone is breaking the rules. And if they happens, they can act accordingly. Which brings us to..

I think the order here is to see the language of the law in Colorado. Then if an athlete is stripped of an award, not even in a fictional Denver Olympics, but in any of the official Skiing races here in CO that adhere to the same/similar doping laws of WADA/IOC, and now challenges the ruling, will the artificially-imposed WADA rules trump officially-legislated Colorado law? That is the question. And Colorado courts may be ornery and decide in favor of their laws thereby voiding any "jursidiction" WADA may artificially impose. As I say above, does the new law spell out where and when it is only legal...or is it a blanket allowance regardless of time, date, place and event? Perhaps a challenge and a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court may define such a situation better.

What does the law in Colorado have to do with anything? If an athlete gets stripped of a medal, does he appeal to the local legislature of Colorado or to CAS? How exactly would or could the state supreme court be involved? You would get laughed out of the room if you tried to go to them with this because they'd throw it back at you and say that it's not under their jurisdiction. If an award is stripped from an athlete, it's being stripped by the IOC or by the individual sport federation for breaking 1 of their rules, not for violating a law of the state of Colorado. After all, it's the IOC or the individual sport federation that's awarding you the medal in the first place, so they can take it away if they deem you have violated 1 of their rules.

If you're going to reference this to the Olympics, think about what the Olympic oath says.. In the name of all the competitors I promise that we shall take part in these Olympic Games, respecting and abiding by the rules which govern them, committing ourselves to a sport without doping and without drugs, in the true spirit of sportsmanship, for the glory of sport and the honor of our teams.

What's the key phrase in there?.. "respectiing and abiding by the rules which govern them." If you read the USADA regulations, it is very clear to say Athletes must ensure that all substances prohibited in-competition have completely cleared from their body before competition. So again, what happens if someone smokes marijuana legally in Colorado and then goes to compete in, say, Utah and tests positive. Is he supposed to go to the Colorado Supreme Court and plead his case there? After all, he didn't do anything illegal. But he still broke 1 of the rules which need not be changed because of what is now legal in Colorado.

Bottom line.. every athlete knows (or at least should know) what is allowed or isn't allowed when they're participating in officially sanctioned events. And if they feel they've been wronged, they can go to CAS to appeal since they are the jurisdictional body that handles these matters. Several people have noted cases here (and I'm sure there are others) where someone took a legal substance, but one that WADA has deemed illegal for THEIR competitions. They are fully within their right to do that. Has a state or country's legal system ever been involved to settle those disputes? Not to my knowledge. Feel free to prove me wrong on that one. But this whole hypothetical you're creating here is still completely off base and would not be an issue if it came down to an Olympics being in Denver, let alone everything else before then.

Just as a side note.. baron, if you think that the IOC might have some reservations putting an Olympics in Denver because of legalized marijuana and how it might not create the best type of environment for Olympic athletes, that would be a somewhat reasonable argument to me. After all, these athletes are mostly going to be living together for 2+ weeks so maybe the idea that a WADA-prohibited substance could be so easily obtained and shared might be an issue for them. But I think we'd still need to see some precedent of a positive test or something akin to Ross Rebagliate before we worry about that. Either way, it's not something that would be a legal matter for the state of Colorado to be concerned with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh really? I can think of a certain city which turned down the chance to host an Olympics given the chance. I wouldn't bet on it in so litigious a society as the USA.

The above post is a non-sequitur.

A prerequisite of bidding is agreeing to the WADA guidelines. You may recall that the USOC submitted paperwork demonstrating their commitment to compliance in advance of the 2020 bid deadline (a race in which the US ultimately decided not to participate). There is no question that the USOC and any bid city they put forth would honor all WADA's requirements. No one will sue anyone because the WADA rules only apply to competitiors -- not citizens of the host city.

Your post is another transparent attempt at sandbagging Denver in an effort to make lackluster Reno seem more viable -- a quixotic quest if ever there was one. I believe you secretly recognize that Denver is the United States' best potential candidate for Winter Games.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More food for thought for the baron. This comes from Wikipedia, so take that for what it's worth, but I bolded the important part for you..

Court of Arbitration for Sport

Generally speaking, a dispute may be submitted to the CAS only if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties which specifies recourse to the CAS. According to rule 61 of the Olympic Charter all disputes in connection with the Olympic Games can only be submitted to CAS. Currently, all Olympic International Federations but one, and many National Olympic Committees, have recognised the jurisdiction of the CAS and included in their statutes an arbitration clause referring disputes to it. Through compliance with the 2009 World Anti-Doping Code all Olympic International Federations have recognised the jurisdiction of CAS for anti-doping rule violations. Decisions of CAS can be appealed to the Swiss Federal Tribunal.

Once again baron, your move. Please continue to try and argue your hypothetical how an athlete could appeal to the state court of Colorado and that this is something the IOC needs to be concerned about. I continue to be amazed at how incredibly wrong you are on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. Either way, it's not something that would be a legal matter for the state of Colorado to be concerned with.

Didn't bother reading you entire post. Too long and tedious. Anyway, no, it's not something that Colorado would be concerned with. If anything, it's the organization, like the IOC, that is a guest of the host state, that should be concerned. .

I believe you secretly recognize that Denver is the United States' best potential candidate for Winter Games.

No; not really. Yes, the USOC may put it forward...but its int'l chances are dubious at best. But a WOGs is still an easier goal to achieve than a SOG.

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

Didn't bother reading you entire post. Too long and tedious. Anyway, no, it's not something that Colorado would be concerned with. If anything, it's the organization, like the IOC, that is a guest of the host state, that should be concerned. .

You have yet to establish even a shred of evidence they should be concerned. Your hypothetical could never come to pass because IOC sets the rules and guidelines for how the Olympics run. 1 more for ya, from the Olympic Charter..

61 Dispute Resolution

1. The decisions of the IOC are final. Any dispute relating to their application or interpretation

may be resolved solely by the IOC Executive Board and, in certain cases, by arbitration

before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

2. Any dispute arising on the occasion of, or in connection with, the Olympic Games shall

be submitted exclusively to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), in accordance

with the Code of Sports-Related Arbitration.

The IOC gives out medals and the IOC can take them away. Local government has no power whatsoever to overturn 1 of their decisions. What is so difficult for you to understand about this? How could this become an issue for them they're somehow not prepared to handle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have yet to establish even a shred of evidence they should be concerned. Your hypothetical could never come to pass because IOC sets the rules and guidelines for how the Olympics run. 1 more for ya, from the Olympic Charter..

61 Dispute Resolution

1. The decisions of the IOC are final. Any dispute relating to their application or interpretation

may be resolved solely by the IOC Executive Board and, in certain cases, by arbitration

before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

2. Any dispute arising on the occasion of, or in connection with, the Olympic Games shall

be submitted exclusively to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), in accordance

with the Code of Sports-Related Arbitration.

The IOC gives out medals and the IOC can take them away. Local government has no power whatsoever to overturn 1 of their decisions. What is so difficult for you to understand about this? How could this become an issue for them they're somehow not prepared to handle?

What is so difficult for you to understand that it's not a matter of overturning an IOC medal decision but a question of challenging it and the new state law gives a recreational user/athlete probable grounds to have IOC rules overturned relative to its case...not in a blanket manner? Just because it has never happened, doesn't mean it can't. That's why precedents happen. And if the IOC isn't prepared for it, then obviously they have very cheap or ill-informed legal counsel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is so difficult for you to understand that it's not a matter of overturning an IOC medal decision but a question of challenging it and the new state law gives a recreational user/athlete probable grounds to have IOC rules overturned relative to its case...not in a blanket manner? Just because it has never happened, doesn't mean it can't. That's why precedents happen. And if the IOC isn't prepared for it, then obviously they have very cheap or ill-informed legal counsel.

Holy freaking creap baron, have you not been paying attention to other people in this thread posting about this? (that's obviously a rhetorical question, we all know you're not). It has happened before!! Athletes have lost their medals before for testing positive for substances that were obtained and used legally. Why would this be any different? So if you're looking for precedent, you have it already. Were Alain Baxter or Andreea Răducan able to successfully challenge the rulings against them and win their appeals? This is nothing new, nor is it anything the IOC hasn't had to deal with before. And if you really think an organization like the International Olympic Committee isn't prepared or is going to let a situation like this get the best of them, you apparently don't know them very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am not familiar with the cases of Baxter or Raducan but were their challenges/appeals grounded on existing law in those jurisdictions at the time of the Games or purely on principle or some other technicality?



Okay guys - why not just send the question to Prince Albert so he can ask it in the final bid presentations?

Actually I sent in the query to the so-called expert at The Denver Post. I don't know if and/or when he will reply back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raducan did appeal to CAS, who ruled that she was not at fault and said she was not subject to disciplinary sanctions (like a continuing ban from competition), but nevertheless approved her disqualification from the gold medal. She'd been given Nurofen by the team doctor (who DID cop a ban).

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am not familiar with the cases of Baxter or Raducan but were their challenges/appeals grounded on existing law in those jurisdictions at the time of the Games or purely on principle or some other technicality?

I bet if they were involved with the Ceremonies, you'd know everything there is to know about them :D

In doing some research on Baxter (the Internet is a wonderful thing.. not hard to find the CAS decision on Baxter).. he has a documented history of nasal congestion, so he routinely takes Vicks in the UK. When he competed in Salt Lake, British team doctors gave him a different product but he didn't like it, so he bought Vicks from a store in Park City (without consulting team doctors) and that triggered the positive test. He freely admitted that was what caused the positive and his appeal was based in that it's an inactive isomer of methamphetamine and that it provided him with no competitive advantage. Baxter had initially been banned for competition for 3 months by the International Ski Federation (by rule, that's their minimum), although the British Ski and Snowboard Federation appealed to CAS and were able to have his ban overturned. After that, the British Olympic Association appealed to have his medal returned, but they lost the appeal.

In both cases though, Baxter and Raducan, the appeals for the loss of the medals were made by their NOC's to the CAS. And it's not like this was a case of an athlete smoking pot where it's very clear that's on the IOC's banned substances list. These were athletes that took something they didn't know contained a banned substance. Sounds like they were both on principle.. they broke the rules, so the IOC punished them. The CAS is the only forum to appeal a decision like a lost medal. Can you imagine how the IOC would react if an athlete or NOC tried to circumvent their rules and procedures as you've suggested in your hypotheticals? I'm willing to bet if Baxter had done that, we might have just celebrated the Games of the XXX Olympiad in Paris instead of London!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The above post is a non-sequitur.

Your post is another transparent attempt at sandbagging Denver in an effort to make lackluster Reno seem more viable -- a quixotic quest if ever there was one. I believe you secretly recognize that Denver is the United States' best potential candidate for Winter Games.

YUP!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Possible 2026 Winter Bid From Anchorage

Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan has announced that he is looking for volunteers to form an exploratory committee to look into a possible bid for the 2026 Winter Olympic Games. The Anchorage Daily news reports Sullivan said communities across the state would help host the Games. About 30 years ago there were attempts to bring the 1992 and 1994 Games to Alaska. Alaska lost out to Albertville France and Lillehammer Norway. But this time Sullivan says things are different.
He said, "I'd like to think we've become a better city, in virtually every category, since that time".
Sullivan said Anchorage has grown by about 100,000 people since then. It also holds more hotel rooms and other amenities for visitors and features better athletic facilities, he said. And Alaska's geographical location and time zone for TV broadcasts are also major selling points.
Former Mayor Rick Mystrom, who chaired the city's Olympic organizing committee, said boosters in Reno Nevada, with winter-sports-friendly Lake Tahoe nearby in California, have already expressed interest. So has Salt Lake City, Denver and Lake Placid could throw their names in the hat too. "We've beaten those cities before" he said.
With the "reservoir of good will" built up with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in the previous bid, Mystrom things Anchorage would have a good shot at getting the Games in 13 years.
He said the television revenue Anchorage might take in would likely, by itself, cover the city's costs.
Sullivan said, "the goal is that you do not have to spend a significant amount of public money, between the support of the (U.S.) Olympic Committee, the International Committee, the television revenue and all the other ways you can raise money".
The newspaper reports that in the coming weeks the mayor's staff will be compiling a list of potential members for the exploratory committee, which Sullivan said will be a combination of former committee members and fresh faces.
He said, "it's time, certainly, for a new generation to carry the torch and be the lead on this new effort".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All Quebec needs to do is invest in expanding the height of Cap-du-Salut say 200 or so meters, or diverting the river located at Acropole des Draveurs (which has the height, but ends up at a river).

It basically has the arena problem solved and there's plenty of minor arenas in the city.

PEPS at Laval University would therefore be solely serving the athletes, a good boost for their bid.

Mount Raoul Blanchard in the hinterland behind Le Massif could be an option with a height of 1166metres and a prominence of 795m meaning 5metres only needs to be found.

It would be under 80km from Quebec City

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ I assumed Le Massif (the current trails) would not have been an option due to development at the summit. However, there is an off piste which has not been developed, this could be heightened.

I'm sure they could remove or alter the development at the top and have the finish the other side of the train tracks .... after all Sarajevo 1984 started in a hotel and Le Massif has a prominence of 806m. I understand that the other side has significant challenges in making a men's course difficult enough

It would be cheaper than creating a new resort.

Le Massif ..................Men's Downhill (currently 770m vertical - stretched to 801m)

Mont-Saint-Anne .......Women's Downhill (625m vertical)

Stoneham ..................Slalom events

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure they could remove or alter the development at the top and have the finish the other side of the train tracks .... after all Sarajevo 1984 started in a hotel and Le Massif has a prominence of 806m. I understand that the other side has significant challenges in making a men's course difficult enough

It would be cheaper than creating a new resort.

Le Massif ..................Men's Downhill (currently 770m vertical - stretched to 801m)

Mont-Saint-Anne .......Women's Downhill (625m vertical)

Stoneham ..................Slalom events

Well in 2002 they proposed the men's downhill finish on a barge in the St. Lawrence River to extend the course.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...