Athensfan Posted August 25, 2011 Report Share Posted August 25, 2011 As soon as the Evaluation Report came out, I thought Rio was a done deal. I hoped for Chicago, but the IOC's preference was just way too evident in the report. The point is that history does repeat itself in some ways. We can learn from the past. It's not as if there's a completely blank canvas for every bid cycle. We don't go into each race with everybody level and an equal chance for every city to win. Rio is not a guarantee of what will happen with Durban, but coupled with all Rogge's rhetoric and the obviously emotional voting patterns, I think it's indisputable that an African bid will come out of the gate as a favorite -- not necessarily unbeatable, but QUITE formidable. There are only 2 ways I can imagine the IOC choosing an American bid over an African one. 1.) The African bid is simply not technically able to handle the demands of the Olympics. 2.) The IOC is desperate for American money. If the IOC has no cash flow problem and if the African bid is technically competent, the USOC could promise to raze Manahattan and replace it with the ultimate Olympic playground and the Americans (and everybody else) would still lose. Of course the IOC will pretend it is otherwise. I expect to hear lots of "anybody can win," "it's not all about going new places" in the next four years because they're afraid South Africa will have no challengers. I'm not going to trust a word of it. It will be a ploy to lure in other bids as insurance policies and Olympic publicity machines -- not as legitimate contenders. I want the US to focus on bidding for Summer Games, but they will have to tread very carefully where Africa is concerned. Obviously some of you disagree with me, but that's my belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soaring Posted August 25, 2011 Report Share Posted August 25, 2011 Obviously some of you disagree with me, but that's my belief. I agree with you, and felt similarly after the evaluation report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted August 25, 2011 Report Share Posted August 25, 2011 I agree with you, and felt similarly after the evaluation report. I agree with Athensfan, as well. While of course a South African bid wouldn't be a "shoe-in", however, it would be simplistic & naive not to consider a technically "decent" & competent South African bid as a big contender. While Rogge does like to provide his usual "lip-service", he's done so much more than that, though, when it comes to the South Africans. Almost to the point of being short from saying; "South Africa, they Games are yours, if you want them". But what's the justification for calling Pyeongchang a New Frontier?? It's, what, 500 miles from Nagano? Well, what's the 'justification' is some already anointing Istanbul as a new frontier then. It's only 400 miles away from Athens. Which, let's be honest, is the best Durban can hope for. If they bid, it's not going to come close to the highest technical score. Cape Town wasn't a bad bid. It made the short list. It beat other short-list countries to come in third. But it lost. And you can bet many folks in the ICO REALLY wanted an African city to host then too. That ideal didn't pop into existence last year. Having a good bid from a continent that has never hosted isn't enough to guarantee a win. I just don't get you. You dismiss a far more capable city like Durban in a continent that's never hosted before, but yet somehow you think that dinky Tulsa, in a country that's hosted the most Olympic Games than any other, somehow could've provided the huge demand an Olympics brings. Strange logic, to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olimpik Posted August 25, 2011 Report Share Posted August 25, 2011 I agree with Athensfan, as well. While of course a South African bid wouldn't be a "shoe-in", however, it would be simplistic & naive not to consider a technically "decent" & competent South African bid as a big contender. While Rogge does like to provide his usual "lip-service", he's done so much more than that, though, when it comes to the South Africans. Almost to the point of being short from saying; "South Africa, they Games are yours, if you want them". Well, what's the 'justification' is some already anointing Istanbul as a new frontier then. It's only 400 miles away from Athens. I just don't get you. You dismiss a far more capable city like Durban in a continent that's never hosted before, but yet somehow you think that dinky Tulsa, in a country that's hosted the most Olympic Games than any other, somehow could've provided the huge demand an Olympics brings. Strange logic, to say the least. there's something called CULTURAL ASPECT?! Even though there is 100 kms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted August 25, 2011 Report Share Posted August 25, 2011 there's something called CULTURAL ASPECT?! Even though there is 100 kms And there isn't "cultural aspect" between South Korea & Japan?! This comment is just short of being racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 And there isn't "cultural aspect" between South Korea & Japan?! This comment is just short of being racist. Well, culturally, Greece and Turkey are more diametrically opposed than So. Korea and Japan. The Greek and Turkish expats on Cyprus can't get along whereas between Korea and Japan, former slave and master, there really isn't any outright confrontation, and they are both of the Shinto/Buddhist stripes whereas Greece & Turkey are between eternal enemies of Christianity and Islam. So the distance maybe close but they ain't no brothas!! I didn't find Olympik's comment racist at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotosy Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 Rogge regrets U.S. bowed out of 2020 Games bid IOC President Jacques Rogge says he regrets that the United States did not bid for the 2020 Olympics and hopes they will seek the right to organize the games in the future. The two sides have had a dispute over revenue-sharing from the games for years and the U.S. Olympic Committee announced earlier this month it would not bid for the 2020 Games. Rogge says "we would have loved to have a bid for 2020 emanating from the United States. ... we respect and understand the position of USOC and we hope that there will be good bids in the future." http://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/story/2011/08/26/sp-ioc-rogge-us.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 Rogge says "we would have loved to have a bid for 2020 emanating from the United States. ... we respect and understand the position of USOC and we hope that there will be good bids in the future." There you go. Rogge is practically begging the US to bid. All they have to do is submit a technically sound bid and they will get it in a shoe-in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olimpik Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 And there isn't "cultural aspect" between South Korea & Japan?! This comment is just short of being racist. what? racist? I'm sorry but I'm trying to emphasize that "distance" doesn't matter if you call somewhere a new horizon. Turkish culture is totally different from European culture, starting from religion. So although we are close to Athens it doesn't mean we will held a similar Olympics in a similar spirit. I tried to say it is pointless to do such a comparison. South Korea and Japan have also different cultures coming from a similar root like Turks and Greeks. But IOC's been in Japan but they haven't been in Turkey, so that makes us the new horizon. That's it, I can't understand how I have been labelled as racist. I am expecting an apology because i'm a socialist and I can't handle that kind of stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soaring Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 All they have to do is submit a technically sound bid and they will get it in a shoe-in. Ummmm, yeah... go ahead and believe that if you want to. Rogge doesn't even vote for a bid city unless there is a tie. The USOC needs to continue to work on their relations with the other 112 members of the IOC before considering any future bids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 Ummmm, yeah... go ahead and believe that if you want to. Rogge doesn't even vote for a bid city unless there is a tie. Sorry, I forgot the <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags. But I'll keep your post in mind the next dozen times somebody uses "Rogge wants it" as a reason South Africa is a shoe-in for 2024. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 to work on their relations with the other 112 members of the IOC before considering any future bids. They only need to work with 70 or so members. And no need to butter up all our usual friends anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soaring Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 Sorry, I forgot the <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags. But I'll keep your post in mind the next dozen times somebody uses "Rogge wants it" as a reason South Africa is a shoe-in for 2024. But the US is not South Africa. All countries and cities bidding are not equal on something I would like to call the "sentiment" scale. Here are a few of the major things the IOC considers from each bidding city: Sentiment (How compelling would it be for this city/country to host an Olympics?) Geopolitics (When is the last time this city's country hosted? When was the last time the Games were held on this continent?) Technical Capabilities (How experienced and able is this city if it hosted?) Legacy (What will be left behind for future generations?) If a city passes a certain threshold with their technical capabilities, and are very strong in the other categories, I expect them to be very strong candidates. For 2016, Tokyo and Madrid were strong on technical and even legacy, but were very weak on sentiment and geopolitics. Chicago was fine on technical, and even geopolitics to an extent as 2016 was favorable for the Americas, but was very weak on sentiment and legacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soaring Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 They only need to work with 70 or so members. And no need to butter up all our usual friends anyway. Of course some out of the 112 would be lost causes, and not worth trying too much, but it's worth a shot to build bridges with as many as possible. That might result in changing attitudes with just 70 or so. The problem is, there are really no compelling US IOC members right now, and I think the IOC likes it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 The problem is, there are really no compelling US IOC members right now, and I think the IOC likes it that way. That's what I have been saying all along. But I think that was during the more devious Samaranch's time. You'd also think they would invite Dick Ebersole in there for all the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ he's brought the IOC's way!! Maybe with the changing of the guard in 2013, another US member could be invited. I'm sure if Michael Phelps had a business degree, he could easily get in. Actually, if Nadia Comeneci Connor had a business degree, she would be a perfect IOC member because not only is she a historic athlete, but coming from 2 countries, her situation makes a great bridge!! I don't know if she has any business savvy or a college degree which is what the IOC also looks for...sort of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 The problem is, there are really no compelling US IOC members right now, and I think the IOC likes it that way. They love it that way. It wasn't by accident that they kept Ueberroth out. I don't believe Rogge for a second. By the way -- just a general note to all posters: it's "shoo-in" (as in shooing somebody across a finish line to victory) NOT "shoe-in". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiTown16 Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 Although, I could imagine that the USOC negotiating team appreciated that they could make effective use of a Tulsa 2020 Olympic Bid- I think they admitted to have no viable bid when answering calls from Tulsa in front of IOC members and passing out Tulsa Convention and Visitors' Bureau brochures and the Tulsa 2020 Venue Plans stopped having an impact. CHItown '16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 Although, I could imagine that the USOC negotiating team appreciated that they could make effective use of a Tulsa 2020 Olympic Bid- I think they admitted to have no viable bid when answering calls from Tulsa in front of IOC members and passing out Tulsa Convention and Visitors' Bureau brochures and the Tulsa 2020 Venue Plans stopped having an impact. Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 Huh? My sentiments exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiTown16 Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 That the USOC had a -potential- approach to draw out a response from the IOC by emphasizing that Tulsa was the only formal response that they've received, that they're continuing to work with Tulsa on their bid, and that the closer they were to the 2020 deadline, the more likely that Tulsa 2020 was their only option. CHItown '16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 That the USOC had a -potential- approach to draw out a response from the IOC by emphasizing that Tulsa was the only formal response that they've received, that they're continuing to work with Tulsa on their bid, and that the closer they were to the 2020 deadline, the more likely that Tulsa 2020 was their only option. But why even entertain Tulsa seriously? I mean I am sure they were polite to Tulsa (or that Vegas nut) but in their best estimation they are GOING TO SIT OUT 2020 regardless of who is interested. That says it all. They are NOT REQUIRED to field any bid that they don't want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.