Will the USOC bid for 2020?

[stir.ts]

I think the appeal of Tahoe is underestimated in Reno bid.

[Athensfan]

Y r u so focused on the "visual" aspect? The comment meant that Rio was a LESS-THAN-PERFECT bid, yet it made it to the top. In the IOC voters' minds, a compromise was reached that: OK, IDEALLY, the other bids are MORE streamlined...but let's give it to a city in a corner of the world that hasn't had it, regardless of the distance between venues, the favelas, the high crime, etc..

THe odd thing is...you can go to Superior Court in Reno; file a temporary injunction with that court saying that you (as an "outsider, non-IOC voter" ) want to stop the citizens of Reno from making an attempt to present themselves to the world because you think their town is tacky.

Got news for you, buddy. That's NOT how our democracy works NOR how the IOC works. They will welcome and entertain any bid that meets their qualifications and protocol. Who are you, or anybody, to HUSH up a community's dreams and ambitions? If they jump the hoops, I say MORE POWER TO THEM!! Chicago and New York and Denver had their chance at bat. Let another one have a turn at bat!!

Oh, Baron.... why so militant?

I've got zero desire to squelch democracy. I've no desire to stop Reno from bidding either. They can plan to their hearts content. I'm just saying that I don't see anything promising yet that will capture the IOC's imaginations.

Although my arguments do mention the visual aspects of the city, I've also addressed the lack of existing venues, long travel times and lack of appealing culture.

You're right about the IOC forgiving Rio's weak points, but that was mainly because Rio still brought so much to the table (new frontier, gorgeous scenery, world-renowned culture, existing venues, emerging economy).

As near as I can tell, a Reno bid asks the IOC to overlook a great many weaknesses without offering many strengths. The only strengths you mention are favorable geopolitics (2022 belongs to North America) and financial incentives (a sweetheart deal on TV rights). I don't think that's enough to persuade the IOC.

[Athensfan]

I have no doubt RSA is going for an Olympic Games down the road, but I still don't fully understand why people think a 2024 bid is a foregone conclusion. I mean, that is really not sensible. To date, RSA has spaced out their events, and I suspect that is what they will be doing again. They would actually have to work on two bids simultaneously in order to secure 2024. Why would they do that? Why not just bid for 2024 then? I think their 2022 CWG bid is them posturing for 2028 or 2032. 2024 could actually be the US's best chance until 2032 or 2036.

You make a good point, Soaring. If SA doesn't bid for 2024, it's a great opportunity for the US. But how can the US know ahead of submitting a bid whether SA will also enter the race? If the US loses the gamble and SA does bid for 2024, then the US has to trudge all the way through the bid process, knowing they are going to suffer another painful defeat. I'm not sure the USOC is going to be willing to take that chance. Let's face it -- if any country is capable of beating SA, it's not going to be the United States. I can understand those who say they only want to bid for an Olympics if they actually have a fair shot at winning.

[Quaker2001]

I've got zero desire to squelch democracy. I've no desire to stop Reno from bidding either. They can plan to their hearts content. I'm just saying that I don't see anything promising yet that will capture the IOC's imaginations.

Although my arguments do mention the visual aspects of the city, I've also addressed the lack of existing venues, long travel times and lack of appealing culture.

You're right about the IOC forgiving Rio's weak points, but that was mainly because Rio still brought so much to the table (new frontier, gorgeous scenery, world-renowned culture, existing venues, emerging economy).

As near as I can tell, a Reno bid asks the IOC to overlook a great many weaknesses without offering many strengths. The only strengths you mention are favorable geopolitics (2022 belongs to North America) and financial incentives (a sweetheart deal on TV rights). I don't think that's enough to persuade the IOC.

Thank you.. that all couldn't sum up my thoughts on Reno more perfectly.

[Athensfan]

The point is that I do not understand the grudge the USOC (and you american forumers) seems to have against the IOC just BC two of your cities lost recently in very tight races where your cities had a lot of things playing against them.

The two losses are not a good reason to stop bidding for SOG. Other cities and countries have been denied over and over again and this is not the case of the US, which had 2 Olympic games in the last 15 years

On the other side of course Reno would bid to win and the USOC with it.

But the race could (i mean could) result in just a warm up for 2024, if the bid will have all the handicaps it seems to have against competition which will likely be on a good level (Munich for example...).

I'm not sure it's totally fair to describe it as a "grudge." I think the US is now very gun-shy.

I think one of the underlying sore spots is that the United States has always thought of itself as the foremost champion of freedom and diversity. If any country's essence is in harmony with Olympic ideals, it is the United States. Unfortunately, due largely to decisions made by the last administration, through much of the last decade our country was perceived as an imperialistic tyrant by the international community. This is enormously painful and upsetting, because that is exactly the sort of ideology that many Americans (myself included) never want to be associated with.

NYC 2012's defeat was understandable. Chicago 2016's loss really hurt. A superb bid, a presidential appearance and out in the first round. It felt like a slap in the face -- particularly because Chicago felt it had been promised enough first round votes by IOC members. Obviously, some members who promised to support the bid did not.

I absolutely believe the IOC had many very good reasons for being frustrated with the USOC and for preferring to head to Rio in 2016. Especially the USOC made some big mistakes and caused real offense.

The biggest problem with the 2016 vote is the way that it scared other American cities. If a fantastic city like Chicago, with a brilliant bid and presidential support gets shot down in the first round, why should any other city spend millions of dollars and invest tons of time and energy only to be dismissed in similar fashion? It didn't feel like a situation where we almost had it and just needed to try again. It felt like a situation where we were never really considered. I don't blame Chicago for being wary.

I don't think the US needs to be guaranteed a win to bid again, but I think they need to be certain that it will be a fair contest. They need assurance that there's no lingering bad blood over TV rights. They need to know that the IOC and USOC leadership are on friendly terms. They need to know they're not going to be dismissed out of hand just because a new frontier is in the race. They need to know there are a good number of IOC members would would be genuinely happy to see the Games come back to the United States. Most importantly, they need to know that the international community recognizes the fact that Olympic ideals are woven into the fabric of our country.

[Soaring]

You make a good point, Soaring. If SA doesn't bid for 2024, it's a great opportunity for the US. But how can the US know ahead of submitting a bid whether SA will also enter the race? If the US loses the gamble and SA does bid for 2024, then the US has to trudge all the way through the bid process, knowing they are going to suffer another painful defeat. I'm not sure the USOC is going to be willing to take that chance. Let's face it -- if any country is capable of beating SA, it's not going to be the United States. I can understand those who say they only want to bid for an Olympics if they actually have a fair shot at winning.

It is a gamble. So far, South Africa hasn't been quiet about their intentions to host major sporting events (albeit in confused ways at times). Hopefully, if they have intentions to bid for 2024, they make it public early on. I did a little research, and the only city I could find that hosted a major "Olympic style" sporting event two years before they hosted an Olympics, was Seoul. They hosted the 1986 Asian Games. Not to many cities have done it. I have a feeling that RSA would follow Rio's path, and make a bid after they hosted a successful Games, but they may just throw that idea out the window.

Who knows. I guess my argument steams more for my disdain at the idea of Reno hosting a winter games before another US city hosts an SOG...

[Athensfan]

It is a gamble. So far, South Africa hasn't been quiet about their intentions to host major sporting events (albeit in confused ways at times). Hopefully, if they have intentions to bid for 2024, they make it public early on. I did a little research, and the only city I could find that hosted a major "Olympic style" sporting event two years before they hosted an Olympics, was Seoul. They hosted the 1986 Asian Games. Not to many cities have done it. I have a feeling that RSA would follow Rio's path, and make a bid after they hosted a successful Games, but they may just throw that idea out the window.

Who knows. I guess my argument steams more for my disdain at the idea of Reno hosting a winter games before another US city hosts an SOG...

You know I agree with you on that....

I have no problem with "affirmative action" for Olympic bids. I just wish the IOC (and Rogge especially) would stop saying "Rio won solely on the basis of merit." A new frontier is competing with itself more than it is competing with the other bids. I do believe that is totally ok, but it's insulting to the other bids to say that they win solely on the basis of merit. If SA bids, they don't have to offer the best bid. They just need to present one that works. I think they can do that. Because of that I don't think it would matter if the USOC promised to raze half of Manhattan and build the most glamorous Olympic park in history -- they still wouldn't be able to win.

[Soaring]

Anyhow, I think Americans might be scratching their heads if Reno bids for a WOG. I mean, the following images sum up what most people here think about the place

[scooter133]

Looks like it's still a possibility...

http://www.teamusa.org/news/2011/06/28/us-olympic-bid-plans-for-2020-still-premature/43140

[Sir Rols]

Looks like it's still a possibility...

http://www.teamusa.org/news/2011/06/28/us-olympic-bid-plans-for-2020-still-premature/43140

Yeah! Tulsa's still in the mix.

[Athensfan]

I'm saddened, but not surprised by Chicago's absence on that list posted by scooter....

Still don't expect a U.S. bid for 2020 though.

[Athensfan]

Anyhow, I think Americans might be scratching their heads if Reno bids for a WOG. I mean, the following images sum up what most people here think about the place

Exactly.

[FYI]

Yeah! Tulsa's still in the mix.

[FYI]

I'm saddened, but not surprised by Chicago's absence on that list posted by scooter....

Yeah, but who's "mentioning" these possible bidders listed in the article? I mean New York, really? What peep have they made recently that they want to try the IOC nascar race again?

And Minneapolis has toned it down quite a bit, too. I don't think that they're even talking about it anymore. Besides, it was mainly just one city official there that was all gung-ho about it. The governor & other city officials wanted no part of it. So I'd like to know where that article is getting their 411 from.

[Barcelona_'92]

I'm saddened, but not surprised by Chicago's absence on that list posted by scooter....

I'll be shocked if Chicago makes another serious bid in my lifetime (the next 50-60 years). A lot of people here never wanted the Games in the first place, but the bitterness amongst those who did is still very strong. I just don't see much interest in spending $50+ million for another bid given the way Chicago was tossed aside last time. Chicago and Illinois have too many financial problems right now to keep throwing money away at Olympic bids when they're not going to be considered seriously by the IOC.

[Athensfan]

I'll be shocked if Chicago makes another serious bid in my lifetime (the next 50-60 years). A lot of people here never wanted the Games in the first place, but the bitterness amongst those who did is still very strong. I just don't see much interest in spending $50+ million for another bid given the way Chicago was tossed aside last time. Chicago and Illinois have too many financial problems right now to keep throwing money away at Olympic bids when they're not going to be considered seriously by the IOC.

I'm aware of all that. I'd be surprised if your 50-60 year estimate was accurate, though. The whole situation is very sad.

Whether or not they bid, I still believe Chicago is the best potential host for the next American Summer Games.

As for this list, I don't really give it any credence.

[Quaker2001]

As for this list, I don't really give it any credence.

Neither do I. As soon as I see New York there, I know it's bogus. By this time next year, this city will have spent no less than $5 billion on new stadiums in NYC and NJ in well under a decade, so is New York, in the middle of a recession, ready to commit themselves to bidding on another Olympics after the $#!+ show they put up for 2012? Not bloody likely.

The USOC needs to sit this one out. To Athens' point earlier, I don't think it's so much that they've gotten gun-shy as it is that they're still licking their wounds over New York and Chicago and need to take a step back to figure out what to do next. I mean, when you put up your 2 biggest cities that haven't hosted an Olympics yet and both lose, what's your next move? I'd certainly give Chicago a better chance to get it done than New York, but I'm waiting for Philadelphia to throw their hat into the ring because that's been brewing for a while now and within the next couple of decades might be time for them to take their shot.

[Dino]

I'm not sure it's totally fair to describe it as a "grudge." I think the US is now very gun-shy.

I think one of the underlying sore spots is that the United States has always thought of itself as the foremost champion of freedom and diversity. If any country's essence is in harmony with Olympic ideals, it is the United States. Unfortunately, due largely to decisions made by the last administration, through much of the last decade our country was perceived as an imperialistic tyrant by the international community. This is enormously painful and upsetting, because that is exactly the sort of ideology that many Americans (myself included) never want to be associated with.

NYC 2012's defeat was understandable. Chicago 2016's loss really hurt. A superb bid, a presidential appearance and out in the first round. It felt like a slap in the face -- particularly because Chicago felt it had been promised enough first round votes by IOC members. Obviously, some members who promised to support the bid did not.

I absolutely believe the IOC had many very good reasons for being frustrated with the USOC and for preferring to head to Rio in 2016. Especially the USOC made some big mistakes and caused real offense.

The biggest problem with the 2016 vote is the way that it scared other American cities. If a fantastic city like Chicago, with a brilliant bid and presidential support gets shot down in the first round, why should any other city spend millions of dollars and invest tons of time and energy only to be dismissed in similar fashion? It didn't feel like a situation where we almost had it and just needed to try again. It felt like a situation where we were never really considered. I don't blame Chicago for being wary.

I don't think the US needs to be guaranteed a win to bid again, but I think they need to be certain that it will be a fair contest. They need assurance that there's no lingering bad blood over TV rights. They need to know that the IOC and USOC leadership are on friendly terms. They need to know they're not going to be dismissed out of hand just because a new frontier is in the race. They need to know there are a good number of IOC members would would be genuinely happy to see the Games come back to the United States. Most importantly, they need to know that the international community recognizes the fact that Olympic ideals are woven into the fabric of our country.

Exactly! You hit the right spots on this one.

On another note, Chicago seems to be positioning itself in getting its brand out; first the NATO and G8 summits next year, and now the city's convention and tourism board is setting up a Sports Commission to attract national and international sporting events in the city.

[baron-pierreIV]

Does increasing the font size make you think you're getting your point across better? I'm glad I saw the "what year were you born" thread because between that one and this thread, I'm starting to get some insight into who you are. I'd like to believe your impassioned arguments that you'd love to see the small guy win one, but instead you're coming off as some old fuddy duddy yelling at the kids to get off your lawn and who seems to think that all of us youngins' don't know what we're talking about.

First off, some of your arguments here are pretty lame. Hong Kong had the `08 equestrian events, so that would make it okay to use Sacramento as a satellite venue location for Rio? Put the village at UN-Reno? (I think the students there in February might have an issue with that one). And St. Louis hitting the jackpot on the first time out? Yea, don't let the fact that happened over 100 years ago get in the way of the argument that CHICAGO got awarded those games. Hey, that must be why they lost 2016.. because the IOC has a century-old grudge that they couldn't host back in 1904!

As for 2022.. you keep saying that Denver is a complete non-starter. Let's agree to disagree on that one because I think you're wrong and maybe just trying to convince yourself of that because it gives Reno a better shot. I'm not saying Reno can't or shouldn't bid, but you keep telling us that Denver shouldn't bother and should just save their time and money, yet Reno is determined and hey, you never know, they might just get lucky. I think you're putting too much emphasis on continental rotation. If the USOC puts up a crappy bid for 2022, then timing may not make it happen.

If you want to continue backing Reno and rooting for them for whatever reasons you believe in, I'm not going to argue with that, although again, is it worth the time, money, and effort if don't have a decent shot at winning. But IMHO (which I know you don't care about since I have no influence over the USOC or IOC), I just don't see Reno winning and very little of what you and their website has told me about the prospect of Reno 2022 leads me to believe otherwise. I know they have a long time to get their ducks in a row and maybe they can in fact pull it off, but it's going to take a lot more than the desire to win for the Olympics to come to Reno in 2022.

Because, sometimes the facts are quite obvious -- like Beijing can have an equestrian event 1,220+ miles away but it's SUICIDE for a small city like Reno to have a satellite city only 132 miles away? How you think one is acceptable but the other is not, totally escapes me and thus gives one REASON to highlight and embolden some postings for those DON'T get it -- like the other sociopath (OTO) who, thankfully, worked his way into my IGNORE list.

Know what? We'll continue to disagree. I want to see some other city come up and NOT Denver. What I don't understand about this site is people ADVANCING other cities who HAVE NOT expressed any interest in bidding and perhaps mean it. I prefer to pour my energies behind a candidate that's REAL and KICKING...NOT some phantom bid. I guess our levels of reality are just on different grades.

[baron-pierreIV]

I'll be shocked if Chicago makes another serious bid in my lifetime (the next 50-60 years). A lot of people here never wanted the Games in the first place, but the bitterness amongst those who did is still very strong. I just don't see much interest in spending $50+ million for another bid given the way Chicago was tossed aside last time. Chicago and Illinois have too many financial problems right now to keep throwing money away at Olympic bids when they're not going to be considered seriously by the IOC.

Finally, a voice of reason.

But as someone said, "Hey, let Denver bid again and again until they get it out of their system" (or such similar words..). Yeah, he should put his money where his mouth is.

[baron-pierreIV]

Oh, Baron.... why so militant?

I've got zero desire to squelch democracy. I've no desire to stop Reno from bidding either. They can plan to their hearts content. I'm just saying that I don't see anything promising yet that will capture the IOC's imaginations.

Although my arguments do mention the visual aspects of the city, I've also addressed the lack of existing venues, long travel times and lack of appealing culture.

You're right about the IOC forgiving Rio's weak points, but that was mainly because Rio still brought so much to the table (new frontier, gorgeous scenery, world-renowned culture, existing venues, emerging economy).

As near as I can tell, a Reno bid asks the IOC to overlook a great many weaknesses without offering many strengths. The only strengths you mention are favorable geopolitics (2022 belongs to North America) and financial incentives (a sweetheart deal on TV rights). I don't think that's enough to persuade the IOC.

Sorry, Ath. I got carried away because I didn't expect you to MISCONSTRUE my words and think I was actually comparing Reno to Rio, vista-wise. I mean, whaddya think I am? It was almost like an insult.

What city has all its venues in place 11 years before the fact? Only a presumptuous one. The prejudice here is AMAZING that they can't even fathom that venues will come as things become more certain. Why should the venues be in place if they're NOT going to get the nod? I mean Durban, the supposed front-runner for 2020/4/8 DOESN'T have , let me venture a wild no., 75% of its venues in place, yet nobody is putting it down for being a prospective Olympic host city. Of course, I CAN'T compare Durban with Reno. You focus again on the town; I want to highlight the Tahoe sites -- but then you come back with "you're presenting a city with no real merit'? Well, WTF are the Tahoe runs and slopes? Beirut?

That's WHY I fly off the handle...because MOST OF YOUR (plural-collective) RUSHED and PREJUDICIAL JUDGMENT is quite unbelievable. Maybe I expected too much from some of you. And again -- WHERE is there another viable candidate?

[2015]

I'm not sure it's totally fair to describe it as a "grudge." I think the US is now very gun-shy.

I think one of the underlying sore spots is that the United States has always thought of itself as the foremost champion of freedom and diversity. If any country's essence is in harmony with Olympic ideals, it is the United States. Unfortunately, due largely to decisions made by the last administration, through much of the last decade our country was perceived as an imperialistic tyrant by the international community. This is enormously painful and upsetting, because that is exactly the sort of ideology that many Americans (myself included) never want to be associated with.

NYC 2012's defeat was understandable. Chicago 2016's loss really hurt. A superb bid, a presidential appearance and out in the first round. It felt like a slap in the face -- particularly because Chicago felt it had been promised enough first round votes by IOC members. Obviously, some members who promised to support the bid did not.

I absolutely believe the IOC had many very good reasons for being frustrated with the USOC and for preferring to head to Rio in 2016. Especially the USOC made some big mistakes and caused real offense.

The biggest problem with the 2016 vote is the way that it scared other American cities. If a fantastic city like Chicago, with a brilliant bid and presidential support gets shot down in the first round, why should any other city spend millions of dollars and invest tons of time and energy only to be dismissed in similar fashion? It didn't feel like a situation where we almost had it and just needed to try again. It felt like a situation where we were never really considered. I don't blame Chicago for being wary.

I don't think the US needs to be guaranteed a win to bid again, but I think they need to be certain that it will be a fair contest. They need assurance that there's no lingering bad blood over TV rights. They need to know that the IOC and USOC leadership are on friendly terms. They need to know they're not going to be dismissed out of hand just because a new frontier is in the race. They need to know there are a good number of IOC members would would be genuinely happy to see the Games come back to the United States. Most importantly, they need to know that the international community recognizes the fact that Olympic ideals are woven into the fabric of our country.

This is the thing: when you are making indoor politics (the kind you have say in a parliamentary system) you don't give public slap in the faces to the people you are negotiating with.

The USOC I think believed it could bully the IOC into getting the games AND more revenues for itself.

Well, this is the kind of politics someone living in a superpower used to presidential democracy believes. Alas, the IOC is (still) a european game: subtle, indoor, based on consensus and compromise. You though seriously that the appeareance of half an hour of the president of the USA (the president of Brazil was there instead for the entire process) would make a significant difference?

Finally politics is about eliminating the best contender: I think Chicago also fell into a trap set by the other contenders to eliminate earlier.

In general I see much arrogance, incompetence, lack of negotiating skills, lack of political acumen into the Chicago (and also NY) loss.

Which is good: it means the main problem is the USOC, not the IOC.

Presenting a good bid in the good way, negotiating in the right way, being more modest and less arrogant is rather easy. All it takes is well...for the USOC not to behave like the former president of the USA

[Alexjc]

Sorry, Ath. I got carried away because I didn't expect you to MISCONSTRUE my words and think I was actually comparing Reno to Rio, vista-wise. I mean, whaddya think I am? It was almost like an insult.

What city has all its venues in place 11 years before the fact? Only a presumptuous one. The prejudice here is AMAZING that they can't even fathom that venues will come as things become more certain. Why should the venues be in place if they're NOT going to get the nod? I mean Durban, the supposed front-runner for 2020/4/8 DOESN'T have , let me venture a wild no., 75% of its venues in place, yet nobody is putting it down for being a prospective Olympic host city. Of course, I CAN'T compare Durban with Reno. You focus again on the town; I want to highlight the Tahoe sites -- but then you come back with "you're presenting a city with no real merit'? Well, WTF are the Tahoe runs and slopes? Beirut?

That's WHY I fly off the handle...because MOST OF YOUR (plural-collective) RUSHED and PREJUDICIAL JUDGMENT is quite unbelievable. Maybe I expected too much from some of you. And again -- WHERE is there another viable candidate?

Well put Baron, whats wrong with Reno? well nothing, and that's whats the problem.

What we are seeing here is I think the expectation of the US to host Summer-Winter-Summer-Winter...Hosting the OWGs seem to be easier than having to find one of the 'Alpha' cities to front for an OSGs. Three of those cities live in the state that's kind of broke for now...While the Alpha of the alpha cities, New York, just doesn't seem enthusiastic at the moment. Winter capiable 'Beta' cities fair better in grabbing the OWGs. If, and it looks very likely, Western Europe gets 2018, then unless a miracle bid from Santiago arrives...USA is a shoe in for 2022.

As for 2020, which US city really is serious at the moment?...anyone?

[Soaring]

Well put Baron, whats wrong with Reno? well nothing, and that's whats the problem.

What we are seeing here is I think the expectation of the US to host Summer-Winter-Summer-Winter...Hosting the OWGs seem to be easier than having to find one of the 'Alpha' cities to front for an OSGs. Three of those cities live in the state that's kind of broke for now...While the Alpha of the alpha cities, New York, just doesn't seem enthusiastic at the moment. Winter capiable 'Beta' cities fair better in grabbing the OWGs. If, and it looks very likely, Western Europe gets 2018, then unless a miracle bid from Santiago arrives...USA is a shoe in for 2022.

As for 2020, which US city really is serious at the moment?...anyone?

First, Reno is not a "beta" city, it is more like a "gamma" city if there is such a thing. Second, if Europe gets 2018, it surely doesn't mean 2022 will go to N. America. That leaves the door open for another Asian city to bid. I still think PC will pull out a victory in a couple of weeks. Third, no US city should even think about bidding for 2020, and I am happy there is not serious talk at the moment. The IOC is not going to give back-to-back SOG to the Americas when credible bids come from Europe and Asia.

[baron-pierreIV]

First, Reno is not a "beta" city, it is more like a "gamma" city if there is such a thing. Second, if Europe gets 2018, it surely doesn't mean 2022 will go to N. America. That leaves the door open for another Asian city to bid. I still think PC will pull out a victory in a couple of weeks. Third, no US city should even think about bidding for 2020, and I am happy there is not serious talk at the moment. The IOC is not going to give back-to-back SOG to the Americas when credible bids come from Europe and Asia.

Your prejudice is showing. What Alex means is that Reno is probably a "beta" city in the category of WOG wannabees -- not in the OVERALL rankings of major metro areas like New York, Chicago, etc., etc., Give him a little more credit than you are currently showing him.