USA 2024

[FYI]

You have it backwards there, AF. You were the one always jumping down anyone's throat who didn't see a New York or Chicago bid as a likely outcome. Making us out to be the "foolish Pollyanna's" for thinking things through & coming to our own conclusions. I never said that there was "next to no chance" or declared that Los Angeles & Philadelphia were the "only" possibilites. I said that they could be the most LIKELY ones considering the circumstances. Y is this so hard for you to grasp? What's so difficult to differentiate between these two distinctions. Again, I've stated this over, over & over, but I don't get what's with your incessant obscession of trying to be back me in to a corner about it when I know what I said. You always fly off the handle when you think that someone is constantly misinterpreting & misrepresenting you, but yet you have no problems whatsoever doing it to others.

And again, all I'm reading is about one person, from a newly-founded organization talking about it. So it's not "reading about all of those things". Even the mayor's office said that is not on the agenda. So I can't say at this point in time that I was "a bit hasty & prematurely dismissive" bcuz there still really isn't anything there. Y take this article like it's sacred or something when no one with political muscle there have openly come out that they want to try this again. N weren't you the one just a few pages back (or maybe in another thread) that said that you weren't so sure anymore about another bid anyway after this lack-luster revenue deal that the USOC has agreed to & questioning their judgement bcuz of it. I think that you're letting your over-whelming passion about another Chicago bid get in the way of being rationale sometimes.

N like even Soaring has just mentioned. He doesn't think that Chicago will place a 2024 bid bcuz the political climate in the city is not condusicve at this time for such an expensive & ambitious project. I happen to share that same view that he does. So Y do I have to "concede, or say I was hasty & dismissive" or that I was "wrong" when all the crucial cards are still not lining-up properly. N even in the, again, "unlikely" event that they did, I still wouldn't have to submit to your whim simply bcuz you said so. SInce I never said that New York & Chicago would never bid again, only that (for the umpteenth time) is was UNLIKELY in the near-term. That doesn't translate to "never" or "next to no chance". N quite frankly, I think that you're confusing me with Canis Minor. He's always the one that uses the pharses like: "those ships have sailed & one & done". Cuz I certainly haven't.

[Athensfan]

I've never seen Chicago or NYC as a "likely outcome" and I've written many posts saying its entirely possible they won't bid again and we have no reason to expect them to.

However, I've also said we don't have enough information to rule out the possibility. Even on my recent posts, I've acknowledged that these articles are very faint glimmers and may never materialize into bids.

I do think Chicago is the best potential bid city and if others disagree, that's fine.

[Shrek201]

Just f.y.i, there were l30 years between New York doing a lukewarm bid for 1984 in 1975; and their last turn at bat in 2005. So, we probably won't see an NYC or Chicago try again until 2030-2035 for the 2040 or 2044 Games at the earliest for either city.

[Athensfan]

Just f.y.i, there were l30 years between New York doing a lukewarm bid for 1984 in 1975; and their last turn at bat in 2005. So, we probably won't see an NYC or Chicago try again until 2030-2035 for the 2040 or 2044 Games at the earliest for either city.

Because of course all bids are spaced equally.....

I don't see how that means anything.

[Blacksheep]

N yet the least "outstanding" technical bid won in the end. So your point is neither here nor there since the IOC didn't vote on which bid had technical superiority.

N as has also been pointed out countless times on these boards, once the IOC has declared the candidates for the short-list, outstanding technical merit is then thrown out the window. Bcuz then it is deemed that ANY of the candidate cities could successfully host the Games. Which makes your point even more moot.

Then why raise the issue of Chicago having an outstanding technical bid and suggesting it is a major plus point. Especially if as you say this goes out the window once the shortlist is made.

Its all well and good, but beyond the technical side, all Chicago seemed to offer was it was the USA's turn and it has to be more than that when coming up against the likes of Paris, South Africa etc .....

[FYI]

A bid has to have at least a technical foundation to work on. Otherwise, you risk being tossed-out like Baku, Havana & the like.

N your second point seems contradictory. All Rio seemed to offer is that is was South America's "turn" & the IOC bought it. Before the 2016 reace even started, it wasn't even clear that Rio was going to make the short-list. So by continental rotation, it did seem like that would've been in the U.S.' favor by compared to Spain & Japan.

[Blacksheep]

A bid has to have at least a technical foundation to work on. Otherwise, you risk being tossed-out like Baku, Havana & the like.

N your second point seems contradictory. All Rio seemed to offer is that is was South America's "turn" & the IOC bought it. Before the 2016 reace even started, it wasn't even clear that Rio was going to make the short-list. So by continental rotation, it did seem like that would've been in the U.S.' favor by compared to Spain & Japan.

South America's turn? To have a turn implies that there had previously been a games held in South America. I don't recall hearing of those particular games

Rio offered the possibility of an iconic setting, a lasting legacy for a country of still considerable inequality with major infrastructure improvements, a games held in a major country who had never held the games, but with one of the world's largest economies, and of course holding the games on a brand new continent (but also within the timezones favoured by the North American broadcasters) - as well as a major economy which advertisers would flock to.

A little bit more than it being South America's turn,

What did Chicago offer - that the USA could host the games for a fifth time (04, 32, 84, 96)?

and if Toronto 2024 is ruled out because of Vancouver in 2010, then why should Chicago 2016 have had the games so soon after Salt Lake City 2002?

[FYI]

Let's not split hairs here. Lula always made the references that it was "finally South America's time". N it was also a point of the bid team always

making that argument by constantly dragging that dotted Olympic map with them to all the conferences.

Yeah, Brazil N Rio offered many aspects aside from the South American one. But they also did for 2012 n the IOC didn't bother to look at after the preliminary phase. Plus, the closeness of the 2014 World Cup was viewed as an issue n brought up the question if Brazil could handle both mega sporting events within 2 years. Especially when early on in the 2016 race, Rio was still viewed as mostly an outsider. Hindsight is always 20/20 n it's very easy to say now what you're trying to point out.

[krow]

Because of course all bids are spaced equally.....

I don't see how that means anything.

it's just you-know-who unable to resist showing off useless math trivia.

i hear volume 2 of the book is going to be about how the vast illuminati conspiracy to control the olympic bid race is observable through strings of semi-related numerical coincidences no one cares about. did you know that the olympic flag has five rings, which wikipedia says is also the number of original illuminati members? did you know the illuminati were founded 120 years before the olympics began? 120 years after the 1896 olympics - exactly - is the date of the rio games. omg spooky!

[Gangwon]

[FYI]

and if Toronto 2024 is ruled out because of Vancouver in 2010, then why should Chicago 2016 have had the games so soon after Salt Lake City 2002?

You're honestly comparing a nation that has 1/10 the population of that of the U.S.? N one that is also not that much of a Summer Olympic power as the U.S is? N one that funds most of the IOC's revenue moreso than any other NOC on the planet, & that now is also even going to pay the IOC's admistrative costs? Okay.

N yet the same people who would support a Toronto bid even after a Vancouver 2010, R the same ones that would say that Turin 2006 would've presented a problem for Rome 2020. Go f'n figure.

[Athensfan]

Sheep, it's precisely because South America had never hosted that it was their "turn". Isn't that self-evident?

You're honestly comparing a nation that has 1/10 the population of that of the U.S.? N one that is also not that much of a Summer Olympic power as the U.S is? N one that funds most of the IOC's revenue moreso than any other NOC on the planet, & that now is also even going to pay the IOC's admistrative costs? Okay.

N yet the same people who would support a Toronto bid even after a Vancouver 2010, R the same ones that would say that Turin 2006 would've presented a problem for Rome 2020. Go f'n figure.

Very strong argument.

[Faster]

I think it would depend on the race. Vancouver would probably be more of a hinderance for 2024 (where an American, South African, French etc bid would be around) compared to 2020.

[Shrek201]

it's just you-know-who unable to resist showing off useless math trivia.

i hear volume 2 of the book is going to be about how the vast illuminati conspiracy to control the olympic bid race is observable through strings of semi-related numerical coincidences no one cares about. did you know that the olympic flag has five rings, which wikipedia says is also the number of original illuminati members? did you know the illuminati were founded 120 years before the olympics began? 120 years after the 1896 olympics - exactly - is the date of the rio games. omg spooky!

So silly.

BTW, krow, seriously, you seem so nonchalant, or pretend to be...like why do you even bother to post here? I never really figured that out. And I don't know if you were being facetious or not about I'm really "mad" inside? Oh really? When did I submit to a shrink session with you? And yes, I am mad at some nuts here including trolls who are teachers but with very warped minds...that I am mad about that. And we'll leave it at that.

At this stage of my life, I've accomplished a number of things on my list; I'm where I want to be. Could you say the same for you? And probably after London, I won't be hanging around this site much longer. It's really getting tiring. I got other things happening.

[krow]

And probably after London, I won't be hanging around this site much longer. It's really getting tiring. I got other things happening.

can we hold you to this?

[Shrek201]

Guess.

[CanisMinor]

However the issue of overly restrictive passport and visa policies, more so than any other contender is going to factor into IOC members minds .... do the American govt make a special circumstance for 2024, because if they don't then it will be a struggle against major contenders like Paris.

Overly restrictive? Hmm. Then you have no idea how challenging it is to get a visa for Russia - That didn't stop Sochi. You have no idea how challenging it is to get a Shengen visa for visitors from non-EU countries - that hasn't stopped EU games. You have no idea how utterly complex and confusing the Brazilian visa process is (much less their immigration process and queues, which make Heathrow look like throughly efficient by comparison).

Folks love to espouse this utter codswallop about US visas. It's rubbish. The US system is clea, transparent and relatively inexpensive. Heck, it's one of the few countries that will merrily hand out a 10-year visitor's visa, even if you only come for a few days.

[Blacksheep]

Overly restrictive? Hmm. Then you have no idea how challenging it is to get a visa for Russia - That didn't stop Sochi. You have no idea how challenging it is to get a Shengen visa for visitors from non-EU countries - that hasn't stopped EU games. You have no idea how utterly complex and confusing the Brazilian visa process is (much less their immigration process and queues, which make Heathrow look like throughly efficient by comparison).

Folks love to espouse this utter codswallop about US visas. It's rubbish. The US system is clea, transparent and relatively inexpensive. Heck, it's one of the few countries that will merrily hand out a 10-year visitor's visa, even if you only come for a few days.

You reckon - try getting into the US as a European citizen. Clear and transparent - yes. Cumbersome, bureaucratic and time consuming also Yes.

I don't know how up to date your information is, but the 10years visitor visa doesn't seem to exist .... I can't get one despite regularly travelling to the US, neither can my brother, neither can a couple of my friends ... in fact my employer is going down the route of investing heavily in video conferencing because of the awkwardness of getting into the USA. You need to apply in several days in advance for a visa which makes things very impractical on occasion, it is incredibly difficult to change dates on the visa etc etc

And for your information, it was actually the NEW YORK TIMES, that suggested that the overly restricted passport controls were a possible issue.

p.s. Love your comment re: Heathrow. Try getting through passport control at JFK or LAX as a non-American before you decide to throw stones in glass houses

[Blacksheep]

the ultimate point is one that was raised by Athensfan .... anti-Americanism

The USA is probably as least liked by the world than at any point since 1945. People can bang on about money, but there will always be massive TV rights from the USA going to the IOC because American companies will always want to advertise to a global audience and there is none bigger than the Olympics. The IOC can play NBC, ABC, Fox and CBS off against one others or sell the rights to a third party who will then demand huge one off charges.

Does anyone really believe that US broadcasters / companies will not bid heavily for the rights to televise the games?

And with more and more countries able to host the games, often with guaranteed governmental backing, the USOC has to massively up their game rather than fall back on old platitudes of it being their turn because private companies choose to pay the IOC vast sums of money. With India, South Africa, Indonesia as well as European nations seeing the Olympics as a source of national pride, no governmental support is hugely challenging and difficult to overcome ....

and having offered us the abomination of Atlanta 1996 and the scandal of Salt Lake City 2002, does the USA deserve a games in the near future?

[Athensfan]

So silly.

BTW, krow, seriously, you seem so nonchalant, or pretend to be...like why do you even bother to post here? I never really figured that out. And I don't know if you were being facetious or not about I'm really "mad" inside? Oh really? When did I submit to a shrink session with you? And yes, I am mad at some nuts here including trolls who are teachers but with very warped minds...that I am mad about that. And we'll leave it at that.

At this stage of my life, I've accomplished a number of things on my list; I'm where I want to be. Could you say the same for you? And probably after London, I won't be hanging around this site much longer. It's really getting tiring. I got other things happening.

I'm not cheering your departure, but I'm genuinely glad to hear you have other things happening. There have been times you've seemed QUITE absorbed in Olympic-world.

As for krow, I'll be curious to see his response to your query. I really appreciate his levity. He seems pretty well-informed but rarely dives in too deep (he will sometimes though, pretty judiciously). The humor is a welcome reality check and change of pace.

[Athensfan]

the ultimate point is one that was raised by Athensfan .... anti-Americanism

The USA is probably as least liked by the world than at any point since 1945. People can bang on about money, but there will always be massive TV rights from the USA going to the IOC because American companies will always want to advertise to a global audience and there is none bigger than the Olympics. The IOC can play NBC, ABC, Fox and CBS off against one others or sell the rights to a third party who will then demand huge one off charges.

Does anyone really believe that US broadcasters / companies will not bid heavily for the rights to televise the games?

And with more and more countries able to host the games, often with guaranteed governmental backing, the USOC has to massively up their game rather than fall back on old platitudes of it being their turn because private companies choose to pay the IOC vast sums of money. With India, South Africa, Indonesia as well as European nations seeing the Olympics as a source of national pride, no governmental support is hugely challenging and difficult to overcome ....

and having offered us the abomination of Atlanta 1996 and the scandal of Salt Lake City 2002, does the USA deserve a games in the near future?

Sheep, you pretty clearly have an axe to grind. I'm sorry for whatever experience gave you such a low view of the US.

I actually think the US' image is improving. The low point was 2004-2008, the second Bush term. We're getting out of the Middle East and acting much less like a nation of rogue cowboys -- some thing that really only happened for about four years due to poor choices made by that administration.

In terms of global culture, the world has still chosen to pattern itself after the US more than any other nation. That wouldn't have happened if there wasn't some significant appreciation and value of our country abroad.

As long as viewership holds, yes US broadcasters will pay huge sums. Now the USOC is getting A LOT less sponsorship capital AND is the ONLY country paying for the IOC's administrative costs. Arguably the US has done more to fuel the Olympic brand than any other country -- both financially (sponsorship, broadcasting rights, now administrative costs) and socially than any other country. If the Olympics were not so popular in the US, I doubt they would be so popular abroad. Like Michael Jackson, movie stars and McDonalds, love of the Olympic Games has caught on globally at least in part because of American popularity and American marketing of the Games.

This will all continue for a bit, but it will not last indefinitely without American Games. By the time 2020 rolls around, I think American audiences and sponsors will be getting restless and losing interest. Yes, there's a great big world out there and many other countries with wealth of their own. However, if US involvement starts to noticeably decline, it WILL have a negative impact on the Olympic movement.

It is in the IOC's best interests to return to the US in the not-too-distant future. 2024 has always seemed like the earliest possibility to me (2012 and 2016 were both way too soon). I think by 2032 at the latest, however, it would be best to have American Summer Games.

As for Atlanta, they may not have been the best Games, but "abomination"? Really now, that's taking it too far. LA was absolutely superb. Because the Games returned to the US so quickly and because of LA's huge success, I think both the IOC and Atlanta organizers assumed that staging the next American Games would automatically be a sure-fire success. Both parties miscalculated and Atlanta made some errors, but it was hardly an "abomination". All parties have learned from their mistakes.

The US is well aware of the over-the-top Beijing Games as well as Sydney, Athens and London's high standards. The Games have changed a lot since 1996 and will continue to do so in 2016 and 2020. The US is not blind. The next American Games absolutely will not be a repeat of Atlanta. I think everyone agrees on that.

Frankly, SLC was a huge step up from Atlanta. Those Games were beautifully organized and extremely successful. The scandal was embarrassing l-- among other things it wasn't even necessary for SLC to win. It's important to note, however, that this is NOT the first time it happened -- SLC was just dumb enough to get caught. It seems largely understood that there were some shady dealings surrounding Sydney's upset win as well, though they haven't been proved, but that certainly hasn't diminished the quality of Sydney's Games. It shouldn't be held against SLC's Games either. Also, it takes two to tango. If the IOC hadn't been corrupt and ripe for backroom deals, this wouldn't have happened. The scandal will be decades old by the time the next American bid is voted on. It won't ever be repeated and it is time to move on. It is not a reflection on the United States' capacity to stage excellent Olympics.

[Shrek201]

well, why else does he use the handle 'BlackSheep'? Hey BS, two can play the abrasive game as you've found out in our previous entanglement.

As far as your London Games, good luck with those. I could;ve decided to go, but instead I'm going some place exotic and spending my lucre in a new place-Turkey...and that's regardless of their bidding for 2020.

AF, yeah, I am/was passionate about certain things Olympic...at least I'm passionate about certain things. I have no regrets about that and I have something solid to show for it. I don't know about other people (and I'm not referencing you. I'm awaiting the review in the upcoming issue of the Journal of the Int'l Society of Olympic Historians.)

[CanisMinor]

I don't know how up to date your information is, but the 10years visitor visa doesn't seem to exist .... I can't get one despite regularly travelling to the US, neither can my brother, neither can a couple of my friends ... in fact my employer is going down the route of investing heavily in video conferencing because of the awkwardness of getting into the USA. You need to apply in several days in advance for a visa which makes things very impractical on occasion, it is incredibly difficult to change dates on the visa etc etc

Interesting. I'm actually South African by birth (only became a US citizen two years ago). My first visa was an F-1 in 2002: 6 months after 911. It took me all of 3h from walking in the consulate in Johannesburg, to walking out with an F-1 visa. Both my mother and brother received 10-year visas that same year, with as much effort. Recently my mother renewed hers, in Johannesburg, again, at the age of 74 they gave her a 10-year visa, and she didn't even have to go in person.

Now compare that to Europe: In 2010 and 2011 lived in Munich. When one of my family wants to visit, they first have to book an appointment at some EU consulate - normally closest date is about a month out. Then they need to fly to that consulate, in person, at great expense, to submit their passport with a ream of documents. After anything from a week to ten days, they have to return to that consulate to pick up their passport and visa. The visa costs up to 300 EUR. Despite the fact that I was living in Munich with documented proof of sponsorship, the consulate would issue the visa for exactly the number of days of on trip. That means EVERY time they came to visit, they need to go through the entire, time-consuming and expensive process again.

You reckon - try getting into the US as a European citizen. Clear and transparent - yes. Cumbersome, bureaucratic and time consuming also Yes.

European citizens have visa waiver. As an EU citizen you show up and enter. Simply, zero bureaucracy.

p.s. Love your comment re: Heathrow. Try getting through passport control at JFK or LAX as a non-American before you decide to throw stones in glass houses

Let me see: from 2002 to 2004 I traveled multiple times in and out of the US on an F-1 visa. From 2004 to 2006 I traveled on an H1-B visa, multiple times. From 2006 to 2010, I traveled on a green card.

During all these many trips - which run in the 100s - into ORD, IAH, JFK, MIA, HOU, LAX, SFO, ORD, EWR, the longest I EVER waited at immigration was 1h15 at ORD. The reason? The computer systems failed and they had a backlog. Not a single other time have I waited longer than 45min entering the US. Only once have I been called for "additional screening", which took all of 10 minutes, and was on my first trip on the H1-B visa.

Compare that to LHR, where I'll be delighted if I get in, in under 1h. And don't get me started on immigration (and the stupid emigration) in Brazil!

So, Blacksheep, maybe you are that one person, that 0.0001% statistic that gets screwed over. But, based on my experience, which literally runs into the 100s of trips (I travel over 200,000 miles a year) on many visa types coming from a high-risk country, I can confidently say, contrary to your assertions, the US immigration and visa process is among the best in the world.

[Shrek201]

this utter codswallop about US visas. It's rubbish. The US system is clea, transparent and relatively inexpensive. Heck, it's one of the few countries that will merrily hand out a 10-year visitor's visa, even if you only come for a few days.

Luv that word, canis. Yeah, my aunt from Manila easily got a 10-year visa like in 2002.

B-S, it must be your attitude when showing up at the US Embassy, It probably shows. Why should we let such unreliable parties like you into the US? That's why we have circled the wagons.

[Blacksheep]

I have no attitude turning up to get my visas - I am getting paid by my company for my time spent, and the US Government is more than happy to by the equipment made by my manufacturer. But over the last ten years since 2002 the process has become far more long winded.

But personally if I didn't have to travel to the US again, it is a 'pleasure' I won't miss for a nano-second.

As for Heathrow, I have never once been delayed in over 10years of monthy travel in and out of that airport. Compared to LAX where the quickest I have ever gotten through is over a hour.