Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

The thing is George, the next time the USA bids for a games, the bulk of the IOC rank and file may well not vote for its candidate because they think the USA has hosted more than it's fair share. For all the talk that bad relations between the IOC and the USOC were chiefly to blame for scuppering the last few US bids, latent anti-Americanism and fatigue need to be factored in as well. It's something the USA will always have to be aware of and factor into their efforts.

But that said, there's no doubt that the USA has contributed more materially to the Games than anyone else in its history since 1896. And it's a huge country, with far more viable potential host cities than anywhere else, and a lot of regional variations within that large roster of potentials. They also hold enormous sway in the Games' organisation – it's the only country that can really dictate scheduling of events at “offshore” Games, for example, to suit its domestic TV viewing audience. It's totally understandable to expect them to host more than others. And it probably isn't wise for the IOC to ignore them for too long – the Olympics need the USA more than the USA needs the Olympics.

I agree with every word. Well put.

The anti-Americanism and USA overkill are real phenomena and can't be ignored. The USA's importance to the Olympic movement is real too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with every word. Well put.

The anti-Americanism and USA overkill are real phenomena and can't be ignored. The USA's importance to the Olympic movement is real too.

And it's not like the USOC owes anyone an apology for that. As much as we can say that 2012 and 2016 were not the right time for the United States, neither was 1996. Atlanta was a longshot bid that won because they came up against weak competition and scored an upset win. So you can't really hold it against the USOC that they've hosted as much as they have. It goes without saying they've contributed move to the Olympic movement than any other country. It also goes without saying that there are some out there would probably never need to see another Olympics here again and won't care so long as the money keeps flowing. Like Sir Rols said and I've said the same thing for awhile.. the IOC needs that cash flow they can only get from the United States. And if that well ever started to dry up from a lack of an Olympics held on U.S. soil, just watch how quickly the IOC will jump at the chance to come back here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the IOC could go with a really devious tactic - award the Olympic Games to another North American competitor, say Toronto. No timezone problem, next door to the United States - NBC couldn't complain at all, and any anti-American IOC members would not have to vote for a US city. So yeah, whilst the United States has certainly done its fair share for the Olympic Movement, it's not the only name in town, as far as North America is concerned. So, if Toronto does indeed get off its backside after the Pan-American Games (and hosts them successfully, obviously) and delivers a high-quality bid, a US candidate would not necessarily be a shoo-in...and most certainly not for 2024.

As for American interest in the Games - well, I think the US wants the Olympics as much as the Olympics want the US. Where else could it showcase its sporting prowess and technical excellence? The Pan-Ams? Through a revival of the Goodwill Games? I honestly don't think so. A central event like the Olympics benefits everyone - athletes, the United States, and the Olympic Movement. Dry up the funding, eliminate the Games - and there will be no focal point for the world's attention toward US athletes. Individual events? Certainly. But who has time to pay attention to tennis, football, volleyball, athletics and gymnastics? I'd argue that the last four get their biggest audiences during the Olympics. Ergo, so do US athletes. If the Olympics die, so does much publicity for US athletes beyond North America.

Feel free to contradict me - these are really just my two cents, and not meant personally. Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be very sad if the US ever retreated from the Olympic movement. It would hurt the athletes, but not the country. We have many other sports and we don't NEED the Games per se. Unlike China, the Olympic Games are not something Americans rely on to promote our international reputation. We like to compete, of course, but the goal of competition is sport -- not demonstrating national prowess as you suggested. I love the Olympic Games and would be very sorry to see the US' role diminish, but ultimately I don't think it would harm the US at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any relationship out there, mutual respect and understanding are important. Americans love the Olympics and their country is vast... it's called the United STATES. If the IOC members have an anti-American issue, they should come out and address it in a open and honest manner so the two sides can work on solving the issue and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IOC hasnt anti-american issue, thats why they didnt react when OMEGA admitted that Phelps lost in 2008, so the "dream" of 8 golds is fake. OMEGA also is an IOC sponsor

And be careful this isnt sth George says, this is reality

And what's your point? Are u rewriting history now too?

OK, just read a little more on the subject. Wasn't aware of it. From this report...

http://www.nbcolympi...in-beijing.html

it appears that Cavic just did a pixie dust touch to it whereas Phelps slammed on the timer. And that's what's required for the machine to register.

We asked Hurzeler to explain the 100m butterfly situation from Beijing. Did Cavic actually touch the pad first, whereas Phelps was the first one to exert the required 2.5 kilograms of pressure to depress the pad at two millimeters, thereby stopping his clock?

“Cavic, he did a press conference in Rome for the World Championships. And he said, ‘I was first on the plate, but Phelps was pushing before me,’” Hurzeler said. “No, he did the biggest mistake of his life. He was ahead, he put his head up and he was waiting for the pad to come to him. Phelps he did a second stroke and with the stroke he was just touching the wall and he was ahead.”

And what 'dream'? Sorry, George, but the IOC records show that Phelps took in 8 gold medals in Beijing. Anyway, George, with a total of 19 Olympic medals, I'm sure Phelps wouldn't care less if it's another gold or silver? He just keeps them all in a sock drawer.

If it bothers you, as is the naming of the Olympic Games, why don't you call Dr. Rogge and raise these issues with him? Maybe he will give you better answers than from the other posters here? Their number is listed.

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

i am simply telling the TRUTH. Since its no matter to re-write history then why your basketball players from 1972 final still refuse to accept their silvers medal?

You must learn to loose and win fairly, not win at all costs because you are superpower

Both situations are a MATTER OF CONTROVERSY. I dunno....why did the IOC order the ISU to award another pair of gold medals to Pelletier and Sale in Salt Lake City after the judges had awarded the gold to the Russians? :blink:

You DON'T have to accept the medals if you DON'T want them. The IOC takes them back and you can SEND them back as well if you don't want them. The 1972 basketball final was concluded in a total chaotic state. I ask you to render a fair reading to that -- except your BIAS shows all over.

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

i am simply telling the TRUTH. Since its no matter to re-write history then why your basketball players from 1972 final still refuse to accept their silvers medal?

You must learn to loose and win fairly, not win at all costs because you are superpower

Except they didn't lose fairly. The officials not once, but twice botched the end of that game, so the Soviets should not have won the game (speaking of a country who is a suerpower). They did and history reflects that. But Phelps/Cavic is not the same. It is easily explainable why Phelps won that race and why Cavic lost. Has nothing to do with the fact it was Phelps or that he was going for 8 golds or any nonsense like that and if you think otherwise, then yes, your bias is clearly showing. Saying that Cavic actually won that race would be like a golfer hitting a ball directly over the hole and saying it should count because the laws of gravity say the ball went in the hole. Doesn't work that way. The is absolutely no "truth" that Cavic beat Phelps in that race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying that Cavic actually won that race would be like a golfer hitting a ball directly over the hole and saying it should count because the laws of gravity say the ball went in the hole. Doesn't work that way. The is absolutely no "truth" that Cavic beat Phelps in that race.

Saying that a national team won the US professionals would be like violating natural law of gravity, before some years. But has happened a lot of times. Remember Indianapolis FIBA WC.

If someone beats Phelps means that this is supernatural? are you serious man? Chad le clos overcame Phelps to win the gold medal in Phelps' best swimming event, 200m fly. According to you this never happened. What are you telling me that some of your athletes are like superman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying that a national team won the US professionals would be like violating natural law of gravity, before some years. But has happened a lot of times. Remember Indianapolis FIBA WC.

If someone beats Phelps means that this is supernatural? are you serious man? Chad le clos overcame Phelps to win the gold medal in Phelps' best swimming event, 200m fly. According to you this never happened. What are you telling me that some of your athletes are like superman?

George, you're out of your mind. Who made a claim even close to that? You were the one who said that Omega admitted Phelps lost in 2008 which isn't true in any way shape or form. No one ever said Phelps is unbeatable.. but he didn't lose a final in 2008 and neither Omega, FINA, the IOC, or the guy that he beat see it otherwise. The Soviets won the gold medal game in 1972. They shouldn't have, but they did. Just like Phelps won the race in 2008. Which he did. Indisputably. That doesn't prove or disprove anti-American sentiment within the IOC so I don't know why you had to bring it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come now, George, this is blatant anti-Americanism.

Of course Phelps is capable of losing. He's not superman. Like him, our country is strong, but fallible. The image and identity of the USA does not rise and fall with his success, however.

The rest of the world has accepted Phelps victory in that race. There is no case pending in the Court of Arbitration for Sport. It's not even under review. The only person who's worried about it is you.

Even if by some miracle the medal were removed, so what? Only 7 golds in Beijing -- just tying Spitz. Poor Phelpsy. Should we hang our heads in shame? He would still have 22 career Olympic medals. Is this cause for concern?

And if the IOC is so easily swayed by American interests, if they are willing to hand out undeserved gold medals left and right, then why would they boot out Chicago in the first round?

None of this adds up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. This is true. So did Alberto Contador. So did Alexandre Vinokurov. So did Yuan Yuan and about 40 other Chinese swimmers. So did Marion Jones. So did Ben Johnson. So did Nadzeja Ostapchuck.

In every case it is very sad and deeply disappointing.

How does this relate to the USA bidding for the 2024 Summer Olympics?

To me, the best news is that the US Doping Agency is telling the truth and trying to stop the abuse. They don't cover it up like some other governments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it's not like the USOC owes anyone an apology for that. As much as we can say that 2012 and 2016 were not the right time for the United States, neither was 1996. Atlanta was a longshot bid that won because they came up against weak competition and scored an upset win.

One of the best technical bids, a city pushing a 100th anniversary and a city considered the sports capital of the world are not weak competition. Atlanta`s weak bid won due to the influence of American sponsors such as Coca-Cola, hence the most commercialized games of recent memory. I don`t think an American city will win like that again, hence the need to bid with a NY, Chicago etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the best technical bids, a city pushing a 100th anniversary and a city considered the sports capital of the world are not weak competition. Atlanta`s weak bid won due to the influence of American sponsors such as Coca-Cola, hence the most commercialized games of recent memory. I don`t think an American city will win like that again, hence the need to bid with a NY, Chicago etc.

So, nothing about the fact that Canada had only hosted a summer games 20 years before (13 before the vote) and a winter games 8 years before (one year before the vote) or that Melbourne was looking to be a repeat host had any bearing on it?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, nothing about the fact that Canada had only hosted a summer games 20 years before (13 before the vote) and a winter games 8 years before (one year before the vote) or that Melbourne was looking to be a repeat host had any bearing on it?

Doesn't mean the bid was "weak"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the best technical bids, a city pushing a 100th anniversary and a city considered the sports capital of the world are not weak competition. Atlanta`s weak bid won due to the influence of American sponsors such as Coca-Cola, hence the most commercialized games of recent memory.

U're starting to think like George, Int. Atlanta happens to be the home of Coca-Cola but if you will read the true inside accounts -- and I've mentioned some of it here -- of how Atlanta won the bid; Coca-Cola was really just a small factor in it. Dick Yarborough's book (he was the chief press officer of ACOG) "...And They Call Them the Games" states that Billy Payne & his group had difficulty even approaching Coca-Cola. And Coke was faced with a quandary because it would then face the very suspicions and accusations that you are now making. To deal with that problem, Coke formulated a policy whereby they gave (if I recall correctly) either (a) the same amount of seed money to all of the finalist cities where they had a bottling franchise; or b. a percentage of the business proportionate to what their local franchise was making in the country where the finalist bids came from. They precisely did NOT want to seem to favor Atlanta (even though of course, I am sure they were secretly glad); but they did not initiate the moves to bring the Olympics to their front door. It was a small town lawyer named Billy Payne.

THe over-commercialization was the City of Atlanta's fault. They happened to sign a street fair promoter who oversold permits to the booths in the street fair. And if I recall again, because the contract did NOt strictly limit his activities, they could NOT reign him in because they would've been open for a suit. But you know what? The world did NOT end with that nor those ridiculous charges of Coca-Cola buying 1996. The iOC still got their money nonetheless; and please get your facts right.

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

One of the best technical bids, a city pushing a 100th anniversary and a city considered the sports capital of the world are not weak competition. Atlanta`s weak bid won due to the influence of American sponsors such as Coca-Cola, hence the most commercialized games of recent memory. I don`t think an American city will win like that again, hence the need to bid with a NY, Chicago etc.

If the competition was so good, then why did all of those cities lose to a weak bid. That's why I said "weak competition" and not "weak bids" Rols and baron laid it out pretty well, but all of those other bids had negatives against them, either timing issues, location issues, or a lack of preparedness in the case of "a city pushing a 100th anniversary." The way we talk now about how the USOC would never get 2 Olympics close together makes you wonder for a sec how Atlanta got 1996. Again, drop a London 2012 or some other strong contender into that race and see what would have happened, who knows. Either way though, Atlanta's win was a matter of circumstance and not, as you said, them having a strong bid.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the competition was so good, then why did all of those cities lose to a weak bid. That's why I said "weak competition" and not "weak bids" Rols and baron laid it out pretty well, but all of those other bids had negatives against them, either timing issues, location issues, or a lack of preparedness in the case of "a city pushing a 100th anniversary." The way we talk now about how the USOC would never get 2 Olympics close together makes you wonder for a sec how Atlanta got 1996. Again, drop a London 2012 or some other strong contender into that race and see what would have happened, who knows. Either way though, Atlanta's win was a matter of circumstance and not, as you said, them having a strong bid.

Thanks for clearing that up... I seem to misinterpret a lot lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for clearing that up... I seem to misinterpret a lot lol

No worries, I think we all do that a little here. Getting back on topic though..

Well, the IOC could go with a really devious tactic - award the Olympic Games to another North American competitor, say Toronto. No timezone problem, next door to the United States - NBC couldn't complain at all, and any anti-American IOC members would not have to vote for a US city. So yeah, whilst the United States has certainly done its fair share for the Olympic Movement, it's not the only name in town, as far as North America is concerned. So, if Toronto does indeed get off its backside after the Pan-American Games (and hosts them successfully, obviously) and delivers a high-quality bid, a US candidate would not necessarily be a shoo-in...and most certainly not for 2024.

As for American interest in the Games - well, I think the US wants the Olympics as much as the Olympics want the US. Where else could it showcase its sporting prowess and technical excellence? The Pan-Ams? Through a revival of the Goodwill Games? I honestly don't think so. A central event like the Olympics benefits everyone - athletes, the United States, and the Olympic Movement. Dry up the funding, eliminate the Games - and there will be no focal point for the world's attention toward US athletes. Individual events? Certainly. But who has time to pay attention to tennis, football, volleyball, athletics and gymnastics? I'd argue that the last four get their biggest audiences during the Olympics. Ergo, so do US athletes. If the Olympics die, so does much publicity for US athletes beyond North America.

I think the Olympics do need the United States more than the United States needs the Olympics. We have a very full sports calendar, so for all the big TV ratings that the Olympics draw, it seems like there are a lot of people out there that wouldn't notice if they didn't come around once every other year. As for international recognition, keep in mind.. the best baseball league in the world, the best basketball league, and the best hokey league all reside in the United States. Not to mention the best golfer. So you still have other countries taking note of what's going on in the United States. LeBron James is still going to get talked about in countries like Spain and Argentina and China where basketball is big. So even if there was no Olympics, I think there would still be plenty of foreign interest in United States athletes, just not necessarily in Olympic sports.

The thing about a U.S.-hosted Olympics is that the burden is more on the city than the country (unlike most, if not all other Olympic bids). So that's a big undertaking for even a major city like a New York or a Chicago or a Los Angeles which is why they're in a different position than a London or Beijing, cities where their country will give them stronger backing. And it's different with Toronto where they're really the only city that's being considered for a Summer Olympics in Canada, so more resources can be focused on them.

And about the money.. like I said earlier, I think the IOC would beg to come back here if that well of money from the United States ever dried up. But that you mentioned NBC, the problem with them is that they bid a huge sum of money for the 2014 through 2020 Olympics only knowing the location of 2 Olympics when they bid and with little chance of a North American-hosted Olympics. Which is to say they value the Olympics even when it's not hosted in the United States. So that U.S. television money is guaranteed to be there through 2020. What happens after that remains to be seen. If NBC and other TOP sponsors felt their interests could be better served by having an Olympics in the United States as opposed to elsewhere, I think it could sway some of the IOC voters.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No worries, I think we all do that a little here. Getting back on topic though..

the best hokey league all reside in the United States.

Sorry, I couldn't resist wondering what "hokey" league you were talking about!

:P;)

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...