Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

I never expected any more. The USOC, just having blinked first before the IOC, was still recovering from the two successive losses and the revenue deal, as well, to the IOC. Plus, the change in leadership from Ueberroth to Blackmun, had seemed not a very easy one for the USOC to me. .

Until they go for a Winter bid,I think the USOC should just keep doing what it does best in the Summer Games, take home a lot of hardware (and prevent China from taking the majority haul). But for now, even whether NYC runs or not, this is all just a get-ready-and-see scenario,,,on the odd chance that South Africa still WON'T bid. If they do, I think the USOC will cave in, wisely, I would add.

Agreed

2026 is likely a slam dunk for North America and unless Quebec can work out its mountain issue whoever the US candidate is will likely be the odds on favourite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If China stepped up for 2026 (with Harbin or Jilin City) with a solid bid, it could really blow those 2026 chances for North America out of the water. Why would the IOC jump on Salt Lake: The Sequel when it can have a Chinese Sochi?

My point is that I think no option will be easy for the U.S. in the 2020's - summer or winter.

That said, I have a hunch that after Nanjing, the Chinese will set their sights on 2026. They will take down each major version of the Olympics, and I'd bet not long after a Harbin 2026 Winter Olympics closes, Shanghai will still mounting Olympic bids, and so the cycle starts again. There will be a dozen Chinese Olympics in the first half of the 21st century.

Edited by runningrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If China stepped up for 2026 (with Harbin or Jilin City) with a solid bid, it could really blow those 2026 chances for North America out of the water. Why would the IOC jump on Salt Lake: The Sequel when it can have a Chinese Sochi?

My point is that I think no option will be easy for the U.S. in the 2020's - summer or winter.

China after Pyeongchang 2018 and possibly Tokyo 2020? While North America waits since 1996 for a summer and 2010 for winter?

I think the USA will host a WOG before China does.

Edited by intoronto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

intoronto, on 03 May 2013 - 12:25 AM, said:

China after Pyeongchang 2018 and possibly Tokyo 2020? While North America waits since 1996 for a summer and 2010 for winter?

Yes, it is unprecedented, in terms of what we saw in the 20th century, but with the current state of fiscal responsibility ruling North America - compared to the vast wealth in Asia, and the opening up of many new regions, it is not entirely unimaginable. Either way, a Chinese Winter Olympics in inevitable, and I seriously doubt it will be another 20 years after 2018, like the gap between PC and Nagano.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If China stepped up for 2026 (with Harbin or Jilin City) with a solid bid, it could really blow those 2026 chances for North America out of the water. Why would the IOC jump on Salt Lake: The Sequel when it can have a Chinese Sochi?

My point is that I think no option will be easy for the U.S. in the 2020's - summer or winter.

That said, I have a hunch that after Nanjing, the Chinese will set their sights on 2026. They will take down each major version of the Olympics, and I'd bet not long after a Harbin 2026 Winter Olympics closes, Shanghai will still mounting Olympic bids, and so the cycle starts again. There will be a dozen Chinese Olympics in the first half of the 21st century.

Nah. A Chinese winter bid will have to go thru the same paces as Beijing did. They will have to lose one round first BEFORE being taken seriously. The IOC has to throw the US a bone sooner or later. And remember, the IOC wasn't exactly happy either with their dealings with the CCCP of 2008. And after a Beijing 2008, PC 2018, and a probable Tokyo 2020, 2026 will be TOOOO soon to return to northeast Asia again.

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

What priorities should the IOC "straighten out"?

I'd like to see the focus return to international sporting competition.

I feel like the IOC has turned the Games into a geopolitical tool that gets sold to the highest bidder. It really does seem to be all about which countries have "something to prove" and are willing to pull out all the stops to give the IOC the grand two-week party they want.

The IOC knows that massive infrastructure overhauls are part of the package even if they aren't specifically mentioned in the bid. They consistently choose the most expensive bid.

Frankly, Sochi's 50 billion price tag is obscene to me, but the IOC knew that's what they would get from Sochi and that's what they wanted. It's all about Russia trying to prove how great they are and the IOC loves having the nations of the world pander to them. Sochi is just one example of this. Similar dynamics appear in each race.

I just don't think it's a game the US should play. I'm all for participating in the Games to the fullest, but hosting them? They've been blown way out of proportion and it just doesn't make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now who is misquoting who. I never said it was impossible to keep plans confidential, but by the same token, I still don't understand your logic that it's an advantage for cities to operate that way. And I do remember those posts where I said an intent to bid would become apparent in media coverage. I stand by that statement.. because that's exactly what's happening. Have we not heard "noise" (as you like to put it) from Boston and from Tulsa and a couple of other cities that supposedly want to keep things "confidential"? That's what I've always meant about media coverage. In terms of other cities, we can't be sure who are among the 10 cities interested in the Olympics, but I'd say there's at least some evidence for cities like..

Miami among cities to assess 2024 Olympics interest

and

Charlotte gets letter gauging interest in hosting Summer Olympics

I can understand a situation where someone like Thomas Merino wouldn't want his city to get a mentioned by the USOC. He may want to keep Boston's intentions on bidding confidential, but the goings on of their committee are being followed and reported on. It's not like there's new news to report every day, but when we're talking about cities forming committees and drawing up official resolutions, chances are someone is going to pick up on that. And we're seeing that happen in many major cities. Where we are not seeing it is in New York. And IMO, that does say something rather to just mean nothing. At some point, especially after the Mayoral election in November, it's certainly possible someone in New York will step in and decide to pursue an Olympics on behalf of NYC. But as I've said before, unlike you I would be SHOCKED if we suddenly found out that there was serious Olympic planning going on with New York and that it was so quiet and confidential that we never caught wind of it. To that point..

First of all, it's not MY logic you fail to understand. It's the CITIES' logic you don't comprehend. They feel it is in their best interests to keep their plans confidential for now. I expect this is because they don't want to be confronted by public detractors until they've had time to develop a solid strategy for the Games. I don't think that's too complicated or surprising.

I am not putting words in your mouth at all. I'm on an iPhone at the moment so it would be very difficult to comb through all your lengthy posts, but you have chewed me out repeatedly for being unrealistic, hopelessly optimistic, etc. simply because I argued that some cities could be in private talks with the USOC that don't get reported in the media. That's ALL I have ever argued on this point and you've taken me to task for it many times. You're denying it now because this latest story shows you have been mistaken.

Where NYC is concerned, now you're back-pedaling, splitting hairs by saying New York may yet bid but you'd be "SHOCKED" if there was serious Olympic planning going in that we don't know about. So maybe they're having "non-serious" conversations with the USOC? At what point would a conversation between NYC and the USOC become serious and instantly be reported by media outlets? And how would you ever know if you were correct if a portion of the conversations are confidential? this isn't provable at all.

I don't know if NYC is interested and I don't care. I am, however, delighted to stop reading your posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AthensF, on reading your previous to the last post It just seems to me that the IOC, having the most high-profile sporting brand in the world and history, would WANT the sports played under its aegis, in the most state-of-the-art, glistening halls and stadia that money can buy. I don't see the IOC settling to have their logo and their emblems displayed and hung out on older, smaller, rickety stadia that barely meet standard codes. The IOC links its name, prestige and products with a global image...and therefore would want the most glorious, photogenic settings that money can buy. Leave the older, maybe more historic, smaller venues to the various world championships or the other, smaller mutli-nation meets. Even their IOC Sessions do require hotels and halls of a certain size because they have 204 constituent NOCs and a few hundred press people attending. Not every hotel in the world can provide this. So just a point of comparison in that scale.

And if China chose to spend $44 billion for 2008; and Sochi is spending $50 billion, that is really NOT the IOC's fault. Those are choices made by China and Russia. And who is the IOC to say...oh, you CANNOT spend any more than what you are investing in our Games?? if I were China and Russia, and yes, I have something to prove...I would tell the IOC to go frack themselves!!

This is all an OPTIONAL affair. No one is pushing a China, Russia, or an RSA to dance to the IOC's tune. Rome, your beloved Denver, at least RSA for the time being, have told the IOC to come back another time, Thus, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of other players wanting to come and pay for the IOC's party. It's just how the marketplace works.

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

I feel like the IOC has turned the Games into a geopolitical tool that gets sold to the highest bidder. It really does seem to be all about which countries have "something to prove" and are willing to pull out all the stops to give the IOC the grand two-week party they want.

I just don't think it's a game the US should play. I'm all for participating in the Games to the fullest, but hosting them? They've been blown way out of proportion and it just doesn't make sense.

Isn't that what the countries bidding for them try do to. Trying to turn the Games into a geopolitical tool? I think that you can see as that as far back as Berlin 1936. The Olympic Games have always been a big political event. How can it not be when you virtually have all the nations of the world competing among themselves trying to "prove" something to the world. The bidding process is hardly any different. You were so gung-ho for a U.S. summer games just a few months ago. Would you still feel this way if Chicago decided to run rather than giving a flat-out rejection to another bid. Bcuz that's the only thing that's change here that you were so in favor for not that long ago.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where NYC is concerned, now you're back-pedaling, splitting hairs by saying New York may yet bid but you'd be "SHOCKED" if there was serious Olympic planning going in that we don't know about. So maybe they're having "non-serious" conversations with the USOC? At what point would a conversation between NYC and the USOC become serious and instantly be reported by media outlets? And how would you ever know if you were correct if a portion of the conversations are confidential? this isn't provable at all.

I don't think that Quaker is 'back-pedaling' at all. I distinctly remember him always saying that he would be "shocked" if New York came forward with a bid, bcuz the circumstances surrounding everything didn't seem to favorable for one to emerge. But if you're so bent on simply pointing out of who's wrong & who's right, fine. Perhaps you are right about New York, or maybe not. But then again, at least be able to admit that we were right about Chicago finally saying no when you were always vehemently arguing that "we just didn't know". These boards are about speculation & hypothesis, bot about who's right or wroing all the time, but if that's they way you want to look at it, then that's your business.

What priorities should the IOC "straighten out"?

Exactly, the IOC has more or less, played the same game for many, many decades now. Look at Squaw Valley 1960, for example. A little tiny, nothing ski-resort back then, having to build virtually everything over their more prepared, already established European competitors. Not too much has changed, other than perhaps some people's most preferred Olympic outcome.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, it's not MY logic you fail to understand. It's the CITIES' logic you don't comprehend. They feel it is in their best interests to keep their plans confidential for now. I expect this is because they don't want to be confronted by public detractors until they've had time to develop a solid strategy for the Games. I don't think that's too complicated or surprising.

Be careful to not misconstrue Blackmun's use of the word "confidential." I absolutely agree with the idea that cities wouldn't want to deal the potential backlash of going on the record about bidding for an Olympics. But that's the only part of their planning that could be considered confidential. Again, this is why I brought up Boston.. if they were truly about keeping their plans quiet, you wouldn't have key players on their bid committee talking to the media about what they're doing. Check out this article from just 3 days ago.. Officials Will Discuss Forming Group to Study 2024 Boston Olympic bid

Once again, this is the point I keep trying to make when things get lost in translation between the 2 of us or whoever else is on this forum. Tell me.. what part of that article makes it look like they're trying to keep their plans confidential? (which mentions Blackmun's reluctance to name Boston as well as several of the key players involved in a PUBLIC hearing). What are they trying to hide from the prying eyes of the media instead of keeping the dialogue fairly open with regard to what gets reported? If "confidential" simply means that the USOC won't come out and say they're talking to Boston, even though it's fairly obvious they're following the goings on of this committee, than yes Boston is being "confidential." But if you're arguing that a city like Boston is trying to keep their planning efforts quiet, that doesn't seem to be happening here, nor did I expect it to all the times we've discussed this point before.

I am not putting words in your mouth at all. I'm on an iPhone at the moment so it would be very difficult to comb through all your lengthy posts, but you have chewed me out repeatedly for being unrealistic, hopelessly optimistic, etc. simply because I argued that some cities could be in private talks with the USOC that don't get reported in the media. That's ALL I have ever argued on this point and you've taken me to task for it many times. You're denying it now because this latest story shows you have been mistaken.

Athens, let's be fair here.. you do have a tendency to be hopelessly optimistic. You're kidding yourself if you think that's not true. Your saying that cities "could be in private talks" doesn't make the rest of us wrong simply because we can't prove that to be true. And as I've said before, when you have all these cities where it IS getting reported in the media, then yes, I'm going to make some assumptions about the cities we're hearing nothing from. Where Blackmun has declined to name all the cities they're talking to, we may not know for sure which cities are involved, but for those of us here who follow these things pretty closely, I'd say we have a pretty good idea of who at least some of those cities are. I don't believe I'm mistaken. When you can find the city that is in private talks with the USOC that didn't get reported in the media (and if such a city emerges later, I will happily eat my crow on that one), then I will admit to being wrong. But so far, that hasn't happened yet.

Where NYC is concerned, now you're back-pedaling, splitting hairs by saying New York may yet bid but you'd be "SHOCKED" if there was serious Olympic planning going in that we don't know about. So maybe they're having "non-serious" conversations with the USOC? At what point would a conversation between NYC and the USOC become serious and instantly be reported by media outlets? And how would you ever know if you were correct if a portion of the conversations are confidential? this isn't provable at all.

I don't know if NYC is interested and I don't care. I am, however, delighted to stop reading your posts.

How am I back-pedaling? Blackmun said that he believes New York's involvement in an Olympic bid probably will be heavily affected by the mayoral election in November. So what I'm offering up is that given the right winner in that election, maybe something emerges then. But I think part of the reason we haven't heard anything yet is because everyone who might involve themselves in such a project is in a holding pattern to see what happens in November. That Blackmun mentioned New York means the USOC probably called up someone in NYC and asked if there are any Olympic prospects. And whoever they talked to here either said "we have nothing" or "if we come up with anything, we'll call you back." Contrast that with at least half a dozen other cities which could definitively say something like "we have a committee that's working on it." That we know about all these cities that have something like that, why wouldn't we know about it in New York, the media and sports capital of this country. When would a conversation become serious and get reported? Probably when NYC gave some sort of definitive answer as to whether or not they're interested. That probably hasn't happened yet. When it does, I'm willing to bet we'll find out about it. Can I unequivocally prove my point? Of course not. But just because I can't prove my point does not mean that I'm wrong and you're right.

Like FYI said, we're all about speculation and conjecture here. If you can prove me wrong, again I will eat my crow on that one and you can give me a giant "I told you so." In the meantime, I will continue to offer my speculation just as you can offer yours. If you think I'm wrong about something, please feel free to engage in discussion with me. But don't hold me to the standard where I have to prove myself right in order to make my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never expected any more. The USOC, just having blinked first before the IOC, was still recovering from the two successive losses and the revenue deal, as well, to the IOC. Plus, the change in leadership from Ueberroth to Blackmun, had seemed not a very easy one for the USOC to me. .

Until they go for a Winter bid,I think the USOC should just keep doing what it does best in the Summer Games, take home a lot of hardware (and prevent China from taking the majority haul). But for now, even whether NYC runs or not, this is all just a get-ready-and-see scenario,,,on the odd chance that South Africa still WON'T bid. If they do, I think the USOC will cave in, wisely, I would add.

It's refreshing to see the USOC entering this with a little discretion. They know what they're up against here and it seems like they'll be cautious before putting up a bid simply because they've almost always placed a bid at least 12-16 years out from a previous win. I know you and I differ on what the USOC should do in the face of a South Africa bid, but I agree that there's little harm in preparing a city to bid IF the Blackmun and company decide to put them up, especially if said city understands the USOC may say they don't want to go for it. And if that's the case for the 2024 bid, then we probably get to start this process anew in a couple of years for 2026.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't think it's a game the US should play. I'm all for participating in the Games to the fullest, but hosting them? They've been blown way out of proportion and it just doesn't make sense.

I remember hearing a lot of people offering that attitude towards FIFA when Qatar was picked over the United States for the 2022 World Cup. And as opposed to New York and Chicago losing, the World Cup was an even bigger slap in the face, especially given the growing popularity of soccer in this country. I would hate to think the USOC would have a defeatist attitude in that regard and basically say it's not worth bidding and that competing with these other countries spending their billions of dollars has become too difficult. I agree that the United States doesn't need to host an Olympics at all costs, especially given how hard it is to find themselves the right bid city. Maybe 2024 isn't the right time. But we live in a constantly changing world where economies can rise and fall. The United States may seem down now, but (hopefully) that won't last forever. It's certainly not reason enough to give up on trying to host the Olympics. The IOC hasn't changed that much except that they're trying to open up the Olympics to newer and fancier locales. Yes, some of those cities/countries will spend obscene amounts of money to land an Olympics. Certainly doesn't mean that the USOC can't find an opening somewhere in there, even if we're talking 20-30 years down the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the US really needs is some brand-new spanking Olympic stadium...however convertible ...plus a halfway decent city with some air of "cosmopolitanism," and we got a viable bid. That always seems to be the nucleus of any bid....because even when we discuss an LA bid, we always ask: how will the Coliseum reinvent itself for a 3rd appearance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AthensF, on reading your previous to the last post It just seems to me that the IOC, having the most high-profile sporting brand in the world and history, would WANT the sports played under its aegis, in the most state-of-the-art, glistening halls and stadia that money can buy. I don't see the IOC settling to have their logo and their emblems displayed and hung out on older, smaller, rickety stadia that barely meet standard codes. The IOC links its name, prestige and products with a global image...and therefore would want the most glorious, photogenic settings that money can buy. Leave the older, maybe more historic, smaller venues to the various world championships or the other, smaller mutli-nation meets. Even their IOC Sessions do require hotels and halls of a certain size because they have 204 constituent NOCs and a few hundred press people attending. Not every hotel in the world can provide this. So just a point of comparison in that scale.

And if China chose to spend $44 billion for 2008; and Sochi is spending $50 billion, that is really NOT the IOC's fault. Those are choices made by China and Russia. And who is the IOC to say...oh, you CANNOT spend any more than what you are investing in our Games?? if I were China and Russia, and yes, I have something to prove...I would tell the IOC to go frack themselves!!

This is all an OPTIONAL affair. No one is pushing a China, Russia, or an RSA to dance to the IOC's tune. Rome, your beloved Denver, at least RSA for the time being, have told the IOC to come back another time, Thus, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of other players wanting to come and pay for the IOC's party. It's just how the marketplace works.

Well, that's interesting considering you are pushing Reno!

Seriously, though. This is just another example of your melodramatic polarizing approach.

Either you spend Sochi's 50 billion or the IOC is forced to hang their banner on "rickety stadia"? Please!

The Olympics are the premiere sporting event in the world. They should be played in world-class facilities. No argument there. There's quite a lot of the bid process, however, that goes far beyond world class facilities.

The IOC can do anything they want and they'll reap the consequences-- good, bad or indifferent. I'm just not supportive of the USOC dancing to their tune when it comes to bidding.

You say it's "optional", but the IOC knows full well which cities will exercise that option and which ones won't. It absolutely plays heavily into their voting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what's changed your mind in the last couple of months? Sochi was elected in 2007, Beijing was five years ago, but it's only been in the last few weeks you've been on a downer about the idea of the US bidding. Before that you were one of the biggest cheerleaders for a US Summer effort.

You'd change your mind back again if a really attractive US prospect emerged wouldn't you?

Edited by RobH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI and Quaker, I regard you as the Bobsey twins, consistently backing each other up.

No, I am not ridiculously optimistic. I frequently argue that we shouldn't assume facts not in evidence. Usually you assume the worst and therefore you assume I'm an optimist because I challenge you. I'm simply arguing that you're rushing to judgment and we should wait and see -- not claiming some fairy tale scenario will prevail.

Would a cock-eyed optimist say any of the following:

2012 and 2016 were too soon for the US regardless of the quality of the bid. No American bid was going to win either race.

The US doesn't have a GOOD chance at landing Summer Games until 2028 or 2032. 2024 is not totally hopeless, but it's a big stretch if there's any real competition.

I doubt any American bid can beat a quality offering from Paris or Durban.

All the American Winter candidates have grave flaws that make me question whether they're electable.

I don't like the idea of NYC Olympics.

I'd prefer the US not bid for any Olympics because I don't like the direction the IOC is going.

.....

You guys have created a fantasy persona for me and then you have fun criticizing it. Neither of you will ever "eat crow" as you say, because this last story about cities keeping their conversations confidential was a perfect opportunity to do so and you both refused. You twist words, reinvent history, reinvent me and make pleasant conversation impossible. I'm done reading your posts. Moving on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what's changed your mind in the last couple of months? Sochi was elected in 2007, Beijing was five years ago, but it's only been in the last few weeks you've been on a downer about the idea of the US bidding. Before that you were one of the biggest cheerleaders for a US Summer effort.

You'd change your mind back again if a really attractive US prospect emerged wouldn't you?

That's a totally fair question, Rob. I'm not sure I have a great answer for you.

I guess the cumulative effect of all the bid conversation finally sank in. These feelings have been building for a long time and they finally took over.

The Sochi budget is appalling to me. That had an impact. So did the lopsided revenue deal that makes it look like the USOC is willing to kiss the IOC's feet. Even the way 2020 has unfolded, it's really about the "it" destination. It feels like a popularity contest that is driven by money and the IOC enjoys being in the middle of it and having the nations worship at their feet. Everything swayed by fashion and finance. What a shallow, meaningless game.

The only American city that really excites me as a Summer host is Chicago and, not surprisingly, they're steering clear.

I wouldn't mind seeing the Games in LA again, but realistically I don't see it happening in 2024. I feel I should wave the flag because I live here. I suppose I would root for them, but I still think American interests would be best served by not bidding.

I'd genuinely prefer to wait until the IOC WANTS American Games. I don't believe they do yet and I see no value in pandering to them in an attempt to win them over. Let them play their prodigal power games without us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's interesting considering you are pushing Reno!

Seriously, though. This is just another example of your melodramatic polarizing approach.

Either you spend Sochi's 50 billion or the IOC is forced to hang their banner on "rickety stadia"? Please!

The Olympics are the premiere sporting event in the world. They should be played in world-class facilities. No argument there. There's quite a lot of the bid process, however, that goes far beyond world class facilities.

The IOC can do anything they want and they'll reap the consequences-- good, bad or indifferent. I'm just not supportive of the USOC dancing to their tune when it comes to bidding.

You say it's "optional", but the IOC knows full well which cities will exercise that option and which ones won't. It absolutely plays heavily into their voting.

What has my pushing Reno got to do with that post? If anything, that was one of my more level-headed, calmer posts. I wasn't proselytizing for anything there other than clarifying what the IOC ends up with in their choices. If Reno presents ricket old stadia...which in your mind...and YOU brought in Reno here...to the IOC, then of course they don't deserve it. But I don't think they are promising them rainbows either.

And what was "polarizing" or "melodramatic" about that post? I don't think it was. It's hard to figure out where your mind is. I guess we'll just assume you have a -polar personality. :lol:

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

This just doesn't apply to the States but majority of the Western World.

943795_10151426988757183_295725949_n.jpg

Yet, why do people wait 10 hrs to get a visa and like 10 years to get a Green Card? I don't know of hordes waiting to migrate to Finland, Portugal, Iceland, Spain, Iraq??? Why do Nadia Comenci, Olga Korbut, Surya Bonaly, Sveltana Aleluyeva, Katya Gordeeva, Natalia Mishketunok, Bela Karolyi, heck, even the f*cking Tsarnaev brothers, et all.. end up in the US and not in those other countries?? THis is WHERE IT's HAPPENING, MAN!!

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

Yet, why do people wait 10 hrs to get a Visa and like 10 years to get a Green Card? I don't know of hordes waiting to migrate to Iceland, Portugal, Iraq???

Yea it really makes you wonder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI and Quaker, I regard you as the Bobsey twins, consistently backing each other up.

No, I am not ridiculously optimistic. I frequently argue that we shouldn't assume facts not in evidence. Usually you assume the worst and therefore you assume I'm an optimist because I challenge you. I'm simply arguing that you're rushing to judgment and we should wait and see -- not claiming some fairy tale scenario will prevail.

Would a cock-eyed optimist say any of the following:

2012 and 2016 were too soon for the US regardless of the quality of the bid. No American bid was going to win either race.

The US doesn't have a GOOD chance at landing Summer Games until 2028 or 2032. 2024 is not totally hopeless, but it's a big stretch if there's any real competition.

I doubt any American bid can beat a quality offering from Paris or Durban.

All the American Winter candidates have grave flaws that make me question whether they're electable.

I don't like the idea of NYC Olympics.

I'd prefer the US not bid for any Olympics because I don't like the direction the IOC is going.

.....

You guys have created a fantasy persona for me and then you have fun criticizing it. Neither of you will ever "eat crow" as you say, because this last story about cities keeping their conversations confidential was a perfect opportunity to do so and you both refused. You twist words, reinvent history, reinvent me and make pleasant conversation impossible. I'm done reading your posts. Moving on.

We don't create that persona for you.. you created it for yourself. You're actually perpetuating it nicely with that second paragraph Yea, maybe we do criticize you, but you do the same things you're accusing us of (twisting words, reinventing history, etc.). Then you try and portray myself or FYI or whomever as the bad guys and you're the victim of our unfair attacks. I know a lot of things get lost in translation here and that's where a lot of this dissension comes from, but here's the issue for me..

"Assuming facts not in evidence" is not an argument. That's an objection to someone else's argument. Saying that I'm rushing to judgment is not an argument either. You know what I'm offering is almost always going to be opinion and if you want to call it speculation or conjecture or whatever, that's fine. Everyone else knows this and no one seems to have a problem with it. Yet you constantly take issue with that because you don't want to speculate. That's your problem, not mine. It's not like we haven't gone through this before. Yet it keeps coming back because you want us to discuss the matter at hand on your terms.

And you say I assume the worst.. 2 years ago at this time, almost all of us felt we wouldn't see a 2020 bid from the USOC. That's not assuming the worst.. that's being a realist. Ditto with New York and whatever other cities. If I say I see almost no chance of a bid emerging from New York (which you'll turn around and say I'm dismissing the possibility), is that really assuming the worst? Particularly not that you've turned around and think it would be a bad idea for a US city to bid? New York not bidding is not some fairy tale scenario (again, like you should talk.. you of the several different scenarios how not hearing from a city could still mean a bid is forthcoming). It's a reasonable and plausible outcome that I think will play out. Either way, I don't want to hear the "facts not in evidence" nonsense from you only for you to come back with your own conjecture and telling me we should wait and see. I don't want to wait and see. If you do, good for you. But stop trying to stifle the conversation of those who don't want to wait and see because it got old a long time ago.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What has my pushing Reno got to do with that post? If anything, that was one of my more level-headed, calmer posts. I wasn't proselytizing for anything there other than clarifying what the IOC ends up with in their choices. If Reno presents ricket old stadia...which in your mind...and YOU brought in Reno here...to the IOC, then of course they don't deserve it. But I don't think they are promising them rainbows either.

And what was "polarizing" or "melodramatic" about that post? I don't think it was. It's hard to figure out where your mind is. I guess we'll just assume you have a -polar personality. :lol:

"Rickety venues"? That's Reno to a tee. And contrasting Sochi's 50 billion pricetag with "rickety venues"? That's polarizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet, why do people wait 10 hrs to get a visa and like 10 years to get a Green Card? I don't know of hordes waiting to migrate to Finland, Portugal, Iceland, Spain, Iraq??? Why do Nadia Comenci, Olga Korbut, Surya Bonaly, Sveltana Aleluyeva, Katya Gordeeva, Natalia Mishketunok, Bela Karolyi, heck, even the f*cking Tsarnaev brothers, et all.. end up in the US and not in those other countries?? THis is WHERE IT's HAPPENING, MAN!!

Yea makes you think doesn't it. Its the case in almost all Western countries not just the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...