Jump to content

Recommended Posts

For 2024 we are not a month before the deadline. We are four years away. I do have a problem with the belief that an absence of publicity four years before the race even begins means that the gears aren't in motion in qualified cities.

Yes, Chicago would be my choice, but I would also be happy to see LA or NYC

How can you say with any degree of certainty that no Alpha cities have said to the USOC that they are serious about 2024? Why do you expect that all their private communications would be made public? We get partial information on Gamesbids only. Unless you are in the USOC you have no way of knowing what conversations are or are not taking place. Nor do I.

Timing is an issue as well. How many posters have questioned the wisdom of repeat bids from Madrid and Istanbul over the years? As for PC, they showed remarkable determination, but it is unreasonable to use them as a precedent and say that a city should spend 300 million on three consecutive bids before having a legitimate chance to host.

Chicago is sitting out 2020. That doesn't mean they won't enter 2024. It doesn't mean NYC or LA will sit out the race either. We don't know one way or the other. We have to wait and see rather than jumping to conclusions.

And yet all of that still doesn't address Denver nor Reno. Because yet again, they ARE soliciting the USOC as we type about a 2022 bid. And that would of course ANY 2024 bid.

Yeah, some posters do question Madrid's & Istanbul's wisdom on repeat bids. But just like this issue, others take side that they could take it all the way, regardless. And whether you think Paris is not a fair assessment, they're still sitting out an Olympic race with yet a less than 'brutal' defeat than Chicago did. Go figure. Your assertions are just as "unreasonble" as anybody else's, if according to you, "we don't have enough information to draw any definite conclusions".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

if everyone in this thread just agrees to agree with you will you please stop? i'm not sure how many more pages of you posting the exact same post on the damn bus drivers getting lost we can take. i

Why do you like to repeat yourself multiple times? Its very annoying.

In sum....

Thank you so MUCH, Quaker. And yet Athensfan accuses others of twisting his words.

Again, I've always acknowledged that out of the Alpha cities that L.A. was the most LIKELY to come out with a 2024 bid. And that New York & Chicago would be UNLIKELY. Do those words translate to "never, nunca or not a million years"? No, they don't.

And OMFG. We're at this endless discussion all over again thanks to fricken Minneapolis that started this. Thanks again, Kentucky guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand the intensity here.

You're entitled to any opinion you like. Never once disputed that. There's no attack here, so I don't understand the defensiveness.

When somebody says the USOC can choose between Tulsa and Vegas for 2024 that seems like a very strong implication to me. If I misunderstood, feel free to clarify.

I think you'll see if you look at my posts that I agree 2022 must be resolved one way or another.

Considering the circumstances I don't think it's reasonable to suggest Chicago is a quitter until Rahm Emanuel says the city's finished with the Olympics for good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, I'm glad to hear you're talking about probability. Some of your posts did sound pretty definitive, hence my response. My apologies if I misread you.

Quaker, I know you're a champion of "we don't know yet" and I'm right there with you. I'm perplexed by some of your responses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quaker, I know you're a champion of "we don't know yet" and I'm right there with you. I'm perplexed by some of your responses.

See for me, that's implied. When I say something like I don't expect New York to bid, I'm not saying that with any great deal of certainty. And that's now, things can change a lot as we know. Heck, 2 days ago I thought we were headed for a Yankees-Phillies World Series, how'd that turn out. Even still, go back and read FYI's post (#303) again. He said "The USOC may not even bid anyway, with the lack of Alpha compelling candidates." You interpreted that as "I really don't understand why people are convinced there won't be any viable candidates for 2024." I don't get how you got that from the original post, so can you blame others for getting defensive?

Considering the circumstances I don't think it's reasonable to suggest Chicago is a quitter until Rahm Emanuel says the city's finished with the Olympics for good.

See, now that's 2020 all over again right there. You didn't want to rule out a USOC bid until they came out and stated it and even went so far as to say "hmm, well why did they submit WADA paperwork then" There comes a point where it's reasonable to suggest something like that without an outright confirmation. Obviously we're way too far out from 2015 (or whatever timeline the USOC sets) to make that declaration now, but just like with 2020, it could be the case that we're 99% sure about something and state it as such. If you want to explore that 1%, do it to your heart's content. But for me personally, not speaking for anyone else here, if I'm saying I don't expect New York to bid, that means A) that's what I think now and that's subject to change and B) it certainly doesn't mean I'm ruling it out as a possibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's beyond me how anyone can say as of now that there's only a 1% chance of Chicago bidding again. If that's your opinion, fine. But don't be surprised when others say that you're acting like it's a fact. It's not as if you're really allowing any margin for error at all when you say "1%".

I'll say it again, there's not enough data.

I also stand behind my posts for 2020. It wasn't just WADA either. It was also quotes from Blackmun. It wasn't some vain hope on my part either because I've said for years that I thought the US should sit out 2020. The lack of a 2020 bid proves nothing about the level of interest or preparedness on the part of the cities. All we know for a fact is that it is the result of a failure to reach a revenue sharing agreement. Everything else is pure guesswork.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's beyond me how anyone can say as of now that there's only a 1% chance of Chicago bidding again. If that's your opinion, fine. But don't be surprised when others say that you're acting like it's a fact. It's not as if you're really allowing any margin for error at all when you say "1%".

I'll say it again, there's not enough data.

1% isn't a statement of fact. It can't possibly be. Saying something there is a 0% chance or a 100% chance is making a statement of fact (and some people have done this, which I find a little ridiculous at times). If you want to jump on that, and I've already done it myself, be my guest. 1% is no different from 99%.. it's basically saying I'm not convinced either way that a thing is happening or not happening. But when someone says "I don't think this is going to happen," your response to that person shouldn't be "why are you convinced this can't happen." 1% is not 0% and like you said, we're all entitled to our opinion and more often than not, we'll be happy to explain why. It'd be like having a horse race and a horse goes off with 20-1 odds and you saying "I don't understand why you're convinced that horse won't win." If I say (not if, I've pretty much implied this already) there's little chance of New York bidding for 2024, there's no "fact" in that. It's all opinion, so don't you be surprised when I or whoever else gets pissed off when your response to me is "how are you so convinced?" That's not conviction, that's speculation, and I can't speak for anyone else here, but I like to think I'm pretty clear between what's a guess and when I believe something fully backed by evidence and other information.

ETA: If someone wants to make a statement like "there's only a 1% chance of Chicago bidding" based solely on intuition and a personal gut feeling and in the absence of any information with which to come to an opinion, I don't see anything wrong with that. 1% is a world of difference from 0%.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt that had the USOC & IOC reached a revenue deal before the 2020 deadline, that we would've still seen a bid from New York or Chicago. And what Blackman quotes are you talking about. He always seemed vague & never really said anything that was substantial or confirming.

And even without a revenue deal, the fact that the USOC submitted the WADA papers seem to suggest that the USOC, like you, was holding out for that "miracle" bid to appear outta thin air. And the USOC then thinking that a revenue deal would've/could've been reached long before the 2020 vote in Buenos Aires in 2013. The lack of a revenue deal doesn't prove anything as "fact" that anyone would've been interested regardless. That's just the USOC's spin for whatever their reasons. They don't speak for the cities when the cities have nothing on the table.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt that had the USOC & IOC reached a revenue deal before the 2020 deadline, that we would've still seen a bid from New York or Chicago. And what Blackman quotes are you talking about. He always seemed vague & never really said anything that was substantial or confirming.

And even without a revenue deal, the fact that the USOC submitted the WADA papers seem to suggest that the USOC, like you, was holding out for that "miracle" bid to appear outta thin air. And the USOC then thinking that a revenue deal would've/could've been reached long before the 2020 vote in Buenos Aires in 2013. The lack of a revenue deal doesn't prove anything as "fact" that anyone would've been interested regardless. That's just the USOC's spin for whatever their reasons. They don't speak for the cities when the cities have nothing on the table.

I was gonna say the same thing.. the lack of a revenue deal probably hurt if not killed any shot at a USOC bid for 2020, but I wouldn't call that a fact given what we know about interested cities. I've said this before: it takes two to tango. I don't think there was ever the level of a partnership between a city and the USOC that could have resulted in a bid. Was the revenue deal a contributing factor? It probably was. But I'd still argue that the fact the USOC didn't conduct a domestic bid process speaks pretty strongly towards the theory they we were never likely to see bid.

(And Athens.. there isn't a single "fact" anywhere in that paragraph. It's all opinion, prefaced by "probably" and "I don't think" and "theory." So if you're going to look for unfounded conclusions in that post, you can bet I'm going to get defensive in response)

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. 1% margin of error isn't exactly open minded. Yeah it's better than zero, but it's not enough to have a real dialogue. No one would regard someone with 99% certainty as a person who was open to different perspectives.

2. My post was about the LACK of facts, so of course there weren't facts in that paragraph.

3. It is a known fact that lack of a revenue deal played a key role in killing 2020. Any other possible reasons for not mounting a 2020 bid are pure conjecture and can't be proved or disproved.

4. Blackmun did talk about keeping options open in multiple news stories. It's precisely because he was so vague that one couldn't say for certain what was going on behind closed doors.

5. If there's only a 1% chance of a US bid, it's probably not worth wasting time on this thread. Personally, I think 2024 is a legitimate option and I will continue to imaginatively explore the possibilities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad the US didn't bid for 2020. I agree with FYI that the chances were slim even with a revenue deal. Based on the various news stories, however, I stll think that up until a few weeks before the deadline it was reasonable to think there was a possibility that the US might bid.

As for 2024 it's a different ballgame and there just isn't much data to work with yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. 1% margin of error isn't exactly open minded. Yeah it's better than zero, but it's not enough to have a real dialogue. No one would regard someone with 99% certainty as a person who was open to different perspectives.

That's just it, Athens.. you see a declaration like that and don't even give that person a chance. It's like you'd rather jump on them for having such a strong opinion than actually bothering to debate with them. 1% isn't about being closed-minded, it's about having a strong opinion (and one that with something like this can change over time.. how about when some unknown named Barack Obama announced his candidacy for president, what kind of odds did people give him then). If you think someone is being that strong-willed, how about offering your counter argument? How about you try and create some dialogue with that person and debate with him rather than passing judgment that he's closed-minded and unwilling to listen to other arguments. Closed-minded and having a strong opinion are not necessarily 1 in the same.

5. If there's only a 1% chance of a US bid, it's probably not worth wasting time on this thread. Personally, I think 2024 is a legitimate option and I will continue to imaginatively explore the possibilities.

Really? That's about as much of a chance as there was for 2020 and we "wasted" a lot of time on that thread, didn't we. It became apparently after awhile that a 2020 bid from the USOC was highly unlikely (not impossible, but unlikely). But then seemingly every time someone said "I don't think it's going to happen," your response was something like "there's still a chance, how can you say it won't happen." Or as you put it, "it was reasonable to think there was a possibility." You're right there was a possibility, but an extremely small one. Again, not to harp on the said comment, but FYI said earlier about 2024 "the USOC may not bid" and you ran with that as if he was saying "the USOC isn't bidding." If you want to explore 2024 possibilities, I'm happy to have that discussion with you. But if I have an opinion on something (i.e. New York probably won't bid), even if it's based on a gut instinct and nothing else, don't tell me it's a waste of time that if I think I'm 99% sure, because again, that's a world of difference with the guy who's saying "I'm 100% sure" because that is implying it's a fact.

6. Quaker, if you're 99% convinced, that's fine. You're entitled. But don't expect me to regard you as open-minded when you've left a whopping 1% to consider my views.

Well then debate with me and convince me otherwise. My views don't need to leave room for your opinion. But that's why this is a discussion forum. We discuss. I can't speak for anyone else here, but I'm happy to hear views from others. But don't take it personally if I don't agree with you, whether you're the guy saying you think the US will bid for 2024 or it's the other guy who says Tulsa could legitimately host the Olympics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quaker, my posts are about 2024 - not about you. It's not my job or my goal to convince you of anything.

Alright, we've hijacked this thread long enough, so this is (hopefully) my last thought on this...

We're all sharing our views and opinions on the topic at hand. Sometimes people come up with theories that, to someone else, seem completely out of left field and may or may not have any legitimate basis behind them. That's fine. And if you want to debate that person and discuss her/his viewpoint because you disagree with them, that's fine too. And if you want to call that person out for coming to what you believe is a misguided or baseless conclusion and want to express that, go right ahead. But if you're going to do that (and you know have plenty of times before, including recently in this thread), then you are most definitely giving commentary on that person not the topic, so don't be surprised if that person gets defensive to your response. If you want to offer a counter-argument or some sort of differing opinion, go right ahead, but you can't leave it at "it's beyond me how anyone could say that" just because you disagree, especially when you have a habit of trying to turn people's opinions into hard-line conclusions on their part. You're right it's not your job to convince anyone of anything, but again, if you're going to get so worked up over someone offering an opinion, then don't tell that person he's/she's "not allowing any margin for error" or "how can you say with any degree of certainty" as if you ARE taking it upon yourself to try and shape other people's opinions.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Chicagoan who was on the 2016 Committee, I am going to take a stand here (unlike the pages of waffle from the fence-sitter(s) that say "well I said there is a possibility" right after saying "well I said there might not be a possibility).

Chicago will not bid for 2024. This is not inside info or anything. It is simply pure logic:

1) The decision day is for 2024 is less than 6 years away

2) There is currently NO organized program running (by 2003 we were already working on Chicago 2016 because we wanted to be ready in case the USOC lost the 2012 vote)

3) Rahm Emmanuel and the city of Chicago have given zero indication of any interest

4) Patrick Ryan, the driving force behind 2016, is not going to start up a 2024 campaign - and I know of no other serious businessperson or group looking at this

5) Public support for a SOG - which was always one of the weak points in Chicago 2016 - is today FAR lower than in 2009 (based on work commissioned in the past 3 months by the consulting company that advised Chicago 2016)

6) Due to a lot of well-executed spin-doctoring by the anti-games groups, many Chicagoans thought they may be on the hook for some of the cost of the games. Following the turnout of 2016, they think (incorrectly) they had to foot the bill for the USD80m bid. This is not helping to change (5) at all....

Now, in a note to the fence-sitter(s): Can we see a Chicago 2024? Sure, just like we saw Vegas 2020 some crackpots may jump out with a half-a**ed bid. Will we see a formal 2024 bid from Chicago? No way. And you can book mark this - I stand by my words (those who followed me on the FIFA 2010 thread against "Michelle" know that I don't prevaricate, and that my logic is usually sound and correct).

Link to post
Share on other sites

/\ U sound very credible, Canis...but I doubt that will stop the "...maybe-here-today...maybe not-tomorrow...but-then-again-may-be-there-the-following-day..." party. He is just so secretly convinced that Chicago will re-enter the fray at some totally unexpected moment that he stops short of holding his breath until he turns blue in the face and/or clicking his ruby-red slippers 3x, for it to happen. :lol:

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

I doubt that will stop the "...maybe-here-today...maybe not-tomorrow...but-then-again-may-be-there-the-following-day..." party. He is just so secretly convinced that Chicago will re-enter the fray at some totally unexpected moment that he stops short of holding his breath until he turns blue in the face and/or clicking his ruby-red slippers 3x, for it to happen. :lol:

Baron, my post is not directed at Athens (who I believe is a core member that makes many valuable contributions to this board) or any one person directly; please don't position it as such :-).

My perspective is that many folks attempt to criticize those with strong views and equally strong supporting logic, through wishy arguments on "it could happen, or maybe it could not...". I encountered this from a different coalition of posters when I laid out my view on why the US won't get a SOG until the 40s. I don't mind if someone has a different opinion, but back it up and convince me with logic; don't tell me my opinion is wrong because "no one can know...".

This forum, in my opinion, is for debate, and learning from strong arguments, not moving everyone to an opinion-less common denominator.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My perspective is that many folks attempt to criticize those with strong views and equally strong supporting logic, through wishy arguments on "it could happen, or maybe it could not...". I encountered this from a different coalition of posters when I laid out my view on why the US won't get a SOG until the 40s. I don't mind if someone has a different opinion, but back it up and convince me with logic; don't tell me my opinion is wrong because "no one can know...".

This forum, in my opinion, is for debate, and learning from strong arguments, not moving everyone to an opinion-less common denominator.

Thanks for the assessment on Chicago, Canis. I appreciate it from someone on the ground there and I could make a very similar case as to why New York won't be bidding for 2024 (or anytime soon, for that matter).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Canis,

Thanks a lot for your post.

There's no disputing your logic. It does sound unlikely that Chicago will bid for 2024. The only possibility would be if there were someone working who you weren't aware of. It sounds as though you are well enough connected that the chances of that are slim.

Personally, I'm disappointed because I have so much confidence in Chicago's ability to stage truly phenomenal Games.

As far as "fence-sitting" goes, I think there's a difference between being unwilling or afraid to commit and saying that there isn't enough data yet to take an informed position. Your specifics help with the data. I'm still hopeful, but I recognize it's quite the long-shot.

As for the US not hosting until the 40's. I have always seen the logic behind that. It certainly is one possible scenario, but I hope and pray it doesn't play out that way. If the US gets 2022 or 2026, I think SOGs will almost certainly have to wait 'til the '40s. If the US passes on Winter Games, however, I don't think we would have to wait much longer for Summer Olympics.

Here's a question: IF (this is VERY hypothetical) the USOC were to say, "We're committed to landing Summer Games," would that light a fire in Chicago, NYC or elsewhere?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the US not hosting until the 40's. I have always seen the logic behind that. It certainly is one possible scenario, but I hope and pray it doesn't play out that way. If the US gets 2022 or 2026, I think SOGs will almost certainly have to wait 'til the '40s. If the US passes on Winter Games, however, I don't think we would have to wait much longer for Summer Olympics.

Here's a question: IF (this is VERY hypothetical) the USOC were to say, "We're committed to landing Summer Games," would that light a fire in Chicago, NYC or elsewhere?

I doubt it. In New York's case (I'm guessing Chicago is pretty similar), 2012 felt like a 1-shot deal. Once they lost, especially in light of the stadium debacle, I think the feeling was "well that sucks.. whatever, let's move on, we're not doing this again" and that was it. I don't see some new visionary coming along with a new plan for NYC that they could sell as staying in it until they win it like we've seen before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand your remarks. It's not like Canis has unavailed anything new, that none of here haven't already covered before to no end, for you to now say that "your specifics 'help' with the 'data'. I'm still hopeful, but I 'recognize' it's quite the long-shot". Since a lot of us here, including Soaring (who is also right there on the ground), have said all along that the lack of public opinion & support, the lack of city officials & leaders working or even hinting around for such an endeavor, the huge sting the 2016 loss was to the city, etc, etc, gives us our strong inclination for our well-grounded insights that the chances for another Chicago bid anytime soon are "slim".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...