Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Or maybe, as hard as it is for us Americans to believe, the IOC simply preferred Rio and London to the NYC and Chicago bids offered up. It wasn't anti-US bias, timing, biorhythms or anything other than the best bids won, and they weren't American.

Could have been, but I mean have you been on the internet before? The world is mostly anti-US even our friends and closest allies hate us, the British, Canadians, even Australians all hate us. So, it might have been a nice coincidence that they were the "best" bids but the bottom line was probably more along the lines of we hate those fat, stupid, Americans, combined with the USOC is being "greedy" so we'll show them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If in the 2024 race there's 2 or more European cities short listed then the US would have a greater chance with split votes(?) + a strong US bid to win IOC heart and votes . Btw is t Nice or Annecy bidding for 2022 Winter games? French win would keep em out 2024

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or maybe, as hard as it is for us Americans to believe, the IOC simply preferred Rio and London to the NYC and Chicago bids offered up. It wasn't anti-US bias, timing, biorhythms or anything other than the best bids won, and they weren't American.

Could have been, but I mean have you been on the internet before? The world is mostly anti-US even our friends and closest allies hate us, the British, Canadians, even Australians all hate us. So, it might have been a nice coincidence that they were the "best" bids but the bottom line was probably more along the lines of we hate those fat, stupid, Americans, combined with the USOC is being "greedy" so we'll show them!

I'm with zeke on this one.. too many people want to point to anti-American sentiment and the IOC wanting to stick it to the USOC as the reasons the NYC and Chicago bids failed. Yea there were bad relations between the USOC and IOC. Did that sink a Chicago bid that otherwise should have won? Wouldn't have done much to help New York I'd bet, and that's without the mess of the stadium deal that really sunk them.

I just don't buy into the theory that the IOC had an axe to grind with the United States and that's why Chicago finished last and why New York barely avoided finishing last. They weren't interested New York's or Chicago's bid in that time and place. Why does it need to be more complicated than that?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say that like you think I don't know that is exactly what your position it. Hence why my very next sentence was "let's agree to disagree"

Oh Quaker, come on. It was a joke. You made a typo. You meant to write "realm of the impossible" and instead you wrote "realm of the possible." So I just played along. Re-read the quote in your original post and you'll see. Lighten up.

Um, if you look at history, it's happened very frequently. Your argument has to be "things have changed."

Who knows more about the IOC voters.... posters here, or the NOCs? That's a serious, non-rhetorical questions. Who do you think knows more? The NOC - who are friends with, travel with, talk to and in many cases are IOC voters certainly believe that a WOG and SOC within a short period of time are possible. What do you know that they don't?

Or maybe, as hard as it is for us Americans to believe, the IOC simply preferred Rio and London to the NYC and Chicago bids offered up. It wasn't anti-US bias, timing, biorhythms or anything other than the best bids won, and they weren't American.

Zeke, I think we can all acknowledge that things have changed. It's a different IOC now. I'm talking about voting patterns starting post bribery scandal. There's an obvious shift. If you want to look at '84-'02 as precedent-setting, be my guest, but I think you're in for a shock.

Don't judge the world by what you read on the internet... and certainty don't judge the IOC voters that way. Pretty sure they don't spend their time posting comments.

Are you saying the majority of the international community feels warmly towards the US? Unless you are, the Internet comment is neither here nor there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't buy into the theory that the IOC had an axe to grind with the United States and that's why Chicago finished last and why New York barely avoided finishing last. They weren't interested New York's or Chicago's bid in that time and place. Why does it need to be more complicated than that?

I agree.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or maybe, as hard as it is for us Americans to believe, the IOC simply preferred Rio and London to the NYC and Chicago bids offered up. It wasn't anti-US bias, timing, biorhythms or anything other than the best bids won, and they weren't American.

I don't see why that should be hard to believe, but yes, that was the case. But then again, I think NYC would've done better if it wasn't quite so soon after 96 and if their stadium plan hadn't fallen through, and I think Chicago might have done better if things were rosier between USOC and the IOC and if the voting didn't leave them exposed. But, if you don't win you lose, so "doing a bit better" would still have seen neither winning I guess.

Could have been, but I mean have you been on the internet before? The world is mostly anti-US even our friends and closest allies hate us, the British, Canadians, even Australians all hate us. So, it might have been a nice coincidence that they were the "best" bids but the bottom line was probably more along the lines of we hate those fat, stupid, Americans, combined with the USOC is being "greedy" so we'll show them!

Well, pathetic self-pity aside, I find it funny that you think the internet is a good medium through which to judge the IOC's perspective on things. Yeah, I can just see those Royals and septuagenarians posting "**** YOU USA", "9/11 WAS DONE BY ALIENZ!" under YouTube comments can't you? Especially that technophile amongst the IOC's ranks who struggled to work out which button to press. I bet he spends all day looking at cat videos and reading theories about how we didn't land on the moon. :rolleyes:

Are you saying the majority of the international community feels warmly towards the US? Unless you are, the Internet comment is neither here nor there.

The US is always going to get flack for being a superpower, so won't be as well liked as nice little countries that keep themselves to themselves. But (and I'll try to find the link) a recent global survey suggests the US is viewed more warmly than countries with comparable clout (i.e. Russia and China) and is generally seen as a force for good by most in Europe. Of course it varies massively by country, but GoNutz's weird self-pitying post about "the world hating us" is mostly rubbish.

EDIT: here's the link... http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/07/18/americas-global-image-remains-more-positive-than-chinas/

Edited by RobH
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I posted before, with London doing a bang-up 2012, Tokyo probably putting on an even more high-tech Round 2; possibly Munich or Oslo going for a Winter 2 in '22 -- all this bodes well for an LA 3. They have the historic stadium, that whole new Staples complex, a new Metro, new hotels, etc., etc. All that a new LA bid needs in order to be irresistable is if they can bring some of those sports destined for Long Beach (the rowing, yachtings, etc.) closer to Santa Monica; they'd have an unbeatable package. I wonder what sport can be put in Dodger Stadium because that is a fairly prime location??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying the majority of the international community feels warmly towards the US? Unless you are, the Internet comment is neither here nor there.

Yep. The rest of the world may be annoyed with the arrogance of the US government's foreign policy. But I believe American itself, its people, its pop culture, its wealth are all very desirable throughout much of the world.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't judge the world by what you read on the internet... and certainty don't judge the IOC voters that way. Pretty sure they don't spend their time posting comments.

I don't see why that should be hard to believe, but yes, that was the case. But then again, I think NYC would've done better if it wasn't quite so soon after 96 and if their stadium plan hadn't fallen through, and I think Chicago might have done better if things were rosier between USOC and the IOC and if the voting didn't leave them exposed. But, if you don't win you lose, so "doing a bit better" would still have seen neither winning I guess.

Well, pathetic self-pity aside, I find it funny that you think the internet is a good medium through which to judge the IOC's perspective on things. Yeah, I can just see those Royals and septuagenarians posting "**** YOU USA", "9/11 WAS DONE BY ALIENZ!" under YouTube comments can't you? Especially that technophile amongst the IOC's ranks who struggled to work out which button to press. I bet he spends all day looking at cat videos and reading theories about how we didn't land on the moon. :rolleyes:

The US is always going to get flack for being a superpower, so won't be as well liked as nice little countries that keep themselves to themselves. But (and I'll try to find the link) a recent global survey suggests the US is viewed more warmly than countries with comparable clout (i.e. Russia and China) and is generally seen as a force for good by most in Europe. Of course it varies massively by country, but GoNutz's weird self-pitying post about "the world hating us" is mostly rubbish.

EDIT: here's the link... http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/07/18/americas-global-image-remains-more-positive-than-chinas/

Haha no I don't think the IOC membership is posting comments to YouTube, but there are two ways of viewing it. On one side you have the idea that it's just trivial internet crap and isn't real, just a bunch of attention seeking morons posting things to see if they can make other people angry. On the other hand the cyberspace barrier that protects anonymity allows true feelings to surface because there is no one there to punch you in the face if you're being a jerk, and you can seek out and live in your own community of likeminded individuals, and if this is the case then it's most likely that a majority of the world does really hate the US. I do take to heart the poll results, but I don't think being the least of three bad options is a nice place to be.

I'm not just wallowing in self pity though I am just being pragmatic. The thing is the US only looks out for its own interests and has the power, technology, aptitude, and willingness to almost guarantee what it wants it gets. So with that in mind, I don't think it's really going out on a limb to say that the IOC's (very Euro-centric, not really Western hemispheric at all) disfavor of the US is based on some kind of anti-American bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Dodger Stadium

Chavez Ravine is a beautiful and iconic (to Americans) location. But it's a traffic nightmare. The IOC has become much more traffic-phobic since Dodger stadium hosted baseball as a demonstration sport in 1984. While you could possible use it for rugby, I suspect it would be left out of any future bids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with zeke on this one.. too many people want to point to anti-American sentiment and the IOC wanting to stick it to the USOC as the reasons the NYC and Chicago bids failed. Yea there were bad relations between the USOC and IOC. Did that sink a Chicago bid that otherwise should have won? Wouldn't have done much to help New York I'd bet, and that's without the mess of the stadium deal that really sunk them.

I just don't buy into the theory that the IOC had an axe to grind with the United States and that's why Chicago finished last and why New York barely avoided finishing last. They weren't interested New York's or Chicago's bid in that time and place. Why does it need to be more complicated than that?

I don't buy that theory either. I'm not sure where you're getting it, by certainly not my posts.

Both 2012 and 2016 were too soon for the US. The 2012 bid was flawed and did not deserve to win. The 2016 bid was strong and viable, but it was still too early and the IOC had their hearts set on Rio.

It was Chicago's early exit that brought the depth of the USOC/IOC schism to life and showed just how big the problems were. It shouldn't have come as a surprise: revolving door leadership, Olympic network debacle, revenue deal, etc.

The recent voting patterns I'm referring to, however, are not the American losses, but the bigger picture. There is a firm commitment to global rotation, to spreading the Games across the globe, to new frontiers, to achieving balance and a sense of parity in diversity. One can argue these were values previously, but they have clearly risen in importance to become the major determining factors. This is why I believe no country will host 2 Olympics within 10 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy that theory either. I'm not sure where you're getting it, by certainly not my posts.

Both 2012 and 2016 were too soon for the US. The 2012 bid was flawed and did not deserve to win. The 2016 bid was strong and viable, but it was still too early and the IOC had their hearts set on Rio.

It was Chicago's early exit that brought the depth of the USOC/IOC schism to life and showed just how big the problems were. It shouldn't have come as a surprise: revolving door leadership, Olympic network debacle, revenue deal, etc.

The recent voting patterns I'm referring to, however, are not the American losses, but the bigger picture. There is a firm commitment to global rotation, to spreading the Games across the globe, to new frontiers, to achieving balance and a sense of parity in diversity. One can argue these were values previously, but they have clearly risen in importance to become the major determining factors. This is why I believe no country will host 2 Olympics within 10 years.

But the required Europe every other games is de rigueur?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. The rest of the world may be annoyed with the arrogance of the US government's foreign policy. But I believe American itself, its people, its pop culture, its wealth are all very desirable throughout much of the world.

Haha no I don't think the IOC membership is posting comments to YouTube, but there are two ways of viewing it. On one side you have the idea that it's just trivial internet crap and isn't real, just a bunch of attention seeking morons posting things to see if they can make other people angry. On the other hand the cyberspace barrier that protects anonymity allows true feelings to surface because there is no one there to punch you in the face if you're being a jerk, and you can seek out and live in your own community of likeminded individuals, and if this is the case then it's most likely that a majority of the world does really hate the US. I do take to heart the poll results, but I don't think being the least of three bad options is a nice place to be.

I'm not just wallowing in self pity though I am just being pragmatic. The thing is the US only looks out for its own interests and has the power, technology, aptitude, and willingness to almost guarantee what it wants it gets. So with that in mind, I don't think it's really going out on a limb to say that the IOC's (very Euro-centric, not really Western hemispheric at all) disfavor of the US is based on some kind of anti-American bias.

Again, I think zeke hit the nail right on the head.. people around the world take issue with America's politics (part of that being a hangover from the previous administration I'm sure), but it's not a general hatred towards this country that would manifest itself into the members of the IOC choosing against the United States. When the right U.S. bid is presented to the IOC in the right race, I don't think it's going to get sunk by an anti-American bias. Now needless to say, things can change in the next 4 years before the next possible U.S. bid. The entire 8 years of the Obama administration will have played out and there will be a new president in office. No idea how the world will view that 4 year course of events, but like zeke said, the United States brings a value to the IOC's brand. Let's see what happens when the IOC sees a compelling US bid, which NYC and Chicago were not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the required Europe every other games is de rigueur?

No it's not, as Tokyo's election proves.

Every three cycles? Perhaps. If either North America or Africa win 2024, for the first time in history Europe will go 4 cycles without Games. Some see this as a possibility. It wouldn't have been 30 years ago.

Europe will always have an advantage due to the lopsided makeup of the IOC membership.

Europe isn't a country. The US isn't a continent.

But it makes up a pretty darn big chunk of a continent and therein lies the issue.

The EU clouds matters a bit more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Europe isn't a country. The US isn't a continent.

I'm not sure why this matters? Europe's geographic size roughly equals Contiguous US size, the only thing I can see being the difference is Euro snobbery and Old World elitism.

No it's not, as Tokyo's election proves.

Every three cycles? Perhaps. If either North America or Africa win 2024, for the first time in history Europe will go 4 cycles without Games. Some see this as a possibility. It wouldn't have been 30 years ago.

Europe will always have an advantage due to the lopsided makeup of the IOC membership.

Fair enough, I'll believe it when I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy that theory either. I'm not sure where you're getting it, by certainly not my posts.

Both 2012 and 2016 were too soon for the US. The 2012 bid was flawed and did not deserve to win. The 2016 bid was strong and viable, but it was still too early and the IOC had their hearts set on Rio.

It was Chicago's early exit that brought the depth of the USOC/IOC schism to life and showed just how big the problems were. It shouldn't have come as a surprise: revolving door leadership, Olympic network debacle, revenue deal, etc.

The recent voting patterns I'm referring to, however, are not the American losses, but the bigger picture. There is a firm commitment to global rotation, to spreading the Games across the globe, to new frontiers, to achieving balance and a sense of parity in diversity. One can argue these were values previously, but they have clearly risen in importance to become the major determining factors. This is why I believe no country will host 2 Olympics within 10 years.

I quoted 2 people in that post. Neither of them were you. So clearly that reply was not based on your posts.

I agree on 2012 and 2016. Too soon for the United States and not compelling enough (viable yes, but where was the draw that said 'this is the right bid for this race'). Yes, the early exit probably was driven by the strained USOC-IOC relations. Again, no argument there.

Re: Recent voting patterns.. that commitment to a more diverse global rotation is something of an effect of the bids they have been presented rather than the IOC's desire to visit new frontiers. Some of it is undoubtedly cause and effect, but for most of the 20th century, cities from South America and Africa weren't bidding for the Olympics (and less we forget, 1 vote was all that prevented South America from hosting an Olympics 60 years earlier than they actually did). So those voting patterns you speak of largely reflect the diversity of cities bidding for the Olympics more than anything. They may have been values before, but it's easier to look at the IOC now and say they've risen in importance. But again, that's a function of them having that option.

You're right when you said 30 years ago it would have been unthinkable for Europe to go more than 3 cycles without a Summer Olympics. Well, you didn't have Africa in the mix then. South America wasn't bidding. And with Oceania only out there every 40 or so years, there were really only 3 continents to choose from. But now that South America got theirs and soon enough, Africa will get theirs, then we're largely back to the same 3 continents and maybe Australia throwing their hat back in the ring. So let's continue to agree to disagree about the 2 Olympics in 10 years argument. Difficult, but not impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why this matters? Europe's geographic size roughly equals Contiguous US size, the only thing I can see being the difference is Euro snobbery and Old World elitism.

As a US citizen you can probably expect a few home Olympics in your lifetime, Winter and Summer, but I don't expect to see one more British Olympics in mine. And I'm fine with that actually, but I find the "US is so hard done by" attitude hard to swallow.

If you want to be considered the same as Europe, have independence referendums and share out the resources between the states which secede from the US. But please don't THEN complain when you're no longer topping the medal table ^_^

Edited by RobH
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. The point is that Europe is made up of 40odd different nations, with 40odd NOCs. The USA might be huge, & have 50 states, but those states are only represented by one NOC, as they are all part of one nation. The main thing this means is that the US can only send one bid in each race, whereas Europe can send many bids for one games.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a US citizen you can probably expect a few home Olympics in your lifetime, Winter and Summer, but I don't expect to see one more British Olympics in mine. And I'm fine with that actually, but I find the "US is so hard done by" attitude hard to swallow.

If you want to be considered the same as Europe, have independence referendums and share out the resources between the states which secede from the US. But please don't THEN complain when you're no longer topping the medal table ^_^

:-) Maybe we could make a case for Anglo-American bias too, eh? ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a US citizen you can probably expect a few home Olympics in your lifetime, Winter and Summer, but I don't expect to see one more British Olympics in mine. And I'm fine with that actually, but I find the "US is so hard done by" attitude hard to swallow.

If you want to be considered the same as Europe, have independence referendums and share out the resources between the states which secede from the US. But please don't THEN complain when you're no longer topping the medal table ^_^

I'm not quite sure where all that is coming from.

The point is that the IOC is committed to maintaining a balanced variety of hosts and as a result the US should expect longer gaps between domestic Games. Consequently, they need to plan thoughtfully, particularly where a possible Winter bid is concerned due to its repercussions on Summer aspirations.

That's pretty much it. Not sure how you got to the medal count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The recent voting patterns I'm referring to, however, are not the American losses, but the bigger picture. There is a firm commitment to global rotation, to spreading the Games across the globe, to new frontiers, to achieving balance and a sense of parity in diversity. One can argue these were values previously, but they have clearly risen in importance to become the major determining factors. This is why I believe no country will host 2 Olympics within 10 years.

Except the recent voting patterns show exactly the opposite. The last three decades have each had only one new country host. Out of the last five SOG, not only have three been in countries that hosted before, they were in cities that hosted before. The IOC just voted a few days ago and rejected a perfectly capable host cities that is everything you claim they are selecting - new frontiers, diverse, etc. in favor of going back to Japan for the 4th time and Tokyo for the second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US used to be the only country sending as many bids as they wanted, i think the last time the US was represented by more than 1 city was in the 60s, but not anymore due to new rules of the IOC? There were as many as 5 American cities bidding for the Games in the 50s i think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...