Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

That all said, to zeke's point, I don't think it's gutless or professional.

I believe the current version of this strain started when AF said that the USOC was such a professional orgainization that they would tell a city as soon as they excluded them. If that's a train of professionalism, I stand by the charge of unprofessional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the current version of this strain started when AF said that the USOC was such a professional orgainization that they would tell a city as soon as they excluded them. If that's a train of professionalism, I stand by the charge of unprofessional.

And that was my question too. Obviously if they're cutting a city from consideration, they're going to inform whoever they've been dealing with, be it a Matt Wood in Dallas or a Vincent Mudd in San Diego. My concern is will that trickle down to everyone else involved in the process if it's not publicized when this all happens. For example.. I know in San Diego, Vincent Mudd was trying to raise funds for research efforts. If the USOC calls Mudd and tells him to shut it down, but does it very privately, does that stop business entities and others working towards the bid to stop their efforts as well, or do they press on and say "the USOC hasn't announcing anything, I think we should keep trying." Less we forget, things like that have happened in Tulsa (swear jar, here's my $1) and in Las Vegas. So it's not that crazy to wonder how best to handle this portion of the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously if they're cutting a city from consideration, they're going to inform whoever they've been dealing with

Why is that obvious? We are talking about an organization that solicited bids from cities it had essentially already cut off.

The only reason you would think that obvious is that you assume the USOC is full of decent, professional people. If, instead, you think them to be corrupt weasels, it's not so obvious, is it?

PS - If you doubt the corrupt weaselness of the USOC, explain their continued relationship with CoSport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is that obvious? We are talking about an organization that solicited bids from cities it had essentially already cut off.

The only reason you would think that obvious is that you assume the USOC is full of decent, professional people. If, instead, you think them to be corrupt weasels, it's not so obvious, is it?

PS - If you doubt the corrupt weaselness of the USOC, explain their continued relationship with CoSport.

Because they're not going to cut a city and someone they've already engaged with and not have the decency of informing them. Is there no middle ground between decent, professional people and corrupt weasels? If you feel that way about them, I'm not going to argue, but at the same time, it's probably a little unfair to assume that all of their actions are corrupt and nothing about them is professional. They probably deserve a little bit of the benefit of the doubt. Just a little bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't claim to have knowledge of what's going on across the pond, but just for my own clarification.. are we talking about anti-Olympic in terms of wanting to host? Or as it Europeans are starting to reject the concept of the Olympics?

My inclination is that this is indeed a temporary reaction. We're in the wake of Sochi's huge budget Olympics and a time when several European countries are struggling financially. So I don't know that this is a long term trend. I remember the concern with Beijing being would the next Olympics try to compete. Well, London did no such thing. They held their Olympics on their terms and quickly stemmed the tide that over-spending would become the norm for an Olympics.

And far be it from us to over-analyze a situation. Again, we're discussing this in the moment and trying to project the long term ramifications. Tough to see into the future that way. To that end, look at the United States. They lost 2 elections and then stepped away and now it looks like Los Angeles might encourage them to step back in. Right now, this is just 1 cycle we're looking at. Things have a tendency to change, so it's anyone's best guess whether this is a short-term problem or a long-term one.

I'd tend to agree with most of that.

In answer to your first question; I think anti-Olympic mostly in terms of wanting to host. The pull-outs from Western European nations (Rome 2020 through to everything that's now happening in the 2022 race) shows that I don't think there's a strong appetite for hosting right now. This, of course, seems to have as much to do with the current financial squeeze as anything else. Sochi is cynically used as a worse-case scenario when it comes to costs, when we all know that if Vancouver were held up people might not be so alarmed.

I don't know whether there's a general Europe-wide rejection of the Games as a whole. The UK is still in a bit of a bubble after 2012, with our Games having gone off far more successfully than most had hoped. The Anniversary Games in the Olympic Stadium last July sold out in minutes, details of this year's event have just been announced, and everytime tickets have gone on sale for events in the Olympic Park they've been snapped up. Ennis, Farah are huge names now, the London marathon this year got a boost from Farah's participation etc. So I can't answer how the rest of Europe feels because the UK is in a strangely unique position right now. But from reading posts from other people on this forum you get the impression Sochi has dented more liberal-minded Europeans' perceptions of what the Olympics are about. Whether that dent is permanant or not, I can't say.

Unless the IOC does something extremely radical the Olympics isn't going to be anything other than an expensive luxury. The argument that the money could be spent on hospitals or whatever will always exist. Hopefully the financial outlook in Europe will change though, and with it maybe we'll see a change of heart in some of these referendums. The Sochi effect will hopefully be transient too, although as I said, it's not one that has penetrated the afterglow of London 2012 too much here so I'm perhaps not best placed to answer whether there is a rejection of Olympism in general in Europe.

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very clear that the IOC has an good friendship with Russia Vladimir Putin and Thomas Bach are like really good friends and Sochi Russia put on a great games by the way Western Europe is going the IOC may have to go back to Russia which by 2030 will be the superpower of Europe the only way it will not go back to Russia is that Berlin Germany putting on a great bid to host the 2028 Summer Games. France future is unclear with the the new Mayor of Paris and the economy of France.

Are you F**king kidding me? With all the sanctions I'm just waiting for Putin to launch the Russians into a devastating war they will loose and bring the nation into a revolution, Russia only was a superpower in the past because of it's size. The US is beefing up their oil exports and by 2020 will be the worlds largest exporter, and if relations between US/China improve, Russia does not stand a chance. I suggest reading Foreign Policy, The Week, and other political/foreign policy sites to better understand the worlds political climate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is that obvious? We are talking about an organization that solicited bids from cities it had essentially already cut off.

The only reason you would think that obvious is that you assume the USOC is full of decent, professional people. If, instead, you think them to be corrupt weasels, it's not so obvious, is it?

Zeke and Quaker think of it this way:

There are MANY more athletes that participate in the Olympic trials than there are Olympic medal winners. The majority of Olympic hopefuls have no chance of making the team, much less winning a medal. The athletes know going in they have virtually no chance. The federations know going in those athletes have virtually no chance, but they're still invited to participate in the trials.

Does that make the Olympic trials disingenuous and "unprofessional?" Obviously not.

It's INCLUSIVE. It gives everyone a chance, even those who really aren't going to be able to capitalize on it. It gets people involved from all across the country. It builds esprit d' corps as the country works to put together a national team that is the best it can possibly be.

Imagine how the team could suffer if the trials only included the top 4 or 5 athletes in each event. It would feel elitist. Others wouldn't have much opportunity to grow and improve. They wouldn't feel any sense of connection to the team and some could resent it -- even if they had no chance. There's even a possibility a rising star could be missed and/or snuffed out.

It's no different with the USOC picking a bid city. They've said all along they wanted a truly national bid. That's something LA certainly emphasized in the document we saw. Opening the initial pool to 35 cities was like holding Olympic trials. Everybody got a chance. And by the way, it was VERY easy to reject the invitation as many cities chose to do. The IOC clearly stated the qualifications for an Olympic host. They didn't sugarcoat anything and they didn't irresponsibly lead anyone on.

Some of those cities on that list of 35 were surprising. Personally, I wouldn't have approached all of them. But it wasn't unprofessional to simply send them a letter stating the facts in a clear, upfront manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hypocrite! Do you not have an obsession over Europe/UK/London (AKA "the greatest city ever" according to you).You and GCL are actually quite similar, ya know that? Both believing a certain area/city winning and claiming they WILL win. You can have opinions, but claiming they WILL happen is ludicrous, especially in a thread about the USA hosting the Olympics.

How am I a Hypocrite? Yes, I love my Country and City, yes I talk alot about it, but I never say England or Europe should get every Olympics. The way it comes across to me, is GCL wants Asia to have 90 per cent or all of the Olympics. I believe 2024 is Europe's time, just like I felt 2018 and 2020 was Asia's time, 2016 is South America's time and 2028 is Africa's time.

In an effort to play the role of Switzerland here..

Is the USOC really concerned with making an enemy out of Rochester? Or even the T-word? When it was first revealed that the USOC had contacted 35 cities, I believe the word used by the NY Times was "trolling." That's not an unfair assessment. You said earlier they didn't want anyone to feel excluded. Okay, I get that, but still, why engage in a city that they know has no change. I have no problem with them casting that wide of a net, but at the same time, why go through the trouble.

That all said, to zeke's point, I don't think it's gutless or professional. Maybe a little bit pointless, but really, what's the repercussions over than schmucks like us in an Internet forum sneering at the USOC. Think they care? Does it change the eventual outcome of the whole process? They changed the system around for the better and we're seeing evidence of that where we don't have cities coming at them like pigs at a trough trying to prove themselves to the USOC. If their biggest transgression is that they sent their letter out to more cities than could possibly get elected as host of an Olympics, IMO that's hardly an indictment against the organization's professionalism.

True, but the last 2 Olympic host sites to be awarded were out of Europe. And certain cities and countries that have been out there before decided to pack it in. Yes, there are 3 bidders from Europe (there were originally 4, don't forget), but 1 probably can't be taken seriously because of political unrest, and the other 2 might both drop out of the running. So yes, there is cause for concern. That's why I was asking Rob if it's more that they're rejecting hosting the Olympics or if it's the Olympics in general that they're against. I could see it being the former. I'm guessing it's not the latter.

Exactly, hence why I believe Europe will Host 2024.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How am I a Hypocrite? Yes, I love my Country and City, yes I talk alot about it, but I never say England or Europe should get every Olympics. The way it comes across to me, is GCL wants Asia to have 90 per cent or all of the Olympics. I believe 2024 is Europe's time, just like I felt 2018 and 2020 was Asia's time, 2016 is South America's time and 2028 is Africa's time.

Stop. Just stop. You did not join this forum until after the vote for 2020 had already occurred. It's very disingenuous of you to ask us to assume how you felt about past Olympic bids just because you say so.

And 2020 is not Asia's time. They won because they had the most reasonable bid and the IOC wanted to play it safe. They didn't win because it's their time.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they're not going to cut a city and someone they've already engaged with and not have the decency of informing them. Is there no middle ground between decent, professional people and corrupt weasels? If you feel that way about them, I'm not going to argue, but at the same time, it's probably a little unfair to assume that all of their actions are corrupt and nothing about them is professional. They probably deserve a little bit of the benefit of the doubt. Just a little bit.

I think it's wrong to assume without evidence that a group is full of corrupt weasels. I also think it wrong to assume a group is decent without evidence.

For this particular example - will the USOC tell a city they no longer have a chance if they no longer have a chance - what evidence do we have that they will be have decently and tell them? What evidence do we have they will be weasels and lead them on?

And, no, this isn't comparible to Olympic trials. The trials (usually) set with object criteria. Only world class athelets make the cut. Many of them have little chance to make the team, but they all have the potential to have the race of their life and make the team. One key is that the criteria is staded ahead of time. (And yes, there sports - figure skatnig - that aren't so above board. Anyone want to say figure skating isn't full of corrupt weasels?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ioc might play it safe in 2024 with LA because after rio being behind in construction, high costs from sochi, it might be better off with just renovated venues instead of new ones so the cost is lower. That's why 2024 should go to LA IMO becuase it will have more cities bid in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's wrong to assume without evidence that a group is full of corrupt weasels. I also think it wrong to assume a group is decent without evidence.

For this particular example - will the USOC tell a city they no longer have a chance if they no longer have a chance - what evidence do we have that they will be have decently and tell them? What evidence do we have they will be weasels and lead them on?

And, no, this isn't comparible to Olympic trials. The trials (usually) set with object criteria. Only world class athelets make the cut. Many of them have little chance to make the team, but they all have the potential to have the race of their life and make the team. One key is that the criteria is staded ahead of time. (And yes, there sports - figure skatnig - that aren't so above board. Anyone want to say figure skating isn't full of corrupt weasels?)

Common decency dictates that the USOC would notify the cities that haven't been chosen. I've followed how Blackmun has handled things. He is a class-act. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that he will make sure the cities are notified. There's no evidence to support your cynical expectation that they won't.

And let's examine the logic of this for a moment: just imagine the time and money it would take for the USOC to fool cities into thinking they are still in the running when they aren't. It's in the USOC's best interests to let the cities know if they won't be continuing in the process. In addition to being polite, it's streamlined and efficient.

As for the Olympic Trials, it's a very apt analogy. Many participants have absolutely no hope of achieving the Olympic qualifying standards and yet they're invited anyway -- just like some of those 35 cities.

The USOC stated the requirements for a host VERY CLEARLY in the first letter (venues, number of hotel rooms, international marketability, etc.). I have no doubt that in the conversations the USOC has had with the interested parties over the last few months, they've made this criteria quite concrete and specific. Again, it's in their own interest to do so. What's the point of talking to cities if you aren't going to be clear with them about what they have to do to become the candidate?

I don't understand why you seem so hell-bent on expecting the worst of the USOC. It defies logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ioc might play it safe in 2024 with LA because after rio being behind in construction, high costs from sochi, it might be better off with just renovated venues instead of new ones so the cost is lower. That's why 2024 should go to LA IMO becuase it will have more cities bid in the future.

Paris or Berlin could use the same argument, and they would be favorites over LA. They provide a chance for the IOC to go back to Europe and show the games can be hosted affordably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Common decency dictates that the USOC would notify the cities that haven't been chosen.

I don't understand why you seem so hell-bent on expecting the worst of the USOC. It defies logic.

So common decency dictates that the USOC would notify cities when they move from "has a chance" to "no chance." But common deceny doesn't dictate that the USOC notify cities that have no chance in the first place. It's OK not to tell them???? Your thinking baffles me. But I guess we just agree to disagree.

As for why I expect the worst out of the USOC.... in addition to the above referenced letters-to-cities-with-no-chance, my biggest issue is CoSport. As an Olympic fan, that's my one point of contact witih the USOC. CoSport is both inept as hell, and corrupt as hell. As long as USOC is in bed with them, don't expect me to consider them fine, upstanding people.

Paris or Berlin could use the same argument, and they would be favorites over LA.

Just what I was thinking. The "reuse" games won't necessary go to LA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the IOC would have preferred New York City to be America's Candidate. I also still believe that if Rome Bids, they will be the Favourite to Host.

Based on what? The last time New York bid, they finished 4th out of 5 bids. There was certainly other geopolitical factors involved there, but NYC didn't exactly have a good technical plan either, and that's notwithstanding all that happened with the West Side Stadium. NYC probably wasn't destined to get a good bid out of NYC even if there was interest there. So to say the IOC would have preferred them assumes they had a good bid in the first place, which was unlikely to come together again for a 2024 bid.

Just what I was thinking. The "reuse" games won't necessary go to LA.

Agreed. LA isn't the only city with a lot of venues in place that could offer a safe and reliable choice in terms of a host city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How am I a Hypocrite? Yes, I love my Country and City, yes I talk alot about it, but I never say England or Europe should get every Olympics. The way it comes across to me, is GCL wants Asia to have 90 per cent or all of the Olympics. I believe 2024 is Europe's time, just like I felt 2018 and 2020 was Asia's time, 2016 is South America's time and 2028 is Africa's time.

There is a fine line between patriotism and obsession...

Exactly, hence why I believe Europe will Host 2024.

oh, no no no. You did not say "I believe Europe will host" you said "Europe WILL host" (Yes, I will now use this against you as long as I'm here)

I believe the IOC would of preferred New York City to be America's Candidate. I also still believe that if Rome Bids, they will be the Favourite to Host.

Sorry to be the bringer of bad news, but Rome does not currently have government support. If the government did not support them before, what makes you think they will now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I love my country and all, but you don't exactly see me going around being all like "AMERICA RULEZ! DEMOCRACY! IN UR FACE! RED WHITE 'N' BLUUUUUE! FREEDOMNESS 4 MERICAN CITIZENS! SUCH TECHNOLOGY! WE BE #1 IN EVERYTING!!!!!! U.S.A! U.S.A! U.S.A!!!" (not that you do that, I'm just making a point)

What I'm trying to say is that if I and the other users can be patriotic without being extremely obnoxious, you should also be able to contain your love for London/England.

I'm sorry if I was being mean >.<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's why Paris is studying a 2024 Bid. Your obsessed with every Olympics being in Asia. I'm not obsessed with every Olympics being in Europe, I just believe 2024 is Europe's time, just like 2018 and 2020 is Asia's time. I supported PyeongChang and Tokyo for 2018 and 2020.

2020 was not Asia's time, it was just the most straight-forward and pragmatic candidate compared to the other two options which had baggage. 2020 was no more Tokyo's than 1996 was Atlanta's - similar external pressures at play that caused both outcomes.

Stop pretending to be an expert about things you clearly no nothing about.

*know

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which cities are officially applicant like USA bid for 2024 ?

The USOC isn't really taking applications or having an open bid process like they've done in the past. They haven't been specific as to which cities are still being considered and which are not. Best guess is that there seem to be 7 cities still in the running.. Los Angeles, Boston, Dallas, Philadelphia, Washington DC, San Francisco, and San Diego. The USOC has said they will probably cut that number to 2 or 3 within a couple of months.

I don't know why u guys take him seriously.

We don't. At least I know I don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...