USA 2024

[Quaker2001]

Perhaps I overstated my point and wasn't as clear as I could've been. But I don't think I "messed up" in a way that warrants your criticism for not "doing research." My arguments are not based on arguments. They're based on non-Olympic sporting results for the past three years and several online news sources including the one I cited in this forum.

I think it's more "predictions based on predictions." Or, to use your word, a hypothesis based on a hypothesis. You say you see "signs of chinks in the armor" (your exact words), but you seem to be basing that on PREDICTIONS that the medal haul for London will be down. You mentioned China's medal haul at the FINA World Championships, but it's hard to take stock of that when it was on China's home soil (and a lot of their medals came from diving (which China has dominated and the United States has been a non-factor in for a while anyway) and that the United States won 29 medals and 16 gold, up from 22 medals and 10 gold in 2009. So the United States did BETTER this year than they did in 2009 in Rome.

So again, you seem to be basing your arguments less on what is actually going on than what some journalists say they think will go on. And if they're wrong and the United States is as strong in London as they have been in recent Olympics, then that makes your point completely off the mark. Where I'm offering you hard data to counter your argument, all you can offer in return is conjecture and predictions of what might happen in London.

Athens, please understand me.. I'm not attacking you for the sake of attacking you, nor am I trying to insert myself into this argument of whether the United States is more in need of a Summer Olympics or a Winter Olympics and don't doubt that the US would get a boost from a home Summer Olympics just like they did in 2002 for a home Winter Olympics. But I think this is one of those things where you're only seeing what you want to see, especially since the articles you "cited" are simply opinions of what those people see as the future and less your own opinions of trends that you see and believe.

[Athensfan]

Just to be clear -- I've said this is NOT "what I want to see." I don't want to run the risk of seeing it. My post expressed a fear-- a concern -- not a prediction. Perhaps the performances in London and Rio will continue to dominate.

Even if the Summer medal tally remains high for the next 15 years in the absence of domestic Games (still seems like an "if" to me), there are still many other reasons to support the idea of focusing on Summer bids rather than Winter ones (see my first post in this thread).

To address another aspect of the 2024 issue, some have argued that no cities would be interested in hosting the Games because we have not heard big public declarations of intent. I would counter that considering the fact that everyone needs to honor the USOC's authority (as demonstrated by this Vegas debacle) is one reason why we haven't heard much. Given the uncertainty of the revenue-sharing deal, it wasn't appropriate for cities to get vocal about their desires. For all we know, the USOC may have specifically requested that they stay quiet until the bidding picture became clearer.

I am encouraged by one aspect of this Las Vegas story. According to GB

The USOC received interest from several cities who wished to bid for the 2020 Games including Los Angeles, Dallas, New York, Minneapolis, Tulsa and Chicago

It's important to note that the wording is "The USOC received interest," rather than "the USOC approached the following cities to ask if they would be interested." To me, that makes it pretty clear that the reason for no 2020 bid is not a lack of qualified, interested candidate cities. That is very encouraging news for a possible 2024 bid.

[FYI]

I am encouraged by one aspect of this Las Vegas story. According to GB

It's important to note that the wording is "The USOC received interest," rather than "the USOC approached the following cities to ask if they would be interested." To me, that makes it pretty clear that the reason for no 2020 bid is not a lack of qualified, interested candidate cities. That is very encouraging news for a possible 2024 bid.

Is this another matter of you're reading what you want to read?

Again, another article that Soaring posted in another thread was that the USOC REACHED out to New York, Chicago & Los Angeles about a possible bid. And the others, Tulsa, Dallas, Vegas & "Minneapolis" reached out to the USOC. This is inaccurate wording that all 7 cities "expressed interest" to the USOC when that's not the case.

I even posted an article by the Minneapolis Star Tribune earilier this month as to where in the world was the Associated Press getting their information from because NO city leaders there were aware of such an "expression of interest" for an Olympic 2020 bid. And quite frankly, I'd like to know that, too!

[Athensfan]

Is this another matter of you're reading what you want to read?

Again, another article that Soaring posted in another thread was that the USOC REACHED out to New York, Chicago & Los Angeles about a possible bid. And the others, Tulsa, Dallas, Vegas & "Minneapolis" reached out to the USOC. This is inaccurate wording that all 7 cities "expressed interest" to the USOC when that's not the case.

I even posted an article by the Minneapolis Star Tribune earilier this month as to where in the world was the Associated Press getting their information from because NO city leaders there were aware of such an "expression of interest" for an Olympic 2020 bid. And quite frankly, I'd like to know that, too!

I guess you're reading what you want to read too.

The fact is that the various reports are not consistent in their language. Gamesbids (who I consider a fairly reliable source of information) says the cities expressed interest. You have repeatedly argued that no American cities want the Games. I've simply said that you don't have enough information to prove that statement. The absence of evidence is not evidence. This latest Gamesbids article suggest there is interest. If you want to ignore it, that's your choice.

[FYI]

This latest Gamesbids article suggest there is interest. If you want to ignore it, that's your choice.

Of course there's "interest". I never said that there wasn't. But it's from the likes of delusional places like Tulsa & Vegas. And perhaps maybe Los Angeles out of the big 3 is rather likely to be insterested, too. But there's also no "evidence" to suggest that Chicago & New York want to go through the hassle again. That's not "ingoring", that's just gauging the situation.

[baron-pierreIV]

Interest ranges from either the Mayor's Office directly involved (like Gavin Newsom was for the 2016 race); or a few rogue councilors/congressmen who want to be heard (like in Minneapolis); or a band of city boosters, mostly likely members of the local Chamber of Commerce, who want to bring business to their city.

Of those 3 levels of "interest," I would only consider something with the Mayor's office as official because s/he can line up official (or non-official) resources to get a bid going. Rogue councilors and Chambers of Commerce are merely voices in the crowd who still have to get City Hall, etc., etc., all lined up to be even taken seriously by the USOC.

And just because the reports "say so" really, to me, doesn't say, anything. I mean San Francisco isn't quoted altho San Francisco sent reps to that Seminar for wannbee host-cities in Lausanne in May.

[Athensfan]

Of course there's "interest". I never said that there wasn't. But it's from the likes of delusional places like Tulsa & Vegas. And perhaps maybe Los Angeles out of the big 3 is rather likely to be insterested, too. But there's also no "evidence" to suggest that Chicago & New York want to go through the hassle again. That's not "ingoring", that's just gauging the situation.

There's no evidence to say that Chicago or NYC wouldn't consider a run for 2024 either. They were both mentioned in the GB article as "expressing interest." Maybe it's not true, but until someone with real clout contradicts it (like the mayors of those cities), we don't know.

Even if LA were the only one of the big three to throw their hat in the ring, it would not be a waste of time. 2024 is 40 years after LA's last hosting.

Also, Dallas has been very clear about their desire to bid, has a 2020 website and everything. While they may not be LA, NYC or Chicago, they're not Tulsa either.

You have said repeatedly that you doubt the USOC will have a qualified bidder for Summer Games. I don't see evidence to support that.

[Athensfan]

I've posted this link before, but just as a reminder I'll post it again. In the article the journalist hypothesizes about a Chicago 2024 bid:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-08-23/news/ct-talk-chicago-in-2024-0823-20110823_1_apartment-building-patrick-sandusky-chicago-spire

[FYI]

There's no evidence to say that Chicago or NYC wouldn't consider a run for 2024 either. They were both mentioned in the GB article as "expressing interest." Maybe it's not true, but until someone with real clout contradicts it (like the mayors of those cities), we don't know.

Also, Dallas has been very clear about their desire to bid, has a 2020 website and everything. While they may not be LA, NYC or Chicago, they're not Tulsa either.

You have said repeatedly that you doubt the USOC will have a qualified bidder for Summer Games. I don't see evidence to support that.

The problem I have with that is again, where is this information coming from. The article also mentions Minneapolis as "expressing interest", but like I said before, I posted an article from their local newspapers that the city leaders there said that there was no such thing as an Olympic 2020 bid in the works. And here is that article again, from the Minneapolis Star Tribune dated 6/30/11:

http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/124710533.html

So this is just an example as to Y I take such "information" with a grain of salt. If they are so inaccurate about Minneapolis, who's to say who else they're inaccurate about. N I also would take more credence in members like Soaring & Quaker, who are right there in New York & Chicago if any of this "interest" had any merit.

And as far as Dallas is concerned; yeah, they're not Tulsa but they still have the stadium issue, since the new cowboys stadium is still a "whopping" 20 miles away from the city & still can't accommodate T&F. Also the heat issue. And also the "Atlanta complex" to deal with. So a lot of hurdles there as well. Plus, it's not even city leaders there that want to start a bid. It's just local tycoons like Jerry Jones that just want to make a bigger name for themselves.

And as far as a "journalist hypothesis" on a Chicago 2024 bid, if he ain't with the city brass over there, I wouldn't give it too much emphasis, either. Like the USOC said to all the domestic applicants in the 2016 process, "put some skin into this game".

[Athensfan]

The problem I have with that is again, where is this information coming from. The article also mentions Minneapolis as "expressing interest", but like I said before, I posted an article from their local newspapers that the city leaders there said that there was no such thing as an Olympic 2020 bid in the works. And here is that article again, from the Minneapolis Star Tribune dated 6/30/11:

http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/124710533.html

So this is just an example as to Y I take such "information" with a grain of salt. If they are so inaccurate about Minneapolis, who's to say who else they're inaccurate about. N I also would take more credence in members like Soaring & Quaker, who are right there in New York & Chicago if any of this "interest" had any merit.

And as far as Dallas is concerned; yeah, they're not Tulsa but they still have the stadium issue, since the new cowboys stadium is still a "whopping" 20 miles away from the city & still can't accommodate T&F. Also the heat issue. And also the "Atlanta complex" to deal with. So a lot of hurdles there as well. Plus, it's not even city leaders there that want to start a bid. It's just local tycoons like Jerry Jones that just want to make a bigger name for themselves.

And as far as a "journalist hypothesis" on a Chicago 2024 bid, if he ain't with the city brass over there, I wouldn't give it too much emphasis, either. Like the USOC said to all the domestic applicants in the 2016 process, "put some skin into this game".

I agree that these stories are far from airtight and may possibly be in error. I am not saying Chicago and NYC are definitely interested, but I'm saying that the existence of these stories means that people can't argue they definitely AREN'T interested and that there would be NO viable candidates for future Summer Games.

Minneapolis denied it -- so they're out (not a great loss, IMO), but the others haven't said a word.

I'm not addressing the practicalities of hypothetical bids at this point. Every city has hurdles to clear and there's plenty of time for them to be working on solutions for their respective challenges.

At this point I'm just addressing the question whether or not capable cities would be interested in hosting. It sounds to me like there's a distinct possibility that multiple credible American candidates would consider bidding for the 2024 Games.

[baron-pierreIV]

/\/\ He just goes around and around the same block. He's nuts!!

[Quaker2001]

"Interest" is a very vague term because it spans everything from Tulsa where you have a couple of people in a small city telling the USOC they think they can host the Olympics to the USOC inquiring to see if a city like New York wants to put in a bid. There's an awful lot of middle ground there and it takes mutual interest at a high level for an actual bid to be consummated. In 2012 and 2016, the USOC was very serious about bidding and they had multiple cities that were interested in being a part of the process. For 2020, I think the apathy from both sides affected the other.. the USOC didn't give off a strong impression that they wanted to go at it again and the alpha cities that you'd expect to be the contenders weren't so willing to go at it. So it's the difference between a city and the USOC actively pursuing each other versus 1 merely inquiring about the possibility of the other. That's what I believe was happening over the past couple of months when we weren't exactly sure what was happening with the USOC and 2020. But it's 1 of those situations where there's a fine line between gauging interest and being serious about bidding, and I don't think either side was ever serious enough that anything was going to come together. I know that's easy to say in hindsight, but it takes more than a website and a couple of visions to make for an Olympic bid.

So spinning this forward to 2024.. I don't think it's an issue of having qualified candidate cities. The question is just how serious as those cities about bidding. Again, a city being "interested" does not necessarily imply that city is ready or willing to go ahead with a bid. That's why I continue to laugh off the notion that New York is ready to jump into the 2024 race because I haven't seen or read any indication that's likely to happen, and I'm happy to throw the "the absence of evidence is not evidence" line right back at you. If the USOC gives off the vibe that they want to be a part of the 2024 race (something that obviously did not happen for 2020), they and the potential candidate cities will start to take each other more seriously. I'm sure someone out there will emerge, and right now I'd still put my money on Chicago, but again, it takes a lot of hard work and effort to make even a bid for the Olympics become a reality and I still don't know who is even considering making that effort, regardless of who we hear is showing interest.

[FYI]

Like New York, I still don't see Chicago being "interested" even for 2024. Since their loss was much deeper & more recent than New York's. Chicago also just got a new mayor & I seriously doubt that the first thing on his agenda right now, & being new in office, is thinking about an "Olympic bid". Nor do I see the citizenry being gung-ho about another try so soon.

Really, it's only people like us here, that are Olympic fanatics, that take this stuff so seriously. Since it's easy for us to say behind a keyboard, "yeah, such & such city is going to go for it, they have to, etc, etc", when we're not really the ones that are going to invest the true blood, sweat & tears of such a huge undertaking that an Olympic bid entails. It's so much work & emotional investment that I certainly wouldn't wanna be part of such a thing. And quite frankly, I really wouldn't want to see the City of Chicago go through the ringer again.

I'd still say out of all the 3 alpha cities, Los Angeles is the best bet. They always seem to have the determination & will to go through with such a large task. And they also have their local Olympic Committee that could get things going much easier. So let them deal with it.

[Quaker2001]

I'd still say out of all the 3 alpha cities, Los Angeles is the best bet. They always seem to have the determination & will to go through with such a large task. And they also have their local Olympic Committee that could get things going much easier. So let them deal with it.

Los Angeles has seen a lot of new venues constructed since the 1984 Games, so they have a large percentage of what they'd need to host another Olympics at any point. The question is how do you differentiate a future LA Olympics from the 1984 edition. They've already used the Coliseum twice as the main venue, so would they/could they use it again? Or do they have to find a new main venue in order to make it work? To me, the question about Los Angeles isn't their readiness to host an Olympics, it's convincing the IOC to choose them again. No question in my mind Los Angeles could put on an excellent and cost-effective Olympics, but what's the pitch to the IOC?

[FYI]

No question in my mind Los Angeles could put on an excellent and cost-effective Olympics, but what's the pitch to the IOC?

Los Angeles would at least have to make some sort of compelling case, no doubt (something ala London). Like maybe expanding on the light-rail system, or something like London's East End project. But they can't do the "we have everything ready" montra since that ain't gonna fly, unless the IOC is forced to again like they were for '84.

The Coliseum I think could be used again. But no doubt they'd still have to refurbish it. 2024 would still make a good 40 years away from '84, so by this point, I think the time-line would start to become a bit more acceptable for a 3rd L.A. Games. It just depends if the IOC is finally ready to come back to the U.S. again. But I'd still say that they'd ask themselves that question regardless of which U.S. city were making the Olympic pitch again.

[Soaring]

Like New York, I still don't see Chicago being "interested" even for 2024. Since their loss was much deeper & more recent than New York's. Chicago also just got a new mayor & I seriously doubt that the first thing on his agenda right now, & being new in office, is thinking about an "Olympic bid". Nor do I see the citizenry being gung-ho about another try so soon.

Well, I slightly disagree. Emanuel made comments during the campaign that Mayor Daley "lost focus" during Chicago's bid, but that was probably just campaign rhetoric. I think he is the type of person with a big enough ego, and aggressiveness to push things through. I can imagine him considering a bid at some point in his reign in office.

He has 3-4 years before he would have to seriously consider a bid, and if he can start to turn things around for the city over the next few years, I think he has a big enough ego to take a stab at it. Maybe not in 2024, but if he is still around, probably for 2028 if things looks good for our chances.

Here is a little glimpse at Emanuel's personality as Mayor...

Rahm Emanuel's First 100 Days As Mayor: Touts Accomplishments, Connections

[FYI]

Well, I slightly disagree. Emanuel made comments during the campaign that Mayor Daley "lost focus" during Chicago's bid, but that was probably just campaign rhetoric. I think he is the type of person with a big enough ego, and aggressiveness to push things through. I can imagine him considering a bid at some point in his reign in office.

He has 3-4 years before he would have to seriously consider a bid, and if he can start to turn things around for the city over the next few years, I think he has a big enough ego to take a stab at it. Maybe not in 2024, but if he is still around, probably for 2028 if things looks good for our chances.

Here is a little glimpse at Emanuel's personality as Mayor...

Rahm Emanuel's First 100 Days As Mayor: Touts Accomplishments, Connections

Well, I did say that I doubt that the "first thing" on his plate right now being new in office is an Olympic bid. I might even slightly agree that later down the line that is a possibility. Even you say that's more likely for 2028 though, & not for 2024. And who's knows what the powers will be by then & how the citizens of the city would view such a proposal again.

For 2024, I'd still say that Los Angeles is the best bet. If for anything, to test the IOC waters in how did they'd recieve another U.S. bid, especially after the USOC sat out 2020 & Rogge's "regret" that there'll be no U.S. 2020 bid.

[Soaring]

Los Angeles would at least have to make some sort of compelling case, no doubt (something ala London). Like maybe expanding on the light-rail system, or something like London's East End project. But they can't do the "we have everything ready" montra since that ain't gonna fly, unless the IOC is forced to again like they were for '84.

The Coliseum I think could be used again. But no doubt they'd still have to refurbish it. 2024 would still make a good 40 years away from '84, so by this point, I think the time-line would start to become a bit more acceptable for a 3rd L.A. Games. It just depends if the IOC is finally ready to come back to the U.S. again. But I'd still say that they'd ask themselves that question regardless of which U.S. city were making the Olympic pitch again.

In LA's 2016 domestic bid, they proposed renovating the Coliseum.

Something like this...

If they build a new stadium for an NFL team, that would be a prime opportunity for them to retrofit the stadia for a future Games. It would add a new element to any future bid. Of course, the IOC druels over new stadiums, so it would do them good.

I think 2024 is still too soon for the same city to host. Let's take a look at cities who have hosted more than one Summer Games...

Athens 1896 - 2004 (108 years)

Paris 1900 - 1924 (24 years) last hosted 87 years ago

London 1908 - 1948 - 2012 (40 years, 64 years)

Los Angeles - 1932 - 1984 (52 years)

LA should wait another decade before to give more time for the '84 factor to wear off even more. Of course, LA would make a great "back up" host in case something went wrong with another host city.

[baron-pierreIV]

No question in my mind Los Angeles could put on an excellent and cost-effective Olympics, but what's the pitch to the IOC?

At least we're not Vegas or Denver!

[Quaker2001]

If they build a new stadium for an NFL team, that would be a prime opportunity for them to retrofit the stadia for a future Games. It would add a new element to any future bid. Of course, the IOC druels over new stadiums, so it would do them good.

The current project in place (although there have been others before it) is to build a new stadium adjacent to the Staples Center in order to try and attract a new NFL team. Renovating the Coliseum is probably not going to happen, and even if it did, they'd probably want seats closer to the field making it unsuitable for a full-sized 400 meter track. Ditto for the Farmers Field project.. I doubt it's on their minds to make that stadium able to hold a track and much like the renovations of Soldier Field in Chicago, if they go ahead with the project (and supposedly the seating capacity will only be in the 70,000 range, so size-wise, it might be pretty small for an Olympic Stadium), to decide later on to use it for track & field may not be possible.

[Soaring]

The current project in place (although there have been others before it) is to build a new stadium adjacent to the Staples Center in order to try and attract a new NFL team. Renovating the Coliseum is probably not going to happen, and even if it did, they'd probably want seats closer to the field making it unsuitable for a full-sized 400 meter track. Ditto for the Farmers Field project.. I doubt it's on their minds to make that stadium able to hold a track and much like the renovations of Soldier Field in Chicago, if they go ahead with the project (and supposedly the seating capacity will only be in the 70,000 range, so size-wise, it might be pretty small for an Olympic Stadium), to decide later on to use it for track & field may not be possible.

Well, if the city was thinking strategically, they would push for the stadium to have the potential to add additional seating, and remove seating at field level for a track.

That is a constant thing that comes up about Soldier Field...

Supposedly, the new Cowboys stadium was designed with that in mind, so if Dallas had made their stadium in light of that, how much more should LA be thinking of doing that?

[baron-pierreIV]

well, there's this guy in Vegas who wants to build a T&F Stadium.

If they build it, they will come...

[Quaker2001]

At least we're not Vegas or Denver!

You never miss an opportunity to rip on Denver, don't you. What did Denver ever do to you!? Moving on...

Well, if the city was thinking strategically, they would push for the stadium to have the potential to add additional seating, and remove seating at field level for a track.

That is a constant thing that comes up about Soldier Field...

Supposedly, the new Cowboys stadium was designed with that in mind, so if Dallas had made their stadium in light of that, how much more should LA be thinking of doing that?

Here's the difference about Farmers Field though. Los Angeles doesn't already have a football team. Dallas and Chicago did, so those stadium projects were done for the team already there. If folks in LA are pushing the Farmers Field project along, it's 1 thing to plan for the possibility of needing a track & field venue, but they also need to make that stadium as attractive and cost-effective specifically for the purpose of luring a football team as possible. I'm sure the prospect of hosting other big events like the Super Bowl or maybe a World Cup final will come into play, but to plan for the possibility of having to put a track there if it's going to affect the design/construction of the stadium may be less than worth the effort.

[baron-pierreIV]

What did Denver ever do to you!?

Nothing. But all's fair in love, war and Olympic bidding.

[Barcelona_'92]

I think it's more "predictions based on predictions." Or, to use your word, a hypothesis based on a hypothesis. You say you see "signs of chinks in the armor" (your exact words), but you seem to be basing that on PREDICTIONS that the medal haul for London will be down. You mentioned China's medal haul at the FINA World Championships, but it's hard to take stock of that when it was on China's home soil (and a lot of their medals came from diving (which China has dominated and the United States has been a non-factor in for a while anyway) and that the United States won 29 medals and 16 gold, up from 22 medals and 10 gold in 2009. So the United States did BETTER this year than they did in 2009 in Rome.

Just to poke more holes in the gloom and doom U.S. predictions for London, the IAAF Worlds wrapped up today with the U.S. winning 25 total medals (12 gold, 8 silver, 5 bronze). That's an improvement over the 22 medals in Berlin 2009 (10 gold, 6 silver, 6 bronze) and the 23 medals in Beijing 2008 (7 gold, 9 silver, 7 bronze), and it's the second-best performance ever for the U.S. at Worlds, behind Osaka 2007. The U.S. performance is even more remarkable considering that some key stars like Gay and Wariner were injured, and the U.S. won no medals in the men's 400m hurdles or shot put, where they can usually count on winning 2 of the 3 medals. USA Track & Field has said that they're shooting for 30 medals in London, and I don't think 26-30 medals is unreasonable given the U.S. performance in Daegu. At any rate, based on the swimming and track worlds alone, I think any predictions of the U.S. winning less than 90 medals in London are off base.