Quaker2001 Posted August 28, 2012 Report Share Posted August 28, 2012 If LA is the best, it's the best. That should not be viewed as any sort of shortcoming. It should be celebrated and submitted to the IOC with confidence. I am not necessarily saying LA is the best. We don't know who else is in the running or what they're offering. However in any case, we must abandon completely the idea that LA is a consolation prize and cannot be a compelling, competitive candidate. It has nothing to do with being a consolation prize. But it also brings up the idea what is the "best" option? If it were about having the most technically sound bid with the most public support and the IOC was looking for a safe, reliable choice, then L.A. would be in a great position. But we know that's not how the game is played and that geopolitics often trump everything else. And yes, you may disagree, but I think that puts L.A. at something of a disadvantage. Now, if L.A. can come up with an X-factor, something that makes a future Olympics different from the 1984 version and leaves a new legacy, then that can help mitigate the idea that Los Angeles is 'been there, done that.' Again, having hosted a highly successful games could make them a nice choice, but not if the city they're up against offers a better legacy because they've never had it before and going there for the first time does more than returning to L.A. for a r3d. Plus, it's different than a London or a Paris or a Tokyo where the options to come to those countries make those cities the only option. Of course over time you're going to have repeat hosts, but the IOC is usually going to be looking for newer options. Let me state this again, because I really don't want to get into a stupid argument over semantics and lead this thread down a bad path. I am not dismissing L.A. I am in no way saying they CAN'T be the candidate. I'm merely asking the question of whether they should be the candidate UNLESS they can come up with a hook. In other words, it's SHOULD they be the candidate? And there's plenty of time for them to plan that one out, especially given all the positives like venues in place and public support which then work in their favor. Either way, and again, maybe we have to agree to disagree on this one, but I still think the IOC (in the short term, who knows about decades down the road) may look at Los Angeles as an offering from the USOC that they're not overly excited about, especially if their interests in bigger and more glamorous haven't changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.