USA 2024

[Athensfan]

Oops. Forgot it was Quebec City in 2002 not Vancouver. LA works though 76, 80, 84....

[Athensfan]

Of course another Chicago is "possible", I never said that it wasn't. But so is flying a manned space probe to Mars. But I don't see that happening in the next decade, either.

And as far as the GB article you're talking about, we been through how quite a bit of the information on it was inaccurate when other cities that the article mentioned as "expressed interest" were wondering where that false information was coming from. And Soaring also posted an article from the Chicago Tribune where the USOC was the one that approached New York, Chicago & Los Angeles, & not that those cities were actually soliciting.

Seriously, if any of these cities were thinking of another bid, & especially 2024, the wheels would be starting in motion now. And especially when Reno is extremely serious about 2022. Certainly the USOC would then have to make the call of which is it going to be; "2022 or 2024". Since we all know a good, winnable Olympic bid isn't drawn up on a napkin overnight.

Let's not exagerrate. There was one person in one city - Minneapolis - who hadn't heard anything about 2020. That in itself doesn't prove anything about whether there's interest in Chicago or not.

There isn't usually much publicity about Olympic bids 4 years before the contest even begins. Until the revenue issue is dealt with and the USOC makes a decision about 2022, I wouldn't expect to hear a word about 2024. That doesn't mean nobody's thinking about it.

As for Reno, they can be as serious as they want.That doesn't mean the USOC, much less the IOC, will be equally excited. It all depends on whether the USOC decides to abandon ship and give up on Summer Games.

[Quaker2001]

If I dont remind people I'm not dealing in absolutes people jump down my throat, misquote me and accuse me of making arrogantly definitive statements. So, yes, I'll continue to qualify my posts.

I think there's a world of difference between 2016 and 2024. Look at Vancouver, Athens, Beijing. What a difference two cycles made to those bids. That doesn't make 2024 perfect, but it does make it different.

FYI, you're entitled to think a Chicago bid is improbable. I'm entitled to think it's possible. Neither of us has our finger on the pulse of the powers that be.

Incidentally, according to a Gamesbids story Chicago was one of several cities that "expressed interest" - not the other way around, as you wrote. Different news stories phrased the information differently. It's just further proof that we do not have all the facts and shouldn't make arguments as if we did.

Yea, still don't think the whole dealing with absolutes thing is helping your cause here. You don't need to state the obvious and remind us what we do or don't know.

You're right that we don't know everything going on behind the scenes and like FYI said, these bids don't just appear out of thin air. But there's still a huge difference between expressing interest and a serious bid. Right now even Reno is somewhere between those 2. But it's not just about bidding a second time. Los Angeles isn't the best example because by the time they got to 1984, they were the choice by default. If Chicago does in fact re-bid, they're going to need to do something different. Obviously USOC relations played a part for the 2016 vote, but they can't just bid a 2nd time and automatically expect it to be better received than it was the first time.

[FYI]

I'm not "exaggerating", & it was more than just "one" person. It was a SLEW of city officials. Here's the article again, since obviously you didn't read it before:

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

And I'm also not saying that the article "proves" that there isn't interest in Chicago. Only pointing out that you can't solely rely on that GB article that you're always so quick to jump on that somehow there "is" interest.

And "thinking" about a bid is not the same as actually WORKING on one. So simply because "one" person utters the words "Olympic Bid" in city hall doesn't automatically translate into an actual bid.

[Athensfan]

I'm not "exaggerating", & it was more than just "one" person. It was a SLEW of city officials. Here's the article again, since obviously you didn't read it before:

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

And I'm also not saying that the article "proves" that there isn't interest in Chicago. Only pointing out that you can't solely rely on that GB article that you're always so quick to jump on that somehow there "is" interest.

And "thinking" about a bid is not the same as actually WORKING on one. So simply because "one" person utters the words "Olympic Bid" in city hall doesn't automatically translate into an actual bid.

My mistake about multiple people in Minneapolis. You still exagerrated. You wrote about multiple cities arguing with the story. There was one.

Thinking is working where I come from. How do you know the extent of the planning?

[FYI]

My mistake about multiple people in Minneapolis. You still exagerrated. You wrote about multiple cities arguing with the story. There was one.

Thinking is working where I come from. How do you know the extent of the planning?

No, I said that there were multiple people in Minneapolis, when you said that there was one. Where did I say "multiple cities". You're putting words in my mouth now.

And splitting hairs here now with semantics. I'm "thinking" about buying a vacation home next year. Does that mean that I'm "working" on it right now? No, it doesn't.

[Quaker2001]

And "thinking" about a bid is not the same as actually WORKING on one. So simply because "one" person utters the words "Olympic Bid" in city hall doesn't automatically translate into an actual bid.

Thinking is working where I come from. How do you know the extent of the planning?

Athens, just use your better judgment. You try so hard to interpret these things and look for hidden meaning that you sometimes seem to want these things to be more black and white than they could be. Often these bits of news need to be taken on their surface value. What was Las Vegas 2020? A group of locals trying to organize themselves without the necessarily official involvement. Tulsa was the same thing. Whereas Reno 2022.. assuming the most recent news is true, you now have a commission and government officials working on it together. That's the beginnings of a successful bid. Cities like New York and Chicago and others mentioned in the 2020 running didn't have that, case in point Minneapolis. If some friends of mine and I decide to form a group to explore the possibility of an NYC Olympics, that doesn't constitute "planning," certainly not if we don't have city or other government officials involved. We don't know the extent of what's going on behind the scenes, especially when the reporting isn't always that reliable, but more often than not, it's fairly easy to determine when a bid is truly serious and when it's just "thinking," even if that thinking more eventually lead to a serious bid.

[Athensfan]

Yea, still don't think the whole dealing with absolutes thing is helping your cause here. You don't need to state the obvious and remind us what we do or don't know.

You're right that we don't know everything going on behind the scenes and like FYI said, these bids don't just appear out of thin air. But there's still a huge difference between expressing interest and a serious bid. Right now even Reno is somewhere between those 2. But it's not just about bidding a second time. Los Angeles isn't the best example because by the time they got to 1984, they were the choice by default. If Chicago does in fact re-bid, they're going to need to do something different. Obviously USOC relations played a part for the 2016 vote, but they can't just bid a 2nd time and automatically expect it to be better received than it was the first time.

You wonder why I qualify myself? When did I ever say Chicago could bid a second time and automatically expect everything to be different? The geopolitics, will be different, but of course Chicago would still have to work on their bid. That's why I state the obvious, because certain posters assume I don't see it if I don't spell it out. It wasn't that many posts ago somebody accused me of saying 2024 was perfect timing - which I did not say. Hence, the qualifications.

[Athensfan]

Of course another Chicago is "possible", I never said that it wasn't. But so is flying a manned space probe to Mars. But I don't see that happening in the next decade, either.

And as far as the GB article you're talking about, we been through how quite a bit of the information on it was inaccurate when other cities that the article mentioned as "expressed interest" were wondering where that false information was coming from. And Soaring also posted an article from the Chicago Tribune where the USOC was the one that approached New York, Chicago & Los Angeles, & not that those cities were actually soliciting.

Seriously, if any of these cities were thinking of another bid, & especially 2024, the wheels would be starting in motion now. And especially when Reno is extremely serious about 2022. Certainly the USOC would then have to make the call of which is it going to be; "2022 or 2024". Since we all know a good, winnable Olympic bid isn't drawn up on a napkin overnight.

I don't mean to make a big deal about this, but you did write "other cities" - plural - in the above post. I am not putting words in your mouth. As for "hidden meanings" I keep saying ad nauseum that we don't have enough information to make definitive statements - to the point where Quaker is crticizing my posts for it. You're accusing me of the opposite. I have no crystal ball. I see no hidden meanings. I do think 2024 is a different ballgame from 2016. I think there's a chance Chicago might bid and I think there's a chance they could win. I've explained why I think this and admitted things could play out totally differently. I see no hidden meanings there.

[Quaker2001]

You wonder why I qualify myself? When did I ever say Chicago could bid a second time and automatically expect everything to be different? The geopolitics, will be different, but of course Chicago would still have to work on their bid. That's why I state the obvious, because certain posters assume I don't see it if I don't spell it out. It wasn't that many posts ago somebody accused me of saying 2024 was perfect timing - which I did not say. Hence, the qualifications.

And you wonder why I accuse you of dealing in absolutes. I don't see how you get from my line of "Chicago is going to need to do something different" to I must think you mean "automatically expect everything to be different." You EXACT words were "I think there's a world of difference between 2016 and 2024." Of course the circumstances will be different, as they always are (ask Rio how that worked out for them), but I think your logic of how you put 2 and 2 together by comparing a hypothetical Chicago 2024 to Athens and Beijing is a little faulty. Obviously something was missing with the Chicago 2016 bid, aside from all the geopolitics that sunk the bid. Of course if you take that same bid and plop it into the 2024 race, it's a different picture. But I think you're over-selling just how much that will affect Chicago's chances. You've been arguing that 2016 was still "too soon" for a US win, but that there will be (again, to use your exact words) "a world of difference" before 2024. If you're making the assumption that the USOC revenue deal and IOC relations will be better by then, I won't argue that. I just don't see it being that much more advantageous simply for another 8 years to have passed, all other things considered.

[Quaker2001]

I don't mean to make a big deal about this, but you did write "other cities" - plural - in the above post. I am not putting words in your mouth. As for "hidden meanings" I keep saying ad nauseum that we don't have enough information to make definitive statements - to the point where Quaker is crticizing my posts for it. You're accusing me of the opposite. I have no crystal ball. I see no hidden meanings. I do think 2024 is a different ballgame from 2016. I think there's a chance Chicago might bid and I think there's a chance they could win. I've explained why I think this and admitted things could play out totally differently. I see no hidden meanings there.

Alright, my last post and then I'm going to sleep. Athens, you have this habit to want things to be more black and white than they are. You did that in the run-up to the 2020 deadline when the USOC wasn't revealing anything definitive, so that caused you to look for the answer when it was never really there. I say something like Chicago needs to be different next time and you're suddenly trying to defend yourself "well when did I say I expect everything to be different." I've said it before here and I'll say it again.. we're a bunch of schmucks on an Internet forum debating a subject based on personal intuition and little bits and pieces of information that may or may not be accurate or detailed. I'm not expecting you to try and paint the whole picture here because not even the people in the know who actually have to make these decisions have a full grasp of what's going on. Doesn't mean we can't continue to debate and discuss these things for no other reason than that it interests us. I'm not trying to take your arguments to absolutes. There's always a middle ground until we know for sure 1 way or the other.

[Athensfan]

Athens, you have this habit to want things to be more black and white than they are. You did that in the run-up to the 2020 deadline when the USOC wasn't revealing anything definitive, so that caused you to look for the answer when it was never really there. I say something like Chicago needs to be different next time and you're suddenly trying to defend yourself "well when did I say I expect everything to be different." I've said it before here and I'll say it again.. we're a bunch of schmucks on an Internet forum debating a subject based on personal intuition and little bits and pieces of information that may or may not be accurate or detailed. I'm not expecting you to try and paint the whole picture here because not even the people in the know who actually have to make these decisions have a full grasp of what's going on. Doesn't mean we can't continue to debate and discuss these things for no other reason than that it interests us. I'm not trying to take your arguments to absolutes. There's always a middle ground until we know for sure 1 way or the other.

On the one hand you say I'm qualifying too much and reminding people too often of the elements that are nebulous and unknown. On the other hand you tell me I'm being too black and white. Those to critiques sound mutually contradictory.

If I said, "The US will bid for 2024" or "The US will never bid for 2024" -- that would be black and white. Rather than being black and white I've argued repeatedly in this thread and others that we simply don't have enough information to make the definitive statements that some people make. I don't know what will happen in the 2024 race any more than you do, but I think it's important to offer a tempering voice to some of those who say 2024 is a foolhardy impossibility and no city will want to bid anyway. Perhaps no one will want to bid. Perhaps cities will be interested and the USOC will still give up on Summer Games. Perhaps Durban will be unbeatable. BUT PERHAPS NOT. All I'm doing is fighting to keep that "perhaps" in the conversation. Four years from the start of the race I think there ought to be room for "perhaps." I'm not hunting for "secret answers." I'm fighting for a question. It IS still a question.

Regarding the 2020 race, months before the deadline many people proclaimed there was zero chance of a US bid. I did not counter by saying, "The US definitely will bid!" I acknowledged that I thought a US bid was very unlikely and probably unwise. I also said that there was enough quirky evidence to the contrary (such as the WADA paperwork and various statements about keeping options open)that it was too soon to act like it was a done deal.

I have no crystal ball. There is no "secret answer" and I'm not searching for one. I think it would be foolish to do so. I totally agree that we are just a bunch of hobbyists and dilletantes who are not playing with anything close to a full deck. We have very incomplete and sometimes inaccurate information. We look at that information and float a variety of hypotheses for the fun of it. There's no expectation of perfectly predicting the future. We just look at the information that's out there from multiple angles and then wait to see what happens. Sometimes we're right. Sometimes we're wrong. That's all I'm doing. It's supposed to be enjoyable.

These boards are ripe with misunderstandings. Whether you think you need my clarification or not, it's my prerogative to try to express myself as clearly and specifically as possible. I'd appreciate it if you would address the topic at hand instead of taking it upon yourself to edit my writing. If you disagree with the content of my posts, fine. Offer a counter argument. But please stop levelling criticism at my general approach to the forum.

[intoronto]

Interesting read:

http://www.thestar.com/article/1058713--perkins-quebec-win-weak-pan-ams-would-likely-derail-t-o-olympic-bid

[baron-pierreIV]

Y r the arguments here: maybe the sun will rise tomorrow; maybe it won't? Maybe night will follow day or maybe it won't? Whakindda mushy, weak-sister, limp-wristed posturing is that? I mean if that's one stance, DON'T EVEN BOTHER TO POST. It doesn't advance the discussion any.

[Quaker2001]

Y r the arguments here: maybe the sun will rise tomorrow; maybe it won't? Maybe night will follow day or maybe it won't? Whakindda mushy, weak-sister, limp-wristed posturing is that? I mean if that's one stance, DON'T EVEN BOTHER TO POST. It doesn't advance the discussion any.

As opposed to what? "Durban already has 2024 locked up, so why even bother"? How does that advance the discussion instead of stopping it cold? We have 6 years until the 2024 host is decided and 4 years until the USOC has to commit to whether or not they're bidding. So either we don't have this discussion (and gosh darnit, what fun is that) or we're all just guessing. What else would you like this topic to be, you of 29,203 posts and counting!

[baron-pierreIV]

I just hate all that wishy-washy stance some people take. At least I commit to a certain side--and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong--but at least I wasn't a fence-sitter. That's what I despise.

[Athensfan]

Damned if I do. Damned if I don't.

One person says I'm too black and white. One person says I'm too wishy washy. And yes, Baron, even though you're on ignore I can see your posts when others quote you. C'est la vie.

In case someone has missed it, here's my position: I hope the USOC foregoes 2022 in favor of 2024. I think Reno is unelectable internationally and will never support that bid. All though I would be disappointed by a Denver 2022 bid, I would totally support it. I think several cities could step forward for2024, including Chicago, who I believe would be the best choice. I imagine LA would be the runner-up. Though a Durban bid could be unbeatable, there is no way to know for sure until the race is upon us. I believe thatChicago could possibly beat Durban. I believe Chicago 2024 would be in a much better position to win than the 2016 bid. There is time to refine the technicalities of the bid. The revenue deal will no longer be a handicap. The USOCis building good will in the IOC. The distance between previous American Games is increasingly comfortable. For all these reasons as well as Chicago's great beauty and character I hope Chicago decides to go for 2024. I hope the USOC backs them up. I believe Chicago 2024 offers more to the Olympic movement globally and the American people than Denver 2022.

I don't see any of that as a wishy washy non-position. I've written it all before, so none of it should be a surprise.

[Athensfan]

I just came across a very positive story about the USOC, their change in tone, their commitment to working with the IOC and supporting them and, of all things, their optimism regarding the medal count in London. Whenever the US bids again, all these ingredients are positive and will be a significant asset. I hope they keep up the good work.

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/news;_ylt=AtDLXB42K4RMO9NJK9o9ZG3NycIF?slug=ap-usocassembly

[Quaker2001]

I just hate all that wishy-washy stance some people take. At least I commit to a certain side--and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong--but at least I wasn't a fence-sitter. That's what I despise.

So you would rather take a position and have it be wrong than wait until you can make a more informed guess that might be right? You should run for political office! We're talking about an event not taking place for nearly 13 years and a bid process that won't determine a host for nearly 6. If your viewpoint is set in stone, good for you, but for the rest of us who want to contemplate it and take the stance of "I'm not sure what we'll see, let's discuss this" maybe you shouldn't be the guy posting about not advancing the discussion.

[deawebo]

It's this simple I can bet $ 10000 that the US is going to bid for 2022 and then for 2024, of course, if the winter bid fails (which is pretty likelly)

[Athensfan]

It's this simple I can bet $ 10000 that the US is going to bid for 2022 and then for 2024, of course, if the winter bid fails (which is pretty likelly)

I just worry that the scenario you describe is not practically feasible. Whenever the USOC bids again they'll focus solely on the current bid. I don't really see them working on an insurance policy to pull out of their back pocket. Because the turn around time is so short it seems almost impossible to pull off the second bid. The only country that's tried it recently is Russia with Moscow 2012 and Sochi 2014. Amazingly, it paid off. I'm still not sure the USOC would try something similar. Of course, I would be thrilled to see an American Summer bid under any circumstances...

[intoronto]

I just worry that the scenario you describe is not practically feasible. Whenever the USOC bids again they'll focus solely on the current bid. I don't really see them working on an insurance policy to pull out of their back pocket. Because the turn around time is so short it seems almost impossible to pull off the second bid. The only country that's tried it recently is Russia with Moscow 2012 and Sochi 2014. Amazingly, it paid off. I'm still not sure the USOC would try something similar. Of course, I would be thrilled to see an American Summer bid under any circumstances...

They should focus on winning a bid not winter or summer.

[Athensfan]

They should focus on winning a bid not winter or summer.

I'm not sure I understand you.

Given the choice, I think the USOC might prefer Summer Games. After all, that's what they've been bidding for. It seems to me like they may choose either a 2022/2026 long term plan or a 2024/2028 long term plan. I really think that either track would have a high chance of success - if not with the firs bid, then with the second. They just have to choose which they want more. For a mere 2-6 years more I really think they could land Summer Games.

What do others think? Is there much likelihood that the USOC would do 2022/2024 back-to-back bids? Or 2024/2026? Or is it more likely that they would do a 2022/2026 or 2024/2028 pairing instead?

[Barcelona_'92]

I'm not sure I understand you.

Given the choice, I think the USOC might prefer Summer Games. After all, that's what they've been bidding for. It seems to me like they may choose either a 2022/2026 long term plan or a 2024/2028 long term plan. I really think that either track would have a high chance of success - if not with the firs bid, then with the second. They just have to choose which they want more. For a mere 2-6 years more I really think they could land Summer Games.

What do others think? Is there much likelihood that the USOC would do 2022/2024 back-to-back bids? Or 2024/2026? Or is it more likely that they would do a 2022/2026 or 2024/2028 pairing instead?

YOU would prefer a Summer Games (as you've stated a thousand times). The USOC focused on summer bids for 2012 and 2016 because they just hosted a Winter Games in 2002. Do you seriously think the USOC was going to waste money and resources bidding for 2014 or 2018 when there was no chance they'd get another Winter Games that soon? By 2022, it will have been 20 years since the last Winter Games in the U.S., so it's unlikely that the IOC will consider a Winter bid to be "too soon" after Salt Lake. Yes, it will have been longer since the last Summer Games, but the time issue is not likely to be much of a factor in either bid.

I could easily see the USOC bidding for 2022 and 2024, or I could them sitting out 2022 and waiting for 2024. As I've said before, the real question will be what to do if/when the U.S. loses the 2024 bid, because they'd have a very strong chance at 2026. Do they go for a 2026 bid that they can win, or do they go for 2028 and face a much greater chance at losing.

[FYI]

Well, the thing is, if there are any worthwhile cities out there that might be interested for 2024, now is the time to start getting the gears in motion. Especially that Denver & Reno have now contacted the USOC about a possible 2022 Winter bid. I can't see the USOC doing both winter & summer. Unless the USOC acknowledges from the get go to the interested cities, that if they lose their respective races that they're going to move on to the step.

And frankly, I can't see that scenario. I would think with the way the USOC is trying to mend relationships with the IOC, that the USOC would stick to just one strategy & not be all over the place with winter & summer bids. I think that the USOC is going to have to choose which way they want to go. Or maybe the decision will be made for them with the lack of good summer candidates.