GBModerator Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 A Denver bid for the 2022 Winter Olympic Games was reinforced Thursday when U.S. Senator Michael Bennet, co-chair of the Congressional Olympic and Paralympic Caucus, View the full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soaring Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Great letter. I think we have ourselves a domestic bid race on the horizon for 2022... If we submit an applicant, I hope it is Denver, although I prefer that we wait to bid on a Summer Games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 What I would like to know is, if the senator also wrote to Denver asking them how they're going to pay for all of their transportation upgrades & the whole sha-bang. Since they seem to think that the Feds will give them the money for that. Cause I certainly don't want ANY of my tax dollars going to Colorado for an Olympics! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soaring Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 What I would like to know is, if the senator also wrote to Denver asking them how they're going to pay for all of their transportation upgrades & the whole sha-bang. Since they seem to think that the Feds will give them the money for that. Cause I certainly don't want ANY of my tax dollars going to Colorado for an Olympics! You already have tax dollars going to all 50 states, what's a few more dollars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 You already have tax dollars going to all 50 states, what's a few more dollars? Quite a bit, especially if they're your $$ and you have a say in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soaring Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Quite a bit, especially if they're your $$ and you have a say in that. Well, then I don't want my tax dollars going to Reno for security or anything else! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Well, then I don't want my tax dollars going to Reno for security or anything else! Fine. Tell yar senator or congressperson. Soaring - ? 4 u? What if an IOC'er told you that Denver's 1972 antics is a no-go for them, wud u still put forward a $50 mil bid, with that in mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felixc Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 This thought that no one on the IOC was there in 1976 so they won't remember Denver rejecting the Games is hogwash. If I'm a member of the IOC, I can't wait to vote against Denver. If I'm a member of a competing city - I can't wait to mention 1976 again and again and again. Ironically - if Denver had actually held the Games in 1976, I would see there being an excellent chance in hosting again. For the forseeable future - the antics of the early 70's have killed Denver in regards to hosting the Olympic Games (Winter or Summer). Every second spent on this bid is a waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 This thought that no one on the IOC was there in 1976 so they won't remember Denver rejecting the Games is hogwash. If I'm a member of the IOC, I can't wait to vote against Denver. If I'm a member of a competing city - I can't wait to mention 1976 again and again and again. Ironically - if Denver had actually held the Games in 1976, I would see there being an excellent chance in hosting again. For the forseeable future - the antics of the early 70's have killed Denver in regards to hosting the Olympic Games (Winter or Summer). Every second spent on this bid is a waste of time. Thank you. I TOTALLY AGREE. They are underestimating the memory of the IOC. Do its supporters think that suddenly everyone in the IOC developed TOTAL, collective amnesia over the event of 1972? Like yeah, it's one of the dozen times winning cities have changed their minds and returned the prize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 And I think the antics of "I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for an Olympics in another state" will continue to push bids from the United States to the top of the early elimination pile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 No, what I meant is that I don't want my tax dollars to go to a light rail development & an I-70 upgrade plan into the mountains IN "Colorado" on my dime! Y should they, when they won the 1972 Winter Games, & then in their capriciousness, decided to give the Games back because they didn't want to "pay" for the Games themsleves. And now all of the sudden, they want a blank check from the rest of us so they can now "play"! Denver can go fu@k themselves now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 No, what I meant is that I don't want my tax dollars to go to a light rail development & an I-70 upgrade plan into the mountains IN "Colorado" on my dime! Y should they, when they won the 1972 Winter Games, & then in their capriciousness, decided to give the Games back because they didn't want to "pay" for the Games themsleves. And now all of the sudden, they want a blank check from the rest of us so they can now "play"! Denver can go fu@k themselves now. Well said!! Slight correction tho, FYI. It was the 1976 WOGs, but which they turned back in 1972. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Oops, sorry, my bad. I meant 1976, lol. I was just pecking away at the keyboard when I was typing, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 This thought that no one on the IOC was there in 1976 so they won't remember Denver rejecting the Games is hogwash. If I'm a member of the IOC, I can't wait to vote against Denver. If I'm a member of a competing city - I can't wait to mention 1976 again and again and again. Ironically - if Denver had actually held the Games in 1976, I would see there being an excellent chance in hosting again. For the forseeable future - the antics of the early 70's have killed Denver in regards to hosting the Olympic Games (Winter or Summer). Every second spent on this bid is a waste of time. Why do so many people think that the IOC has an axe to grind with Denver from 4 decades ago? The voting members of the IOC are not stupid.. of course they're going to know what happened in 1972, but don't you think you're going to do their homework and learn about WHY that happened? No one's saying Denver shouldn't be held accountable for their actions, but by the same token, the IOC isn't going to flat out reject them on that basis before hearing them out (if they get that far which obviously would take a lot) and trying to plead their case. I don't think it's necessarily a waste of time for them to be bidding, and less we forget.. they've been at this going back to the 1980s. It's not like they've only started in recent years to pursue another Olympics, so if they were that unlikely to get rejected solely on the basis of 1976, I'd like to think someone would have given them the hint by now and told them to save their time, their energy, and their money. So this notion that the IOC and their voters are sitting there waiting for Denver simply so they can reject them is utter nonsense. That all said (and as I've said before), if a Denver bid is even going to be considered, they're going to have to offer all sorts of financial guarantees before the bid process even begins. I'm not sure they're going to be able to do that. But if (key word here: IF) they somehow find a pile of money, then that could be a strength of their bid rather than a hindrance. So if the other bidders think they can sling mud at Denver, they're almost helping Denver's cause rather than hurting them. I'm not saying this scenario is likely, but if Denver was really as much of a non-starter as some here seem to believe it is, we wouldn't be having a serious discussion about them. The IOC voters may choose to reject Denver, but it's not going to be solely because of 1976. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 That all said (and as I've said before), if a Denver bid is even going to be considered, they're going to have to offer all sorts of financial guarantees before the bid process even begins. I'm not sure they're going to be able to do that. But if (key word here: IF) they somehow find a pile of money, then that could be a strength of their bid rather than a hindrance. That's just it, though. Denver wants SOMEONE else to flip their bill for them. They somehow wanna "find that pile of money" in the Feds to pay for the big Olympic projects. And as far as I'm concerned with that, they can go take a big "hike" into the Rockies. Let them pay for it themselves! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 That's just it, though. Denver wants SOMEONE else to flip their bill for them. They somehow wanna "find that pile of money" in the Feds to pay for the big Olympic projects. And as far as I'm concerned with that, they can go take a big "hike" into the Rockies. Let them pay for it themselves! In this economy, I agree that it's probably not going to happen and I'm not necessarily expecting it to. But it's THAT which makes Denver's bid an uphill struggle, not some theoretical grudge the IOC holds against them for 1976. If Denver presents the strongest bid (again, that's a massive 'if' because it involves financial guarantees which Denver may or may not be able to provide), they're a contender. Either way though, if the USOC is ready to endorse a candidate for 2022, I think we have a pretty good domestic bid race ahead of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 not some theoretical grudge the IOC holds against them for 1976. I don't think it's theoretical at all. Whaddya think? They will have collective TOTAL amnesia about that event? Do you really think...even the new ones, wouldn't think: Oh, it was just a childish prank. After all, we take time out of busy lives to gather once a year and settle some really important matters; and here comes this pendejo city that makes a sham of our efforts? It would just be so naive to think that the majority of the voters...or at least a sufficient number of voters enough to spell victory and defeat...would NOT think about this. I certainly would if I were an IOC member. Denver's "strength" is illusory because it carries a big, big monkey on its back. How strong can such a bid be, regardless of technical brillance? Uhmm....Chicago, anyone? Out even before the coffee was warm!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soaring Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 Baron, like I have said before, there are only TWO current IOC members that were around in 1972, and it's likely these guys will be gone very soon. Of course the majority of the members will at least know about it, but you can only blame the "sins of the father" for so long. 2-3 generations have gone by since then, and it is going to come to a point when '76 will be irrelevant, especially if Denver can provide enough financial guarantees to ease any concerns of the IOC. I don't know if that would be possible for the 2022 race like Quaker said, but you guys are being far more dramatic about Denver's chances then you need to be. Of course your heart's desire for Reno has something to do with that, but Denver at least deserves a shot. Case in point, I don't blame Chicago's current police force for the '68 riots during the Democratic convention, and we were redeemed by hosting a very successful convention in '96. Times change and people change. You won't be able to quell Denver as a potential host forever, especially with the limited cities in the US that have the capability to host a Winter Games. 2022 may not be Denver's time, but I am willing to at least give them a shot to make their case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 Baron, like I have said before, there are only TWO current IOC members that were around in 1972, and it's likely these guys will be gone very soon. Of course the majority of the members will at least know about it, but you can only blame the "sins of the father" for so long. 2-3 generations have gone by since then, and it is going to come to a point when '76 will be irrelevant, especially if Denver can provide enough financial guarantees to ease any concerns of the IOC. I don't know if that would be possible for the 2022 race like Quaker said, but you guys are being far more dramatic about Denver's chances then you need to be. Of course your heart's desire for Reno has something to do with that, but Denver at least deserves a shot. Case in point, I don't blame Chicago's current police force for the '68 riots during the Democratic convention, and we were redeemed by hosting a very successful convention in '96. Times change and people change. You won't be able to quell Denver as a potential host forever, especially with the limited cities in the US that have the capability to host a Winter Games. 2022 may not be Denver's time, but I am willing to at least give them a shot to make their case. So what if they're all gone? DO you think the rival cities won't bring out and make it a sore point? Have you thought of that? What if, say Astana, brings it up? Would not a newbie IOC'er think: yeah...wait a minute. They have a point. I almost forgot about it. Yeah, what business do they have coming around again after tossing us out the first time? I'm changing my vote!! How do you counter that? You can't. The point is they HAD THEIR SHOT; they blew it! What about the others they displaced? By all that is right and fair -- and as you just said: everyone should get a SHOT...therefore the other bidders should COME first. Let Denver come around when the US has gone through its other candidates, by then, yeah, the "sin" might have been forgotten. But NOT until then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 I don't think it's theoretical at all. Whaddya think? They will have collective TOTAL amnesia about that event? Do you really think...even the new ones: Oh, it was just a childish prank? After all, we take time out of busy lives to gather once a year and settle some really important matters; and here comes this pendejo city that makes a sham of our efforts? It would just be so naive to think that the majority of the voters...or at least a sufficient number of voters enough to spell victory and defeat...would NOT think about this. I certainly would if I were an IOC member. Did you ever bother to read my whole post? Judging by your response, it almost seems like you didn't. I'm not asking if the current IOC is aware of what happened in the 1970s. I'm sure they are and if not, they'll educate themselves as soon as Denver gets mentioned as a candidate. I asked if they hold a grudge and I'm not convinced that's the case. baron, I know how you feel about the situation and we know that you certainly have some strong feelings (probably in part motivated by Reno), but you don't know that the IOC feels the same way, mostly because they don't spend their time stewing about it on a message board. Of course YOU would think about it as an IOC member, but your judgment in this matter is pretty clouded, so you can't exactly be the baseline for an opinion here. So again, this isn't going to be about the past, it'll be about the present. Why did Denver do what it did in 1972? Because they tried to rely on public funding that wasn't there. As the situation is, that could be exactly what faces Denver this time around. If Denver can guarantee beyond a shadow of a doubt that 1972 can't repeat itself and they will be completely funded without having to rely on a voter referendum, then past history is a moot point. If Denver can't guarantee that, then 1972 is very much a blight on their bid and then yes, their bid is a non-starter. It's not just about the end result of what happened then. Any IOC member doing his due diligence will know this instead of just looking at the end result and thinking they're dealing with the same people and circumstances this time around. The point is they HAD THEIR SHOT. What about the others they displaced? By all that is right and fair -- and as you just said: everyone should get a SHOT...therefore the other bidders should COME first. Let Denver come around when the US has gone through its other candidates, by then, yeah, the "sin" might have been forgotten. But NOT until then... Whoever said this process is right and fair. Tell that to the folks with Chicago 2016 and only hindsight tells us they were doomed from the start. That monkey on their belonged as much to the USOC as it did to them, less you think the IOC held it against them that they were chosen to host the 1904 games and had to give it to St. Louis! That must have been it, that's what cost them!! As for Denver, I'd believe you "other bidders should come first" conviction a whole lot more if the very obvious subtext to that didn't read "Denver can bid, but not until Reno goes first." Denver's sin shouldn't be predicated on what other cities and potential bidders are doing because from that standpoint, who at the IOC is going to care. Yes, Denver has hurdles to overcome that no other bidder would, but it's the USOC's job to put forth the city they believe has the best chance at winning, not simply to dismiss Denver until there's no other available option. Don't give us this BS about how everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 Don't give me your BS about Denver because I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 What if, say Munich, brings it up? Would not a newbie IOC'er think: yeah...wait a minute. They have a point. I almost forgot about it. Yeah, what business do they have coming around again after tossing us out the first time? I'm changing my vote!! How do you counter that? You can't. What exactly is their point? Love that you used Munich because they're a bad example.. perhaps they're not the best city to bring bad things that happened to the IOC in 1972, don't you think? Them bringing up Denver would be like Denver calling out Munich for their inability to secure an Olympic Village. It doesn't matter what the past says, only the present. That'll be an issue for Munich, but if they can offer up that their security this time around won't repeat the mistakes of the past, then it's a moot point and doesn't make a difference to their current bid. Don't give me your BS about Denver because I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. End of story. Get over yourself, baron. You don't buy it because you don't WANT to buy it. You want the road to be as clear as possible for Reno and will do or say anything to make that come true. I'm not your enemy here. I'm not the one who's dismissing your city, I'm merely trying to debate the merits of Denver versus Reno. You refuse to even have that debate because you don't want to acknowledge the candidacy of Denver. Guess what baron.. whether you like it or not, they're going to be a part of the discussion, and maybe in the end the ghosts of 1976 kill Denver's chances, but I'm not ready to seal their fate yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 Stop splitting hairs. OK, it's NO LONGER Munich. As if it really mattered. It's still the most visible Achilles heel of the US bid. Stop being so pedantic. Now, it's end of story, I'm going to bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 Stop splitting hairs. OK, so what if it wasn't Munich? Say, Zakapone? DOes it make a difference? It's still the Achilles heel of the US bid. It doesn't make a difference. I'm just saying that it's not something that is going to be held against them if it doesn't affect their 2022 bid. And that's the whole point.. it absolutely could be a serious factor and if it comes into play, they're screwed. This isn't a case of "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." Denver has to be very cognizant of their history. The IOC doesn't have to hold it against them if they don't see the need to. Again, try your best to look at the situation objectively for change instead of through this prism where you only care about Reno's chances and will do anything to avoid having to entertain any other US bidders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 It doesn't make a difference. I'm just saying that it's not something that is going to be held against them if it doesn't affect their 2022 bid. And that's the whole point.. it absolutely could be a serious factor and if it comes into play, they're screwed. This isn't a case of "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." Denver has to be very cognizant of their history. Again, try your best to look at the situation objectively for change instead of through this prism where you only care about Reno's chances and will do anything to avoid having to entertain any other US bidders. Truly and really naive. How do you know it's NOT going to be brought up? Brazil, Spain, South Africa have no compunctions about playing their 'never-staged-here' or 'old man Samaranch's dying wish' cards; why can't rival bids play the same? So therefore, why even bother presenting a bid that's sunk before it left the gate? Why bother submitting it. The IOC doesn't have to hold it against them if they don't see the need to. BUT WHAT IF THEY DO? What if they do? Do you have any assurances that they won't? And if I were a rival bid, I surely wouldn't let it go unnoticed. I'd make sure it came up. Otherwise, it's $50 million down the drain; and other eligible hopefuls' aspirations dashed down the drain ALL FOR ONE FOOLISH, ARROGANT and supremely NAIVE city and NOC. And do you realize how stupid the USOC would look? We told ya so...and yet you persisted. Well, I guess if the USOC doesn't mind appearing stupid and foolish again, then by all means go with a mine-laden bid like Denver's. Even entertaining the whole idea is sooooooo stupid. A blind man could probably do better. And don't say I didn't tell you or anyone here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.