Jump to content

Denver 2022/2026 Winter Bid Details


Recommended Posts

Kernow, it's totally unfair to say the US is putting forward a "sorry" crop of candidates. The US isn't putting anything forward. They haven't even decided to bid. Their last two bids were NYC and Chicago. I really don't think the USOC will submit a bid they don't believe in. I feel like your posts have a real tendency to jump to unsupportable conclusions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

WHERE ARE THE CITIZEN SUPPORT NUMBERS??? We all know about their venues. But will the locals come forward? Where are the slopes?? All those venues are for nothing if Denver does not present 80

Civic Center Park - Possible "Live Site"

That was one of the great ironies of the scandal. It was almost universally agreed that Salt Lake would have won anyway. They DIDN'T need to bribe anyone and they did anyway out of insecurity (and com

Kernow, it's totally unfair to say the US is putting forward a "sorry" crop of candidates. The US isn't putting anything forward. They haven't even decided to bid. Their last two bids were NYC and Chicago. I really don't think the USOC will submit a bid they don't believe in. I feel like your posts have a real tendency to jump to unsupportable conclusions.

NY's bid was scuppered by the West Side stadium debacle, and I find it surprising that they were even considered by the USOC - it was suggested that when they bid in 2005 because it was the first campaign after 9/11 that they would get support because of this and realistically they took their eye off the basis.

As for Chicago, it did seem they were taking their candidature for granted much like England in the FIFA 2018 debacle. Key issues such as visas etc were not dealt with, and again the stadium solution seemed very mediocre - London got away with their solution but it wasn't going to work back to back to back. A shame that they didn't do something more deserving with Soldier Field or Northwestern University.

Maybe the USA need a different tack with their candidates - the IOC and other supporting events like to open up new parts of the world so why not introduce the world to a new part of the USA?

As for the Winter 2022 bids, realistically the trio of Salt Lake City, Reno/Lake Tahoe and Denver all of skeletons or significantly issues and whilst I appreciate that such bids tend to be all privately and/or locally funded there are other possible locations which don't have the baggage of these especially if they tend to go toe to toe with Europe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NY's bid was scuppered by the West Side stadium debacle, and I find it surprising that they were even considered by the USOC - it was suggested that when they bid in 2005 because it was the first campaign after 9/11 that they would get support because of this and realistically they took their eye off the basis.

Who should they have supported then? Yes, the stadium debacle made the USOC look pretty foolish and I've heard those that have said there was never a shot of that happening. Ya know what.. when Rudy Giuliani was mayor and before terrorists decided to cripple the city of New York and murder 3,000 of its citizens, the circumstances were a lot brighter. I can't fault the USOC for pushing that bid forward, even though in hindsight it was never going to be a winning proposition.

As for the Winter 2022 bids, realistically the trio of Salt Lake City, Reno/Lake Tahoe and Denver all of skeletons or significantly issues and whilst I appreciate that such bids tend to be all privately and/or locally funded there are other possible locations which don't have the baggage of these especially if they tend to go toe to toe with Europe.

Again, when does a bid EVER not have baggage attached to it. You keep saying there are other possible locations.. do you assume they won't have baggage too? You can't point at a city and say "this place looks nice" and assume it would be an adequate Olympic host. Like you said, because these bids have to be privately funded, certain cities/regions, even if they were adequate, may not want to go through the time and expense of even looking into the Olympics. Until they do, you have Salt Lake, Reno/Tahoe and Denver for choose from. And you haven't given us a city yet that IMO has a been shot at beating out the competition from Europe, especially for 2022.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kernow, I began by playing ball with you, but now I'm irritated.

We all know what happened with NYC and Chicago. Why summarize it for the18 millionth time?

NYC was too soon for the US. When the stadium fell apart at the last second that just made it official. But the world's greatest metropolis is hardly a "sorry candidate"!

Chicago had an excellent technical bid and they had every reason to be hopeful until it became clear that Rio reached the minimum benchmark and became the IOC's darling thanks to its geography. It was not a "sorry candidate" either.

As for 2022 -- THE USOC HASN'T EVEN SAID THEY ARE BIDDING. So it's wrong for you to accuse them of putting forward "sorry candidates" for 2022.

You real should offer an apology for making such unfounded blanket criticisms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kernow, I began by playing ball with you, but now I'm irritated.

We all know what happened with NYC and Chicago. Why summarize it for the18 millionth time?

NYC was too soon for the US. When the stadium fell apart at the last second that just made it official. But the world's greatest metropolis is hardly a "sorry candidate"!

Chicago had an excellent technical bid and they had every reason to be hopeful until it became clear that Rio reached the minimum benchmark and became the IOC's darling thanks to its geography. It was not a "sorry candidate" either.

As for 2022 -- THE USOC HASN'T EVEN SAID THEY ARE BIDDING. So it's wrong for you to accuse them of putting forward "sorry candidates" for 2022.

You real should offer an apology for making such unfounded blanket criticisms.

NY - the world's greatest metropolis? The world's biggest yes but only that. They were contending against 3 of the world's greatest cities in the form of London, Paris and Madrid yet again were only 4th in the evaluation stakes.

Chicago - received a bid score of 7.0 overall significantly less than both Madrid (8.1) and Tokyo (8.3) and only just ahead of Rio (6.4) - Chicago was overall closer to Rio than it was to Madrid. In 2012, London was also third, but it was closer to the top two than Chicago was.

In all of the bidding catergories Chicago never had the highest score in a single critieria (neither did Rio to be honest) - Madrid had 4, Tokyo 3 and they shared first place 3 times.

Chicago was better in most areas than Rio, but interestingly in each area fell behind Tokyo and Madrid - in the all important government support criteria that the IOC loves it was fifth behind Madrid, Tokyo and Rio and Doha. This is crucial when a bid includes the ludicrously cheap proposal for a 80,000 seat stadium costing $366m

Even if Rio had not been contending, Chicago's bid would still have been inferior to Madrid and Tokyo and we'd likely be looking at Tokyo 2016. What I find shocking is that overall in 2012, New York scored 7.5 so were closer to the front runners than Chicago who only scored a 7.0 - bids tend to need to move forward, not slide backwards .....

For the world's greatest nation, anything which is not technically the best is IMO a sorry state of affairs.

I appreciate that there is no official USOC bid for 2022 yet and that the USOC can only choose from those who express an interest but none of them seemed to be on a par with what Europe appear to be putting forward, so the USOC have a choice - not to bid, or to put forward a likely loser, which either way is a sorry state of affairs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You still called Chicago and NYC "sorry candidates" and you're refusing to apologize for it.

As for Chicago, it was arguably the best American bid ever presented to the USOC. The scoring is highly questionable to me. Chicago was seen as Rio's greatest rival throughout the race. Thanks to the current revenue deal, frequent US hosting and acrimonious relations with the USOC, the IOC was dead set against a Chicago victory from the start. Therefore I regard these highly subjective scores as virtually meaningless. The agenda was clearly to make sure Chicago never became a real threat.

NYC is the prototypical Alpha city for the modern age. End of story. Go ahead and disagree. I expect it from someone whose demonstrated your general lack of common sense.

Go ahead and explain to us why we should go to Antarctica in 2022 and Port-Au-Prince in 2024. They'll fit right in with your other loony ideas. See how many supporters you win. Don't be surprised to find yourself with a few enemies -- particularly when you start hurling slander at some of the world's greatest cities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kernow, I'm sorry for losing my cool. My patience has just worn thin. I understand that you're just enthusiastic about digging up an unusual new host. I do n

I do not think your proposals are as far-fetched as Antarctica or Port-Au-Prince, but I do think they are all overreaching.

As for calling the number 1 and number 3 cities in the US "sorry candidates" you can't be particularly surprised to find yourself on my bad side.

I do apologize for letting my irritation get the better of me in the earlier post. As a non-paying member, editing is not an option.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kernow, I'm sorry for losing my cool. My patience has just worn thin. I understand that you're just enthusiastic about digging up an unusual new host. I do n

Why am I supposed to be interested or even bothered whether you are losing your cool or patience?

If you are awaiting an apology, I hope you are not holding your breath. I stand 100% behind what I have said

However I am interested to see that when scores measuring the Chicago bid are lower than you think because of the USOC-IOC argument on revenue and that some how there was an anti-Chicago secret campaign, I think it can be clearly seen who is not talking commonsense.

Your apology is not accepted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why am I supposed to be interested or even bothered whether you are losing your cool or patience?

If you are awaiting an apology, I hope you are not holding your breath. I stand 100% behind what I have said

However I am interested to see that when scores measuring the Chicago bid are lower than you think because of the USOC-IOC argument on revenue and that some how there was an anti-Chicago secret campaign, I think it can be clearly seen who is not talking commonsense.

Your apology is not accepted.

I don't care if you're interested. I apologized because it was the right thing to do.

Based on the content of your previous posts, I don't expect you to be the sort of person who would consider changing his position. Though an apology is certainly appropriate, nothing I've seen from you leads me to expect one. I am not holding my breath.

Enjoy tilting at windmills.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care if you're interested. I apologized because it was the right thing to do.

Based on the content of your previous posts, I don't expect you to be the sort of person who would consider changing his position. Though an apology is certainly appropriate, nothing I've seen from you leads me to expect one. I am not holding my breath.

Enjoy tilting at windmills.....

Lets just block each other

If you don't personally insult people, you never need to apologise

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if Rio had not been contending, Chicago's bid would still have been inferior to Madrid and Tokyo and we'd likely be looking at Tokyo 2016. What I find shocking is that overall in 2012, New York scored 7.5 so were closer to the front runners than Chicago who only scored a 7.0 - bids tend to need to move forward, not slide backwards .....

For the world's greatest nation, anything which is not technically the best is IMO a sorry state of affairs.

Just realized I address this in the Minneapolis thread, but 2 things here..

1) Amazing how you're all over Chicago for losing to Rio and yet giving a pass to the 2 cities that scored higher techincally and also didn't win. What does that tell you about how much the techincal scores mean in the final voting process?

2) You've told us before how you dislike the American sense of entitlement when it comes to the Olympics, yet you're the one who's telling us that we're supposed to have the most technically sound bids. You can't accuse the USOC and its bid candidates of having too high an opionion of themselves and then tell us that anything less than the best is "a sorry state of affairs."

I appreciate that there is no official USOC bid for 2022 yet and that the USOC can only choose from those who express an interest but none of them seemed to be on a par with what Europe appear to be putting forward, so the USOC have a choice - not to bid, or to put forward a likely loser, which either way is a sorry state of affairs.

From most of the discussions here, those European bids (if they happen) aren't without their issues as well. But the geopolitics of it seem favorable for a Europe win in 2022 followed by a North American win in 2026. Since 2002, the only 2 countries in North America capable of hosting have had an Olympics. In that same time, the entire continent of Europe has only had 2 Winter Olympics, and that includes Sochi which is practically more in Asia than it is in tradition Europe. So is it really that surprising that the United States isn't the favorite for this one, especially when our best candidate just hosted a deacde ago? Again, don't fuel the notion (and then criticize us for it) that the United States has an endless supply of capable host cities and that if we don't, we're somehow deficient when it comes to the Olympics. Or that if we don't continue to produce winners (when this continent produced 4 in a span of 9 Olympics), that's an indictment of the USOC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst Salt Lake was an excellent candidate its a bit of a worry they need to give out backhanders to win. Especially as this is no longer allowed.

That was one of the great ironies of the scandal. It was almost universally agreed that Salt Lake would have won anyway. They DIDN'T need to bribe anyone and they did anyway out of insecurity (and common custom as other bids had been doing this for a while). Unfortunately they were dumb enough to get caught doing the same thing others had gotten away with. SLC is a good host and does have the venues, but the IOC will never entertain it this soon.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess with the USA its a case of who might throw their hat into the ring ... it seems strange there might be only three contenders though I did hear of maybe a 4th from Bozeman?

When you think four French towns/cities pushed to be the contender for France in the 2018 competition, it seems on the low side considering the number of cities who could host the games. Even Norway gets 3 cities contending to be the Norwegian representative and thats a population of 5million v 300million :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say there are three primary reasons there aren't more American candidates. Here they are in order of importance, with the most significant first:

1.) The economy. American Games must make sense from a business perspective. In the current climate, it's difficult to see a meaningful return on such a huge investment.

2.) The lack of a revenue deal. The USOC has said they won't bid until there is one and so far there isn't.

3.) Chicago's dismissal. Booting Chicago out in the first round despite the quality of the bid and the fact that President Obama endorsed the bid in person suggests that the current IOC has enough anti-American sentiment to render bidding pointless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say there are three primary reasons there aren't more American candidates. Here they are in order of importance, with the most significant first:

1.) The economy. American Games must make sense from a business perspective. In the current climate, it's difficult to see a meaningful return on such a huge investment.

2.) The lack of a revenue deal. The USOC has said they won't bid until there is one and so far there isn't.

3.) Chicago's dismissal. Booting Chicago out in the first round despite the quality of the bid and the fact that President Obama endorsed the bid in person suggests that the current IOC has enough anti-American sentiment to render bidding pointless.

In many cases if the press is to be believed the US economy seems to be doing much better than Europe, and I think the range of arenas that your cities have whether they be majors, minors or college should give you a head start though I suppose Europe has more bob runs and ski jumping sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

The European economies have been developoing very differently lately. Many of the potential winter hosts, like Germany, Norway, and I believe Switzerland, are doing quite well. The same countries are however also traditionally been quite stingy when it comes to public spending on show-offs...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The European economies have been developoing very differently lately. Many of the potential winter hosts, like Germany, Norway, and I believe Switzerland, are doing quite well. The same countries are however also traditionally been quite stingy when it comes to public spending on show-offs...

Perhaps that fiscally responsible mindset is the reason for their success....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say there are three primary reasons there aren't more American candidates. Here they are in order of importance, with the most significant first:

1.) The economy. American Games must make sense from a business perspective. In the current climate, it's difficult to see a meaningful return on such a huge investment.

2.) The lack of a revenue deal. The USOC has said they won't bid until there is one and so far there isn't.

3.) Chicago's dismissal. Booting Chicago out in the first round despite the quality of the bid and the fact that President Obama endorsed the bid in person suggests that the current IOC has enough anti-American sentiment to render bidding pointless.

Unfortunately in the bidding process, Chicago came third in the technical assessment behind Madrid and Tokyo. I think the presense of Obama can not immediately undo the damage that Bush/Cheney did to the reputation of the US globally.

Plus South America were always going to win once they put together a reasonably effective proposal

Link to post
Share on other sites

3.) Chicago's dismissal. Booting Chicago out in the first round despite the quality of the bid and the fact that President Obama endorsed the bid in person suggests that the current IOC has enough anti-American sentiment to render bidding pointless.

I don't think it's outright anti-American-ness as that other nationalities have come to the forefront. The playing field has been levelled and reps from the other nations have risen to the top, and the US just must await its turn.

And in a way, I can't blame the IOC membership if American influence has waned. I would really blame greedy NBC for placing the American presence within the IOC in a weakened position. After all, I am sure other IOC members can conclude, "hey, there's this subservient, desperate patsy of a network in the US willing to overpay for our brand WITHOUT making stringent demands on behalf of an American hosting, so why should we bend over backwards to return the (Summer) Games to the US so quickly? As long as we get their funds, they can sweat for the medals, we don't have to swing the Summer Games there around so soon. We can give them a Winter or a YOG or a PanAm if they want those. But it looks like they only want a SOG, so that'll be slow in coming."

Now, why isn't the primary sugar-daddy of the IOC, NBC (or its shareholders) saying anything?

But if U.S. Olympic fans bought a few stocks of Comcast, then maybe they can influence NBComcast into being more of a counterweight within the IOC, and make the US dollars talk more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately in the bidding process, Chicago came third in the technical assessment behind Madrid and Tokyo. I think the presense of Obama can not immediately undo the damage that Bush/Cheney did to the reputation of the US globally.

Plus South America were always going to win once they put together a reasonably effective proposal

That is SO not the reason Chicago lost. Technically the bid was outstanding. Certainly stronger than Rio and on a par with Tokyo and Madrid. Those evaluation scores are highly subjective and are awarded by individuals with political agendas. I think the evaluation report only reveals the IOC's preference. It should not be used as an objective standard of measurement. I would say that this holds true for every race. Not just 2016.

I do agree that it was simply the IOC's wish to go to South America. There was nothing Chicago could do about that.

I think anti-American sentiment is very real in the IOC. I am aware of one group bidding on a recent IOC project that was recently turned down because their plans were deemed "too American."

Yes, other countries are rising, but there is also a clear desire to knock the US off the podium an recast them as a supporting player.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wholeheartedly agree, Athensfan.

The preliminary evaluation scores really mean diddly-squat come voting day, since by then all the technical capabilitles of all the candidates have already been addressed. So if 'technical scores' really matter that much (like some here falsely like to believe) up until the end, Y not just crown the winner on day one of the technical assessments then.

Chicago being placed *slightly* (btw) behind Madrid & Tokyo meant really nothing when the vote came down. N it's pretty naive for anyone to even suggest that was what brought Chicago's bid down. In the end, we all realize that obviously, it was the IOC's desire to finally send the Games to South America that won the day & not their technical "superiority".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the evaluation scores

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bids_for_the_2016_Summer_Olympics#Evaluation

Chicago was good across the board but not outstanding in any one area.

What possibly killed the Chicago bid was a lack of public support in the polls with 47% supporting and 45% opposing with even a website set up 'chicagoansforrio.com'. Support for LA2016 was much higher and it is very likely that the IOC put significant weight on these types of figures. And trying to even visit for the evaluation phase and having to jump through the passport and visa hoops the state department now insist on are likely to be a huge negative.

Why hold the games in a city where half the local populace don't want it, and where the country makes it difficult for overseas spectators to attend?

And this will be a question that the USOC will have to address if they bid for 2022

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...