Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Now, it's a different story if Boston wants to hang in there for the long haul, i.e, just learn and get to know the IOC for 2024; and then come back and regroup for either 2028 or 2032 -- just like Hamburg initially announced a more realistic sked -- that if they're in it, they would be prepared for at least two rounds.

Could they (and the USOC) shift strategies now to go for a 2x run? Or will the fickle USOC just go with one city every time?

Tough to tell what the strategy will be. Given all that's happening with Boston, if this ends ugly (and by that, I mean what happens with Boston and the bid, not simply if they lose the vote big time), the USOC is probably going to conduct another search. If they had a city they felt confident with, they'd probably stick with them for at least another cycle. With Boston, not sure I see that happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tough to tell what the strategy will be. Given all that's happening with Boston, if this ends ugly (and by that, I mean what happens with Boston and the bid, not simply if they lose the vote big time), the USOC is probably going to conduct another search. If they had a city they felt confident with, they'd probably stick with them for at least another cycle. With Boston, not sure I see that happening.

If it doesn't get past the referendum (a double edged sword considering they need a majority of both the people of Boston and the state of Massachusetts) how can the likes of Blackmun and Probst keep their jobs? Boston's failure in a referendum would expose a major leadership crisis at the USOC. If they were to drop Boston, Blackmun and Probst still deserve to lose their jobs especially considering how they supposedly carefully vetted the candidates and they chose the candidate that's has been a disaster from the start. For all the criticisms of Chicago and New York, at least they made to the actual vote for the winner. That's not happening for Boston. I doubt after that the USOC would pick Boston again either. Perhaps after three failed summer bids, maybe the USOC finally goes back to the well with Los Angeles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it doesn't get past the referendum (a double edged sword considering they need a majority of both the people of Boston and the state of Massachusetts) how can the likes of Blackmun and Probst keep their jobs? Boston's failure in a referendum would expose a major leadership crisis at the USOC. If they were to drop Boston, Blackmun and Probst still deserve to lose their jobs especially considering how they supposedly carefully vetted the candidates and they chose the candidate that's has been a disaster from the start. For all the criticisms of Chicago and New York, at least they made to the actual vote for the winner. That's not happening for Boston. I doubt after that the USOC would pick Boston again either. Perhaps after three failed summer bids, maybe the USOC finally goes back to the well with Los Angeles.

There's a horrible irony here if Boston does fall before the race has even begun. USOC has steered the latest revenue deal through so relations are now better with the IOC, has seen the IOC sign a bumper deal with NBC, and has got a few more American faces into senior positions i.e. all things which were seen as problematic for NYC and Chicago. Having laid the foundations for a better shot at actually winning a bid, not getting a city into the race would be awkward.

The point is, these foundations are there and USOC has to take some credit for that, so whether heads should roll if 2024 turns out to be an abortion I don't know. More turmoil probably isn't the answer. But they'd need to get it right for 2028, certainly. If not winning that bid then certainly getting close.

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it doesn't get past the referendum (a double edged sword considering they need a majority of both the people of Boston and the state of Massachusetts) how can the likes of Blackmun and Probst keep their jobs? Boston's failure in a referendum would expose a major leadership crisis at the USOC. If they were to drop Boston, Blackmun and Probst still deserve to lose their jobs especially considering how they supposedly carefully vetted the candidates and they chose the candidate that's has been a disaster from the start. For all the criticisms of Chicago and New York, at least they made to the actual vote for the winner. That's not happening for Boston. I doubt after that the USOC would pick Boston again either. Perhaps after three failed summer bids, maybe the USOC finally goes back to the well with Los Angeles.

All easier said than done, Stryker.

#1 - Probst is, I believe, an unpaid Chairman of the USOC, and certainly unpaid at the IOC. Probst has the wherewithal, the prestige and the connections, to stay in his current position. Not to mention the time he has invested in the US's Olympic affairs, to the point that he at least got invited to be an IOC member (which his predecessor, Peter Uebe, did not). It will be America's loss to dislodge Probst. Besides, Stryker, you don't even know that Boston was his personal pick. It was a Committee vote, remember that.

#2 - Blackman, being CEO and handling the day-to-day affairs of the USOC, is, I believe, a paid person. So, he could probably lose his job. But then again, we don't know that he vouched for Boston. It's the Committee members who: #1 - voted to bid for SUmmer 2024 rather than Winter 2022; and then picked Boston, should be asked to resign.

If this goes as far as 2032, and the USOC has run down the list of NYC, Chicago, Boston, maybe SF, then LA would look favorably for 2032 -- especially with that emotional tug of a Centennial, and if Paris gets 2024; then that whole Centennial/3rd time around theme continues. An LA 2032 would be 3rd time's the charm after London and Paris become the first two 3x-hosts; then LA, would certainly fit in that mold -- 3 for 3.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it doesn't get past the referendum (a double edged sword considering they need a majority of both the people of Boston and the state of Massachusetts) how can the likes of Blackmun and Probst keep their jobs?

You seem to believe there is some fair and just commission that will judge them and take appropriate action. Maybe with Jeffrey Loria and James Dolan as co-chairs?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Baron Why couldn't the US host in 2028? 2028 is practically ours even if South Africa bids because SA is so untested.

Practically ours? Have you happened to notice what the USOC put out there for 2024? Winning 2028 if you're the USOC is a matter of either 1) having a strong bid and/or 2) having less than stellar competition. South Africa may be untested, but being tested is not a prerequisite for winning an Olympic vote. It can make you stronger, but so what in this case. And as for point 1, what city are they putting forward? Let's see them actually have a decent bidder for a change, because that hasn't been the case all that much recently. If the USOC has a solid bid out there for 2028, they'll present a compelling case to the IOC. Depending on what South Africa has, they're a formidable opponent too. But practically ours? Not by a longshot. Certainly not at this point in time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Practically ours? Have you happened to notice what the USOC put out there for 2024? Winning 2028 if you're the USOC is a matter of either 1) having a strong bid and/or 2) having less than stellar competition. South Africa may be untested, but being tested is not a prerequisite for winning an Olympic vote. It can make you stronger, but so what in this case. And as for point 1, what city are they putting forward? Let's see them actually have a decent bidder for a change, because that hasn't been the case all that much recently. If the USOC has a solid bid out there for 2028, they'll present a compelling case to the IOC. Depending on what South Africa has, they're a formidable opponent too. But practically ours? Not by a longshot. Certainly not at this point in time.

Rio had no experience for the 2012 race and after hosting the Pan Am's they went on to win 2016. The IOC is smart enough not to go to another nation that can not handle the games in times like these. I see 2028 heavily favorable to the US and all those points you mention are basic for any bid race, but it doesn't hurt to have a little rotation on your side which the US will clearly have in 2028. Europe is out, Asia is out, the only challenges they could have could come from Africa or Australia, but if the USOC picks the right city then Australia will not have much of a case. North America has yet to host the summer games this century and either 2028 or 2032 is ours, I'm predicting 2028 will be our year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IOC is smart enough not to go to another nation that can not handle the games in times like these..

Uhmmm...

Cortina 1956/ Rome 1960 -- to a country that was a loser in the last World War; followed by

Tokyo 1964 - the flattened capital of the OTHER aggressor/losing nation of a global war; followed by

Mexico 1968 -- still a 3rd world country then (bypassing Lyon, Madrid and Detroit in the process)??

1988, South Korea (half of a divided country) which then went on to co-host World Cup 2002; and will complete their trifecta in 3 years with a Winter Games.

Barcelona 1992 over Paris and a fully industrialized France?

South Africa hosted the All-Africa Games in 1999; then an out-of-season, successful FIFA World Cup eleven years later; immediately followed by an IOC Session the following year. The country's passed its racial convulsions; no overt tribal warfare; no pandemics; no seemingly restless muslim minority that could cause problems -- ...and they DON'T have experience to handle anything global?

Really? :blink:

Edited by baron-pierreIV
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rio had no experience for the 2012 race and after hosting the Pan Am's they went on to win 2016. The IOC is smart enough not to go to another nation that can not handle the games in times like these. I see 2028 heavily favorable to the US and all those points you mention are basic for any bid race, but it doesn't hurt to have a little rotation on your side which the US will clearly have in 2028. Europe is out, Asia is out, the only challenges they could have could come from Africa or Australia, but if the USOC picks the right city then Australia will not have much of a case. North America has yet to host the summer games this century and either 2028 or 2032 is ours, I'm predicting 2028 will be our year.

And who was Rio up against in 2012? Some of the most notable cities in the world in a very crowded field. Then in 2016, their main competition came from Chicago, Madrid, and Tokyo. All 3 of those you could give a different "too soon" argument to. No doubt the Pan Ams gave the IOC some confidence in Rio's hosting ability, but what changed between the 2012 vote and the 2016 was more a matter of what was going on with other cities rather than Rio.

We don't know what the IOC is going to be looking for with 2028. We don't know what they're options will be. Yes, a solid USOC bid (and that's easier said than done) will have a good shot at winning. But don't discount South Africa. And this being the IOC, don't put it past them to do something unexpected, especially if the United States bid isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Baron Why couldn't the US host in 2028? 2028 is practically ours even if South Africa bids because SA is so untested.

South Africa had a World Cup, international sport championships and will have the Commonwealth Games. They have been tested if you ask me.

Uhmmm...

Cortina 1956/ Rome 1960 -- to a country that was a loser in the last World War; followed by

Tokyo 1964 - the flattened capital of the OTHER aggressor/losing nation of a global war; followed by

Mexico 1968 -- still a 3rd world country then (bypassing Lyon, Madrid and Detroit in the process)??

1988, South Korea (half of a divided country) which then went on to co-host World Cup 2002; and will complete their trifecta in 3 years with a Winter Games.

Barcelona 1992 over Paris and a fully industrialized France?

South Africa hosted the All-Africa Games in 1999; then an out-of-season, successful FIFA World Cup eleven years later; immediately followed by an IOC Session the following year. The country's passed its racial convulsions; no overt tribal warfare; no pandemics; no seemingly restless muslim minority that could cause problems -- ...and they DON'T have experience to handle anything global?

Really? :blink:

Yep. That previous comment of "inexperience" is a serious lack of olympic history.

Like many of the 2020 Madrid guys Had.

Sorry i forgot - lavk of knowledge of Olympics history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All easier said than done, Stryker.

#1 - Probst is, I believe, an unpaid Chairman of the USOC, and certainly unpaid at the IOC. Probst has the wherewithal, the prestige and the connections, to stay in his current position. Not to mention the time he has invested in the US's Olympic affairs, to the point that he at least got invited to be an IOC member (which his predecessor, Peter Uebe, did not). It will be America's loss to dislodge Probst. Besides, Stryker, you don't even know that Boston was his personal pick. It was a Committee vote, remember that.

#2 - Blackman, being CEO and handling the day-to-day affairs of the USOC, is, I believe, a paid person. So, he could probably lose his job. But then again, we don't know that he vouched for Boston. It's the Committee members who: #1 - voted to bid for SUmmer 2024 rather than Winter 2022; and then picked Boston, should be asked to resign.

Well Probst and Blackmun may not have wanted Boston, but they are still the heads of the USOC. Somebody has to take a fall, at least Blackmun anyway.

A side topic here, but why didn't Peter Ueberroth ever get offered a seat with the IOC? The L.A. Olympics in 1984 practically saved the movement from extinction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A side topic here, but why didn't Peter Ueberroth ever get offered a seat with the IOC? The L.A. Olympics in 1984 practically saved the movement from extinction.

Because he was an extremely competent and forceful CEO-type/personality (to the point of being slightly abrasive to some people who didn't get his frank approach to things). And if you were someone as protocol-prissy and somewhat unsure as Samaranch (who had seen PU in action putting 1984 together), you didn't want someone like Ueberroth casting his shadow over you. In other words, Samaranch and his team wanted sycophants and those would tow their line...rather than someone independent, forceful and accomplished like Ueberroth who would be a solid threat to his rule.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because he was an extremely competent and forceful CEO-type/personality (to the point of being slightly abrasive to some people who didn't get his frank approach to things). And if you were someone as protocol-prissy and somewhat unsure as Samaranch (who had seen PU in action putting 1984 together), you didn't want someone like Ueberroth casting his shadow over you. In other words, Samaranch and his team wanted sycophants and those would tow their line...rather than someone independent, forceful and accomplished like Ueberroth who would be a solid threat to his rule.

Peter Ueberroth was already selected to head up MLB before the '84 Olympics even took place and were shown to be a success. I don't doubt that the criticism of Samaranch here is valid, but unlike Richard Gere in "An Officer and a Gentlemen," Ueberroth had somewhere else to go - and a handsomely paid somewhere else, at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter Ueberroth was already selected to head up MLB before the '84 Olympics even took place and were shown to be a success. I don't doubt that the criticism of Samaranch here is valid, but unlike Richard Gere in "An Officer and a Gentlemen," Ueberroth had somewhere else to go - and a handsomely paid somewhere else, at that.

But the question was: why was PU never asked to become an IOC member...which he still could have become (since it is after all, an unpaid position) and still be MLB Commissioner at the same time. Also, the MLB offer came in the middle of preps for the 1984 Games -- not before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the question was: why was PU never asked to become an IOC member...which he still could have become (since it is after all, an unpaid position) and still be MLB Commissioner at the same time. Also, the MLB offer came in the middle of preps for the 1984 Games -- not before.

What I meant about the timing of the job as baseball commissioner, I know it came to him during the prep period for the LA Games. What I meant was the 84 Games could have ended up a colossal failure (transportation problems, some act of violence or terrorism, expanded boycott beyond the Warsaw Pact countries, etc.). LA was not in the history books as a success until almost 6 months after he had signed his contract with MLB.

Is there a history of adding local organizing committee heads to the IOC? As BR2028 asked, has Coe? Has Mitt Romney? I'm not being belligerent - I actually think their experiences would be invaluable in terms of advising the selection committee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a history of adding local organizing committee heads to the IOC? As BR2028 asked, has Coe? Has Mitt Romney? I'm not being belligerent - I actually think their experiences would be invaluable in terms of advising the selection committee.

There are at least two that I know of: Jean-Claude Killy (altho he was co-head of the Albertville COJO); and Heiberg of Lillehammer. But I'm not sure if Heiberg was already an IOC member before he took on the Lillehammer COJO job. The problem with an ex-COJO head joining the IOC is that these ex-COJO honchos are very active and productive people; and would want to move on (I think) to some other remunerative position. They are just an unpaid, team member on the IOC. But remember, the IOC is a 'by invitation' only organization; and there are all those internal politics and behind-the-scene jockeying for power and prestige w/in the IOC, that these ex-COJO CEOs are probably so sick of dealing with the stuffy, protocol-laden ways of the demanding IOC, that they want to move on to other, saner fields afterwards.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...