Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
stryker

2022: A troubling scenario

Recommended Posts

Lviv is clearly out of the running due to recent Ukrainian turmoil. Beijing may be the best possible host due to the amount of resources the Chinese government would throw at the Games, but it will surely lose due to the 2018/2020 games being in Asia. That leaves Almaty, Krakow, and Oslo to duke it out.

Oslo seems like the most stable host. The trick for Oslo will be seeing if local support for the games picks up following the excellent Norwegian performance in Sochi. If it doesn't, then I'm not sure that bid has much hope; the government might not even lend its support. Should that occur, then it's either Almaty or Krakow and I think that decision will come down to bid quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lviv was never in the running, even if Ukraine was as "stable" as it was for the 2012 Euro. Having an odd 30,000 hotels in Lviv, an existing ceremonies venue, a major arena being built for the 2015 European Handball Championships, a supposed "ski jump complex" and another resort or two wouldn't have cut it anyways.

Where Lviv would have been proposing 3 clusters, going east, west or north, south, whatever it is, the others would have been proposing a 2 cluster setup, or in the case of Krakow, you go from Krakow to Jasna, with events located along that route. Lviv would have required spectators who wished to see events in the 3 clusters go back and forth unnecessarily, often crossing one of the clusters just to reach the other.

It just wouldn't have worked. Perhaps in the 2030's or 40's when we've forgotten about Sochi, or at least had sufficient rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are serious problems with Almaty, Lviv and Beijing. And I don't think we know enough about the Polish bid to judge yet.

If Oslo drops out, we could be facing the "no good host" scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are serious problems with Almaty, Lviv and Beijing. And I don't think we know enough about the Polish bid to judge yet.

If Oslo drops out, we could be facing the "no good host" scenario.

Are you kidding me no good host Almaty Kazakhstan and Beijing China would be great host for the Winter Games, Beijing host an amazing summer games and Almaty Kazakhstan would host an great games too both are fast growing economies the top 2 fastest growing and the growing winter sporting powers too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is Kazackstan a "growing winter sporting power" when they only have an overall SEVEN medals at the Winter Olympics, & only ONE of those is gold. Absurd!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you kidding me no good host Almaty Kazakhstan and Beijing China would be great host for the Winter Games, Beijing host an amazing summer games and Almaty Kazakhstan would host an great games too both are fast growing economies the top 2 fastest growing and the growing winter sporting powers too.

Beijing doesn't have breathable air, venues, a tradition in most WOG sports, necessary infrastructure... and would be the third straight Olympic host in East Asia, as well as the thrid straigh WOG in a non-traditional area. Other than the polution issue, Alaty's problems are just as bad if not worse. Plus, Kazakhstan.

And, no, tehy aren't growing winter sporting powers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, no, tehy aren't growing winter sporting powers.

Well, I fully expect China to push for it much stronger in coming years, especially in the skating disciplines and they are already leading in aerials, so there might be more to come in the "new" sports as well.

Kazakhstan however seems in a stagnation phase, which I find surprising given that there is surely potential.

If there was one bidding nation coming across as growing winter sports power in Sochi, it was clearly Poland though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Bach says he's not worried about the 2022 race. No surprise with what he said to the media, but I can't imagine with the developments in Oslo and Krakow, then the IOC isn't starting to fret about a possibility (however remote it may be) that Almaty and Beijing are the last ones standing. I seem to remember he was fairly confident about the Munich referendum passing too.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/olympics/winter-olympics/2022/1019177-i-m-not-too-worried-claims-bach-over-troubled-race-for-2022-winter-olympics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe he's not worried because he'll be happy to open 2022 either in Almay or Beijing and doesn't care if Europe completely slips away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe he's not worried because he'll be happy to open 2022 either in Almay or Beijing and doesn't care if Europe completely slips away.

Beijing is the insurance policy in this race. But if the IOC ends up with only Almaty and Beijing out of the six original candidates, then the IOC needs to acknowledge they have a problem when traditional winter sports powerhouses like Switzerland, Germany, and Norway don't see a Winter bid as viable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't see 2022 a troubling scenario. If anything, 2018 was more troubling then 2022 IMO. At least we have 5 (Well 4 excluding Lviv) choices, 2018 only had 3 (Well 2 Annecy was a weak Bid). Look, Oslo is the front runner. Oslo is a traditional powerhouse and a safe option. If Oslo was to withdraw, I would feel confident in Krakow Hosting. They have some Venues in place or will be in place (Wisla Krakow Stadium and Krakow Arena). Then we have Beijing, regardless of their Human Rights records and environment issues, they have delivered before and have the Venues (Yes they need transformation) and infrastructure in place already. Then if we are only left with Almaty and Lviv, then it will definitley be a troubling scenario. I still have my doubts about Almaty. They used to be apart of the Soviet Union, but let's see if they can deliver the 2017 Winter Universiade. If they can't deliver the much smaller 2017 Winter Universiade, then it will be very hard them delivering a Winter Olympics. 8th - 9th July 2014 is big day number 1 (Candidate Cities are chosen) and 31st July 2015 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia is big day number 2 (Host City chosen). Oslo, Krakow and Beijing shortlisted and Oslo to eventually win I predict and hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it is a troubling scenario if you see the full picture of what happened since March last year: 2 referendums lost in countries that would have been easy frontrunners, another withdrawal after sending the application in, a bid from a country in turmoil, a bi-national concept which the IOC would need to swallow, two authoritarian regimes bidding in times the IOC is having big image troubles due to Sochi and a clear fave who might fall apart if the government doesn't give the necessary guarantees.

The 2018 race had less bidders, but two of them wouldn't have given the IOC even half of the headache they might face with any of their 2022 bidders.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any evidence the UOC feels any negative fallout from Sochi; no reason to think they have any problem with authoritarian hosts. The IOC has been losing local referendums for years and have done nothing to address the issues leading to those rejections.

We don't know how the IOC voters feel about the two nation thing, but I would find it sad if the IOC cares little about human rights, little about extravagance and costs, but freaks out hour having a few events across a border.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any evidence the UOC feels any negative fallout from Sochi; no reason to think they have any problem with authoritarian hosts. The IOC has been losing local referendums for years and have done nothing to address the issues leading to those rejections.

I disagree there's no evidence the IOC aren't concerned about attitudes - most of the members who campaigned for the presidency last year pitched positions ranging from more flexibility in the choosing of hosts and bidding requirements, to explicitly addressing issues such as gay rights in choosing hosts. While you might question the sincerity of those pitches, the very fact they made them shows they consider they were messages that were likely to resonate in the IOC constituency.

As for authoritarian hosts - well, thee IOC have always been more concerned about universalism - having as many countries as possible meet on equal terms - than pitching a particular brand of governance - western liberal democracy - as the "official" approved government style of the IOC. And, quibbles that people including me have with hosts like Berlin 36, Moscow 80, Beijing 08 or Sochi 14 aside, I think that sentiment is right.

And really, that's what? Four out of about 40-50 editions? I guess it's an issue now because three of those are recent, but again, these are countries that are major players and influencers, whether we like it or not, in the world. And we still trade with them, cooperate with them in other international forums and groupings, travel to them for work and play, and would never think about banning them from competing in sports events we host... but then get squeamish if we are asked to go to their place to play.

We don't know how the IOC voters feel about the two nation thing, but I would find it sad if the IOC cares little about human rights, little about extravagance and costs, but freaks out hour having a few events across a border.

I certainly totally agree and support that statement, though.

Edited by Sir Rols
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kazakhstan is more well liked and trusted by the West then Russia and China is the Western World has good friendship with Kazakhstan, Western leaders would be happy for Almaty Kazakhstan to host the 2022 winter games, Kazakhstan is the outlook base for defeating the war on terrorism and Kazakhstan is the leading country in the Islamic world now got an secular government which Turkey used to have and is the heart of Eurasia, Almaty will also be an low cost games est to cost $5 Billion which will be the same amount that Oslo games is est to cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for authoritarian hosts - well, thee IOC have always been more concerned about universalism - having as many countries as possible meet on equal terms - than pitching a particular brand of governance - western liberal democracy - as the "official" approved government style of the IOC. And, quibbles that people including me have with hosts like Berlin 36, Moscow 80, Beijing 08 or Sochi 14 aside, I think that sentiment is right.

And really, that's what? Four out of about 40-50 editions? I guess it's an issue now because three of those are recent, but again, these are countries that are major players and influencers, whether we like it or not, in the world. And we still trade with them, cooperate with them in other international forums and groupings, travel to them for work and play, and would never think about banning them from competing in sports events we host... but then get squeamish if we are asked to go to their place .

Well, yes, the IOC never cared too much, and there's also a certain level of hypocrisy involved when Western countries criticise Russia or China while still making business.

However, what has changed over the years is that nowadays more people in democratic potential host countries are vocal about their IOC criticism and are not willing to let the IOC get away with their "separate sports and politics" propaganda.

This in turn makes it far more difficult to have positive referendum outcomes or sufficient public support in general in those countries - and that must be a concern for the IOC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually feel as though the 2020 Summer Olympics Bidding Process was in an equal amount of trouble as the 2022 Winter Olympics Process. Look, apart from Tokyo, the others weren't the strongest Bids, which is pretty much the same with Oslo in the 2022 Process. You could argue Tokyo and Rome, but Rome withdrew. Like I've stated before, I can't see Oslo, Beijing or Almaty withdrawing. Krakow, as much as it's a 'Strong Bid', still seems uncertain of it's Public Support. 25th May we will finally find out if the People of Krakow want the 2022 Winter Olympics and Paralympics. Of course, I haven't got any inside knowledge on the matter. But as far as strengths of the Bidders are going, they are overpowering the weaknesses in my personal opinion. With the 2020 Process, you had Doha, who has Human Rights issues, Heat issues and can't Host it in the Time frame given. Then you have Baku, who yes, are investing heavy amounts of Money in Venues and Infrastructure Projects, but aren't quite up to the Standards of let's say; London, Beijing, Tokyo, Rome, Paris, Los Angeles. Then you have Madrid, where there is a Financial Crisis. Then you have Istanbul, where they have issues in the Syrian Conflict and have Erdogan and have failed before many times (2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012 to Sydney, Athens, Beijing and London respectively). Tokyo, had the Fukushima issues, but seems to have that issue under control and Japan has the experience in Hosting Major Sporting Events.

With 2022, you have Lviv (Which yes, isn't the best example, so probably the only Bidder out of the 5 that has a 'Poor Bid'. You then have Almaty, which I feel other then Lviv, has the least chance of Winning. Yes, Almaty has many Venues in place, but will the IOC go back to Asia for a 3rd Time in a Row? I don't believe they will. Same goes for Beijing on the matter, but what gives Beijing the edge over Almaty, is Beijing's Major Sports Hosting Record. The 2008 Summer Olympics and Paralympics were a success. Yes of course, it's quite near to 2008, which I've discussed many times. Also, Beijing does have the Human Rights issues, Environment Issues and poor International Relations with Tibet, Taiwan (Chinese Taipei) and Japan. They also have a communist Government, which is an issue in itself. Then you have Krakow, which apart from the unknowing of if they will Pass the Referendum, they have a fairly strong Bid. They have/will have many Venues in place fairly soon or Existing and is a New Destination for the Olympic Movement. Then you have Oslo, who has by far, the strongest and safest Bid. Has many Venues in place, is a safe Destination and is a 'Traditional Winter Sports Powerhouse'.

So overall, I wouldn't say 2022 is a troubling scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually feel as though the 2020 Summer Olympics Bidding Process was in an equal amount of trouble as the 2022 Winter Olympics Process. Look, apart from Tokyo, the others weren't the strongest Bids, which is pretty much the same with Oslo in the 2022 Process. You could argue Tokyo and Rome, but Rome withdrew. Like I've stated before, I can't see Oslo, Beijing or Almaty withdrawing. Krakow, as much as it's a 'Strong Bid', still seems uncertain of it's Public Support. 25th May we will finally find out if the People of Krakow want the 2022 Winter Olympics and Paralympics. Of course, I haven't got any inside knowledge on the matter. But as far as strengths of the Bidders are going, they are overpowering the weaknesses in my personal opinion. With the 2020 Process, you had Doha, who has Human Rights issues, Heat issues and can't Host it in the Time frame given. Then you have Baku, who yes, are investing heavy amounts of Money in Venues and Infrastructure Projects, but aren't quite up to the Standards of let's say; London, Beijing, Tokyo, Rome, Paris, Los Angeles. Then you have Madrid, where there is a Financial Crisis. Then you have Istanbul, where they have issues in the Syrian Conflict and have Erdogan and have failed before many times (2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012 to Sydney, Athens, Beijing and London respectively). Tokyo, had the Fukushima issues, but seems to have that issue under control and Japan has the experience in Hosting Major Sporting Events.

With 2022, you have Lviv (Which yes, isn't the best example, so probably the only Bidder out of the 5 that has a 'Poor Bid'. You then have Almaty, which I feel other then Lviv, has the least chance of Winning. Yes, Almaty has many Venues in place, but will the IOC go back to Asia for a 3rd Time in a Row? I don't believe they will. Same goes for Beijing on the matter, but what gives Beijing the edge over Almaty, is Beijing's Major Sports Hosting Record. The 2008 Summer Olympics and Paralympics were a success. Yes of course, it's quite near to 2008, which I've discussed many times. Also, Beijing does have the Human Rights issues, Environment Issues and poor International Relations with Tibet, Taiwan (Chinese Taipei) and Japan. They also have a communist Government, which is an issue in itself. Then you have Krakow, which apart from the unknowing of if they will Pass the Referendum, they have a fairly strong Bid. They have/will have many Venues in place fairly soon or Existing and is a New Destination for the Olympic Movement. Then you have Oslo, who has by far, the strongest and safest Bid. Has many Venues in place, is a safe Destination and is a 'Traditional Winter Sports Powerhouse'.

So overall, I wouldn't say 2022 is a troubling scenario.

You could make the case that Oslo and Tokyo are both the strongest candidates in their respective races, but the similarities between 2020 and 2022 stop there IMO. I don't think the IOC has as much of a problem getting cities to bid for the Summer Olympics as they do for the Winter Olympics. While the Winter version is on a smaller scale, the venues (ski jump, bobsleigh track) are much more specific, they're costly, and many cities have had trouble finding suitable uses for them after the Olympics. For the 2020 race, Madrid and Istanbul had their problems, but they weren't on the verge of dropping out not to mention we didn't see two sure fire front runners not even bid because of referendums. The economy doomed Rome's bid from the start. What you didn't see with Rome was the referendum against bidding like those in Switzerland and Munich. Istanbul's 2020 bid was much stronger than any of their previous bids combined and they had a good thing going for them until the protests erupted. While those weren't a deal breaker, they probably didn't help their cause. Outside of Syrian refugees, the conflict in Syria isn't affecting Turkey.

Looking at 2022, there's five cities that could very easily be down to two by this fall. Oslo is on very shaky ground because of the low public support. Unless those numbers improve, I cannot see the Norwegian government providing the funds needed. For the politicians in power, that could be political suicide, and they'd pay for it with their jobs the next election. (See what's about to happen in the U.S. when politicians make decisions unpopular with the voters especially when it comes to money). Lviv is dead in the water and frankly I don't know why the IOC hasn't told them to just forget. Krakow's bid hinges on a referendum next month. Under those scenarios, the IOC could be left with Almaty and Beijing.

Beijing is the insurance policy and if its Beijing and Almaty left standing, the IOC will have no problem going back to Beijing. The fact they're a Communist state means nothing to the IOC. Human rights record? Again, the IOC more or less makes a passing statement about respect for human rights, but a country's human rights record ultimately means next to nothing in an Olympic bid. Same thing goes for relations with other countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could make the case that Oslo and Tokyo are both the strongest candidates in their respective races, but the similarities between 2020 and 2022 stop there IMO. I don't think the IOC has as much of a problem getting cities to bid for the Summer Olympics as they do for the Winter Olympics. While the Winter version is on a smaller scale, the venues (ski jump, bobsleigh track) are much more specific, they're costly, and many cities have had trouble finding suitable uses for them after the Olympics. For the 2020 race, Madrid and Istanbul had their problems, but they weren't on the verge of dropping out not to mention we didn't see two sure fire front runners not even bid because of referendums. The economy doomed Rome's bid from the start. What you didn't see with Rome was the referendum against bidding like those in Switzerland and Munich. Istanbul's 2020 bid was much stronger than any of their previous bids combined and they had a good thing going for them until the protests erupted. While those weren't a deal breaker, they probably didn't help their cause. Outside of Syrian refugees, the conflict in Syria isn't affecting Turkey.

Looking at 2022, there's five cities that could very easily be down to two by this fall. Oslo is on very shaky ground because of the low public support. Unless those numbers improve, I cannot see the Norwegian government providing the funds needed. For the politicians in power, that could be political suicide, and they'd pay for it with their jobs the next election. (See what's about to happen in the U.S. when politicians make decisions unpopular with the voters especially when it comes to money). Lviv is dead in the water and frankly I don't know why the IOC hasn't told them to just forget. Krakow's bid hinges on a referendum next month. Under those scenarios, the IOC could be left with Almaty and Beijing.

Beijing is the insurance policy and if its Beijing and Almaty left standing, the IOC will have no problem going back to Beijing. The fact they're a Communist state means nothing to the IOC. Human rights record? Again, the IOC more or less makes a passing statement about respect for human rights, but a country's human rights record ultimately means next to nothing in an Olympic bid. Same thing goes for relations with other countries.

I agree with you that Beijing is the IOC's insurance policy. I also agree that the economy did doom Rome's Bid from the start. I do feel the Syrian Conflict does have an affect on Istanbul's Bid. I think many are nervous about the outcome of Krakow's Referendum. I feel Almaty's best bet is if Oslo, Krakow and Beijing all pull out and we are left with Almaty VS Lviv. Since the issues that surrounding the preparations of Sochi 2014, the IOC might start taking the Human Rights issues seriously, which could affect Beijing's Bids in the future. There was a lot of controversy surrounding the Sochi 2014 Preparations as we all know, so I don't think the IOC would want that controversy surrounding them again. Also, Erdogan is a controversial figure. Again, I can't see Beijing and Almaty standing a chance unless Oslo and Krakow withdraw, because the IOC won't have 3 Asian Olympics in a row IMO, unless necessary. It won't be necessary if Oslo and Krakow don't withdraw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when is Almaty vs Lviv an option? No word about Beijing being out. No need to set up more completely unrealistic and hypothetical scenarios again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I see the cities that bid for WoG2022, only Oslo is a serious bid... Really I think IOC has a big problem since only fake winter cities host WoG (Sotchi, Korea). Sotchi is already a ghost city since the end of WoG... They spent 36 billions $ for nothing, no legacy, no business in the future...

King Putines wanted WoG, CiO slave gave him. CiO it's like FIFA, they are totally cut from the reality. They receive brides ans they vote for the highest bidder...

Beijin ? It's the driest place in China. moreover China pissed off human right event during 2008 SoG. And since when Beijin is a winter city ? please stop bullshit.

Ukrenia ? Seriously ? :rolleyes:

Poland ? not rich like Russia and a big lack off venues.

Almaty ? Seriously ? ok maybe it's the more credible after Oslo but it's in the middle of nowhere, after Sotchi i can't imagine to go back in Ex URSS republic. maybe later.

In Western Europe nobody want to bid again excepted Oslo, why ? because too expensive, not profitable, and IOC demands are too high compare the legacy, moreover IOC rules are not enough flexible to be adaptable to medium European cities.
More and more people criticisms some choice, when a country don't respect worker right, environmental issues... WoG are near to down if IOC continues like this. Norway are able to show than it's possible to host WoG without to spend billions and billions... It's the last chance to change this. Mark my words

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remain totally incredulous at either the (a) rampant pro-western and generally xenophobic reactions here; (B) the complete ignorance of politics (esp. geopolitical) concerns; © the committment to the Olympic cause and (d) the inability to grasp that other parts of the world aside from Europe and the Anglophone states actually deserve to hold the games from time to time.

Africa has never even hosted, though that is not a concern here.

Asia has more than 60% of the world's population, but has hosted far fewer times than Europe/US.

Asia, as an idea, is very different from Asia as a geographical construct. Asia PROPER includes all of the Middle Ease, the Caucasus, Central Asia, South Asia, SEAsia, East Asia, NEast Asia... a region so diverse that it is literally more diverse than the rest of the world combined.

Thus, arguments against '3 Asian Games' are, at best, geographically ignorant and, at worst, racist and xenophobic.

China won't, nor does it intend to, win the 2022 games - this is a 'dry run' to prep China for much more serious future bids.

Oslo isn't going to make it; the gov't itself is ready to shut it down.

If that happens, Krakow is the last 'traditional' city in waiting but (a) the Polish are less gung-ho about the Olympics than imagined; (B) the IOC doesn't prohibit, but certainly counts against, multi-state bids and © Poland is still recovering from 2008 with strong, political strings attached due to being an EU member.

With Oslo basically over, Stockholm long-over and Lviv seeking to hold the first games in a war zone... Beijing and Almaty are our finalists. I've already said - and strongly believe - China has no intention of winning (I'd go so far as to say they'd be upset). Leaving... Almaty.

Why the hate?

Almaty has the cheapest bid, it is the most prepared, it is a GORGEOUS locale, it is borderline-developed, it has the most consolidated Olympics in many years, it... well, honestly, if I didn't know about our planet's politics I'd say Almaty was the obvious choice. Of course, there is fear that this will help legitimize Nazarbayev's authoritarianism and perhaps it will but that has never been an IOC concern. Kazakhstan has been the single most successful former-SSR (INCLUDING Russia) in terms of economics; it is ready to host, fully capable and willing. Is it out of the way? Define 'out of the way' - the US is more distant for people from Asia (60% of the world's population) than other potential hosts. In fact, Almaty is highly centralized so it will be easiest, on average, for people to make it there than anywhere else. The only anti-Almaty sentiment I've seen here is based in a disgusting European-xenophobia.

Almaty will win.

Share this post


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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...