los angeles 2024

[yoshi]

How feasible is LA actually pulling out of 24 & repositioning itself as a 2028 bid (be that to take advantage of a double award or to just go into a normal process for 28?)

[FYI]

14 minutes ago, Rob. said:

Of course, the alternative to LA is Paris..a city famous for its subdued and unprotesting populace

Well then, the IOC is just screwed no matter who they pick. Might as well give it to Budapest. Oh wait, that's right. They're pushing hard on wanting a referendum of their own! Tsk tsk. 

[FYI]

-- "How feasible is LA actually pulling out of 24 & repositioning itself as a 2028 bid (be that to take advantage of a double award or to just go into a normal process for 28?)" --

To quote Quaker, "that's a clown question, bro". 

L.A. ain't "pulling out" of nothin'. Even if that were to mean having a baby cheetoh of their own that they'd want to abort anyway! 

[FYI]

You & your "notes".

Still doesn't mean, though, that the L.A. bid won't be viewed as a "U.S." bid, particularly to an international organization like the IOC. 

Also, the Federal Government would still take care of security at an L.A. Games. So unless the "private" sector is going to take care of that, too, then there's still gonna be involvement at a federal level. Not to mention foreign policies that will effect how the organizing committee can or can't handle certain things, as we've seen as of late.

[Quaker2001]

4 hours ago, Rob. said:

I think it's unlikely the US doesn't get 24, 28 or 32 - the Games which take in NBC's current deal - especially with South Africa looking rockier than ever. But if LA loses 2024 and the US doesn't bid again NBC will just have to grin and bear it.

It's always a matter of circumstance.  If the USOC has a bid in the right place and time, they'll win it.  I doubt it changes their motivation because NBC has the deal.  Would the IOC be slightly more interested in awarding the US a games on that basis?  It's possible, but hardly an important or deciding factor.

[Quaker2001]

3 hours ago, Rob. said:

They might not admit to Sochi being a failure in public, but they can certainly change tac with who they vote for in future, taking into account the problems Sochi caused them. LA is now in a weird position in this sense. With its lower cost plan it should be in an ideal position to be the anti-Sochi the movement knows it needs.

But with Trump in power all the political headaches they had during the build up to Sochi have the potential to be repeated. If people, with good cause or otherwise, think using an American Olympics is an easy and high profile way to oppose Trump, the PR damage could be big, regardless who the IOC is working with day to day. And on the flipside, who would be even slightly surprised if Trump used the Games as a political football, like Putin did?

It could become, like Sochi's build up, a case of the IOC trying to limit the damage, putting out fires all over the place. Not what they need at all right now.

2 hours ago, FYI said:

That's an interesting POV that I hadn't thought of before. Makes you ponder even more the likelyhood that "L.A.'24" could indeed be steering itself to nowhere now.

I think most involved know that Sochi and Beijing are an outlier in terms of cost and while it may have scared off some other bidders, that's as much on the IOC as anything.

As for the political angle, that's very possible.  Again, I noted earlier that Trump is only guaranteed to be in office (and I use the word 'guaranteed' somewhat losing.. fingers crossed!) until 2021 and probably won't be there in 2024.  Contrast that with Putin who seems like he might be there forever.  But still, Trump being Trump is a wild card they probably don't want to deal.  I don't think he'd use the Olympics in the same way Putin wanted to simply because of the nature of the 2 countries, but the IOC would still have to deal with Trump even if he didn't have a direct influence on the games.  I agree that's a headache they may not want to take a chance on, especially if there's another option out there to vote for.

[Quaker2001]

1 hour ago, yoshi said:

How feasible is LA actually pulling out of 24 & repositioning itself as a 2028 bid (be that to take advantage of a double award or to just go into a normal process for 28?)

They're all in for 2024.  They've made that very clear.  If they lose 2024, they'll reset and decide if they want 2028.  Whether or not the IOC wants to hand it to them without a fight, I think the answer will be a resounding YES.

[FYI]

2 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Whether or not the IOC wants to hand it to them without a fight, I think the answer will be a resounding YES.

You know that I'm not saying that I disagree with you here, but only gonna ask bcuz some here think that this would set a "dangerous precedence", but are you think that's quite possible now, given all the circumstances as of late?

[Quaker2001]

58 minutes ago, RuFF said:

It's Important to note that LA2024 is a completely private bid. While Trump can be tied to the bid the truth is that in the US, contrary to the French and Hungarian bid, the liability and the business relationship is private. In many ways the Mayor and/or governor of California are substantially more influential to the bid than the President of the United States because of its main stakeholders are private. 

So.. for all the times that it's been talked about how to make this a more national bid to include more of California and the rest of the United States, now the tact is to make it about how the bid is private and not as influenced by the government?  Yea, I don't think you can have it both ways.  Either it's national or it's not national.  Can't spin it both ways to suit their needs.

Here's the problem.. Trump may not be influential to the bid, but right now he's the ultimate authority on US foreign policy.  So while he's not influencing the bid directly, he's absolutely influencing it indirectly.  And if LA is voted as the winner, we all know he'll find a way to exert his influence or at least will threaten to do so.  Like FYI said, there are still some matters of federal funding, so it's impossible for the government to not be involved in some way.  Even if Trump would be out of the White House by 2024, that's still 3+ years he potentially is and the IOC would have no choice but to deal with that.

[Quaker2001]

5 minutes ago, FYI said:

You know that I'm not saying that I disagree with you here, but only gonna ask bcuz some here think that this would set a "dangerous precedence", but are you think that's quite possible now, given all the circumstances as of late?

I stand by my original conviction.. I don't think anything will be decided with regard to 2028 in Lima.  If anything it would happen after the fact.  I'm starting to think that maybe the IOC would wait until 2019 when they would normally start accepting bids.  And then maybe if they don't like what's in front of them, they'll hand it to LA and tell everyone else to piss off.  Plus perhaps behind the scenes, the IOC is making some sort of deal with the USOC to guarantee their involvement if they're concerned about alternatives.

[FYI]

6 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

So.. for all the times that it's been talked about how to make this a more national bid to include more of California and the rest of the United States, now the tact is to make it about how the bid is private and not as influenced by the government?  Yea, I don't think you can have it both ways.  Either it's national or it's not national.  Can't spin it both ways to suit their needs.

Exactly - don't you just love the truff double-talk! She's just like Trump - says one thing one minute, then totally says the opposite the next, depending on the conversation at hand. 

[FYI]

7 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

I stand by my original conviction.. I don't think anything will be decided with regard to 2028 in Lima.  If anything it would happen after the fact.  I'm starting to think that maybe the IOC would wait until 2019 when they would normally start accepting bids.  And then maybe if they don't like what's in front of them, they'll hand it to LA and tell everyone else to piss off.  

Yeah, I get that much. But what about the "setting a dangerous precedence" part? Do they just tell Baku-koo to "piss off", for example, when the IOC them specifically they're better off "waiting to bid for 2028 instead"?

But then again, they did tell Doha-hah to pack it up & go home  (a second time) anyway, when the IOC Executive Board told them it was "okay" to bid with their October dates. So nevermind lmfao.

[baron-pierreIV]

Well, we might get a closer inkling about how LA stands from an IOC member I am in line to interview in about a month's time.  He's on the Evaluation Committee.  Will make it official once I get the go-ahead; and I will ask you guys (the sensible ones) to submit questions that I can ask him.  But, of course, I will pick and choose.  

[JesseSaenz]

One of LA2024's own and Rio 2016 Bronze winner was detained by US Customs for 2 hours and left in tears.

No bueno. Yet another damage report for the USOC.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/318696-muslim-american-olympian-says-she-was-detained-by-customs

 

[baron-pierreIV]

13 minutes ago, JesseSaenz said:

One of LA2024's own and Rio 2016 Bronze winner was detained by US Customs for 2 hours and left in tears.

No bueno. Yet another damage report for the USOC.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/318696-muslim-american-olympian-says-she-was-detained-by-customs

 

 

I knew that hijab thing would get her into trouble.  She got away with it in Rio; now it's come back to bite her.  BTW, France and Austria have both banned the wearing of those islamic headscarves in public.  Let's see how 2024 and another bid from Innsbruck will address that situation.  

[ejaycat]

25 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

I knew that hijab thing would get her into trouble.  She got away with it in Rio; now it's come back to bite her.  BTW, France and Austria have both banned the wearing of those islamic headscarves in public.  Let's see how 2024 and another bid from Innsbruck will address that situation.  

I thought only the face veil was banned in France; I think you can still wear headscarves.

So it's OK to walk around looking like this: 

[Roger87]

8 hours ago, RuFF said:

It's Important to note that LA2024 is a completely private bid. While Trump can be tied to the bid the truth is that in the US, contrary to the French and Hungarian bid, the liability and the business relationship is private. In many ways the Mayor and/or governor of California are substantially more influential to the bid than the President of the United States because of its main stakeholders are private. 

So? Unless there's a Calexit I didn't notice, LA is still in USA and Trump is also the President in California.

[JesseSaenz]

I don't see Trump being President much longer.

Much of what he and his cabinet have done in just 3 weeks violates the constitution, something he swore to protect and defend, and the word "impeachment" has been tossed around by members of both parties now, not just the Dems.

 

[FYI]

But would he get impeached in time before Lima! 

[JesseSaenz]

There's also this. Trumps appeal, denied. Travel ban blocked.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling/index.html 


I am so tired already of my phone going off every few minutes with Trump related news.


 

[Roger87]

5 minutes ago, FYI said:

But would he get impeached in time before Lima! 

If Trump is impeached, this will be great news. Still, the damage is done and by just 3 weeks, all the legacy and international goodwill from Obama administration has gone. It will need a couple of years (Or a really race) to return.

[JesseSaenz]

6 minutes ago, FYI said:

But would he get impeached in time before Lima! 

He seems to go very fast, lol. Maybe???

Even then, is the damage even repairable? I mean, the Mayor of LA is awesome, but even he would have a hard time mending what happened.

 

[JesseSaenz]

Then again, Obama was one of the most diplomatic presidents in history and the IOC told him to **** off very early in the votes.

So I really don't know. 

Judging from Beijing 08, Sochi 2012, and again Beijing 2022....maybe this is all very much irrelevant.

[FYI]

9 minutes ago, JesseSaenz said:

Judging from Beijing 08, Sochi 2012, and again Beijing 2022....maybe this is all very much irrelevant.

You're comparing apples with lug nuts there, cuz none of those are comparable with 2024 whatsoever. The world expects MUCH more from the United States of America - "the leader of the free World". 

And besides, 2008 was all about the Olympic Movement embracing 1/5 of humanity - China (the most populace country in the world that hadn't yet hosted the Olympics).

2014 was all about rewarding Russia (& Putin), a big WINTER sports power, the Winter Olympics which there as well hadn't hosted before, either.

and 2022 well, China really shouldn't have won those. When all the Europeans pulled out of that race (especially Oslo, who would've won that contest in a landslide between Beijing & Almaty), all the IOC could do is choose between crap & crapier. So the IOC had to vote accordingly.

[Roger87]

And then don't forget, when they choose Sochi (In 2007), it was just a few years of the short "honeymoon" stage of Putin and the Western World. Not only having a certain interest for going to one of the Winter Olympic powers.