Oswald Calls Chicago bid worst technically

[loopillini 0]

I was under the impression that most Olympic observers felt that Chicago had the best technical bid for 2016 and were surprised it went out in the first round. Mr. Oswald seems to not think so...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/chi-chicago-was-least-good-bid-for-2016-20130906,0,7865144.story

Chicago was 'least good bid' for 2016 Olympics Oswald, IOC presidential candidate, bashes Chicago bid's technical meri

[Sir Rols 1902]

I thought Madrid scored the highest technical eval in that race.

[BTHarner 138]

Mr. Oswald, as President of FISA, must not have been pleased with Chicago's plan for the rowing competitions and is just disguising his special interests at the time with broad stroke statements. Or maybe his cocoa was lukewarm and it impaired his opinion about the bid. You never know with these guys.

[Athensfan 1081]

Well, that's not what they said in 2009:

According to Rogge: "absolutely no flaw in the bid. "

Oswald: "defeat for the USOC, not Chicago."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/sports/03olympics.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[baron-pierreIV 1693]

Was not too jazzed up by the Chicago bid. Wasn't sexy enough.

[ofan 696]

I didn't like the fact that so many events were planned for one venue in McCormick Place. Too much going on in one area.

[baron-pierreIV 1693]

I didn't like the fact that so many events were planned for one venue in McCormick Place. Too much going on in one area.

Not anymore than there were at Atlanta's Georgia Congress and Sydney's own Convention Center. As a matter of fact, from the original 7 or 8 sports at McCormick,it was already pruned down to just 4 or 5...and the sked for those were spaced out as much as possible. Nah...Chicago didn't have the sexy. bombastic renderings that Rio had. The next US city has to produce really bombastic designs if only to win the bid; and then scale them down afterwards.

[FYI 1193]

"For me, technically, it was not the best bid. 'By far', it was the least good bid. I think the decision was not a political decision but a technical decision."

If Chicago 2016 was "by far" the least technically capable, then how on earth did it make the short-list. All the other three 2016 bid cities took big hits in order for Rio de Janiero to come out glowing in the report. The city even leap-frogged Doha, which scored "technically" higher than the ultimate winner. So to say that it was nothing political is disingenous at best, or completely hypocritical at worst.

The only major thing that I can think of that was a huge drawback to Chicago's bid was the big financial guarantees. City Hall kept going back-&-forth with Mayor Daley on that one, only to come up with some guarantees by the City & State only a few week before the final 2016 vote. By then, it was probably too little, too late. The majorly downscaled stadium post-Games probably didn't help either. They should've at least went with something more like London 2012 planned.

[yoshi 352]

The 2016 race was decided long before Copenhagen. It was always going to be Rio no matter who else was in. It will be the same when South Africa decide to give it a go.

[FYI 1193]

That's not the point! The thing is, you have Oswald saying now that Chicago's bid "TECHNICALLY" wasn't good enough, when right after the 2009 vote you had many senior IOC members, including Oswald himself, not to mention Rogge too, that there was nothing wrong with the bid.

Now he comes out & disingenuously states that it wasn't political, it was just technically the bid "was not good". Yet in his previous breath he stated that the strife between the USOC & the IOC probably didn't help the bid any. You think. That sounds very political to me.

All of this is just so phony, which just makes everything that these old-fogys say to be taken with a grain of salt. The USOC should just cough up Tulsa after all next time, then we can talk about "technically" not up to snuff. Pfft.

[mr.bernham 384]

That's not the point! The thing is, you have Oswald saying now that Chicago's bid "TECHNICALLY" wasn't good enough, when right after the 2009 vote you had many senior IOC members, including Oswald himself, not to mention Rogge too, that there was nothing wrong with the bid.

Now he comes out & disingenuously states that it wasn't political, it was just technically the bid "was not good". Yet in his previous breath he stated that the strife between the USOC & the IOC probably didn't help the bid any. You think. That sounds very political to me.

All of this is just so phony, which just makes everything that these old-fogys say to be taken with a grain of salt. The USOC should just cough up Tulsa after all next time, then we can talk about "technically" not up to snuff. Pfft.

LOL!

For me Chicago had a nice appeal, but could have been sexier. A more ambitious approach should have been taken and with the talk of a new beach they should have made that the Olympic park to leave a legacy. Why can't any of the bid cities follow London's plan.

[FYI 1193]

So, it looks like Mr. Oswald was "technically, by far", the "least good" president candidate. I hope the Chicago Tribune does a follow-up story!

[Athensfan 1081]

LOL!

For me Chicago had a nice appeal, but could have been sexier. A more ambitious approach should have been taken and with the talk of a new beach they should have made that the Olympic park to leave a legacy. Why can't any of the bid cities follow London's plan.

Because London basically razed the East End for the Olympic park. Most other cities are not in a position to do that because it would cause way too much disruption. It happened to be perfect timing for London. If Paris had won 2012 and London came back for 2028, it's quite possible that the land would already have been redeveloped in some other way and London would've had to find another approach.