Kraków 2022

[FYI]

Athensfan, are you going to answer my question or not. I've asked you twice already. I've answered yours, not its your turn. I'll post it for the third time already:

Okay, Athensfan. If according to you, Stockholm is a no-go, & Almaty truly isn't your "horse" in this race. And Krakow could be a no or a go, depending how much Slovakia is involved (which I agree with, btw), & according to Baron; Oslo is a "been there, done that". And Lviv is really a non-starter & I see Beijing as an insurance policy really, who, in your honest opinion right now, do you see getting the 2022 Winter Olympic Games then.

Yes, the distance & transportation....And lack of government support....And the fact that it's deja vu.......And..................And.........

.

Do you know for a fact that there is no government support. Let's wait til the bid book please. And what "déjà vu"?! Sweden hasn't hosted an Olympic Games in over 101 years!

It's strange how people can be suspected of anti-swedishness (strange idea) when they're trying to be pragmatic and put olympism first , by the same people who are supporting a particular candidate.

Right. And you're being so "pragmatic" in being in support of a bi-national bid that doesn't have strong winter sport tradition in untested waters.

Also, good job athensfan for putting athletes first. That's really how we need to think, and what should lead actions, regarding the olympic games.

Uh huh, sure. You mean like the IOC put the athletes first by selecting cesspool Beijing at the time, for the 2008 Games. If it's truly about the "athletes", then this is a no-brainier. It's Oslo's to lose.

Because Krakow-Jasna are only like 160km apart vs. Stockholm-Are's 528 km distance -- 3x the distance. It's NOT about the borders but the PHYSICAL DISTANCE because these are events played on a TIGHT schedule w/in a 17-day framework.

If the IOC has to overwhelmingly deal with two NOC's & two governments, might as well be just as detrimental to Krakow's chances.

[Pixie_Victoria]

Right. And you're being so "pragmatic" in being in support of a bi-national bid that doesn't have strong winter sport tradition in untested waters.

I'm not supporting anyone. (unlike you).

[ScholaOsloensis]

There's no need to bring SuperCombined into the argument as we all very well know that this would likely be held at/near the downhill course, not on a special slalom track a few hundred miles away.

This is true of course..: -), but the technical specialists would still need to settle down in the Åre village for the super combined, then wait for the giant slalom (if they do that) and then a quick turnaround before they re-settle in Stockholm for the slalom event. Of course they can design a schedule making it possible, but it just doesn't seem like a very good plan..., given that many athletes will have to compete at two different and distant places during the olympics.

I think there's a lot of tension because Stockholm has a couple of fans (as well as non-fans to be diplomatic), and since there are so many uncertainties with all the bids, there are many potential winners even if it's not yet technically or financially sound, but who knows what'll happen the next couple of months.

[zekekelso]

You're assuming that schedule will work. And what about the super combined?

Skiing may not make up half the Winter program, but it's a huge chunk. Imagine moving athletics 7 hours away from the rest of the Summer Games. I think that's a pretty fair comparison.

Of course the schedule will work, why wouldn't it?

It's been mentioned multiple times that you can set up a slalom course at the downhill for the supercombined. You are sticking poles in the ground, nto building a vast building.

No, *alpine* skiing is not a huge chunck of the the WOG's. Again, we aren't having a difference of opinion here. These are factual numbers that have already been posted in this thread. It's nothing like Althetic in terms of size, number of athletes, medals, etc. You may think it's a fair comparison... or you could look it up and see for yourself that it's not.

[zekekelso]

This is true of course..: -), but the technical specialists would still need to settle down in the Åre village for the super combined, then wait for the giant slalom (if they do that) and then a quick turnaround before they re-settle in Stockholm for the slalom event. Of course they can design a schedule making it possible, but it just doesn't seem like a very good plan..., given that many athletes will have to compete at two different and distant places during the olympics.

These guys are professional skiiers. They jet all over the globe from week to week, finishing one event then heading off to the next. Having "only" three days to fly from one part of Sweden to the other just isn't the obstacle some of you think. And of the 3,000 or so athletes, how many will participate in both long and short alpine events. 20? 30?

[ScholaOsloensis]

These guys are professional skiiers. They jet all over the globe from week to week, finishing one event then heading off to the next. Having "only" three days to fly from one part of Sweden to the other just isn't the obstacle some of you think. And of the 3,000 or so athletes, how many will participate in both long and short alpine events. 20? 30?

Sure, it'll be possible no doubt. But I think "many" people will be unhappy about it. They will have to get used to the snow conditions, race course etc in Stockholm. It's become quite normal to have "show races" in slalom in the world cup in cities that they can do in a hurry, but i'm thinking that for the olympics, they'd like to be as well prepared as possible. I would like to hear opinions from people in the know though; if this is something they're cool with.

It's not about the number of athletes though; we're talking about top contenders here. And you're right that few compete in both the technical disciplines and the speed disciplines, but many compete (and with good chances) in giant slalom and slalom, and there's the supercombined, which will also see competitors in slalom,

So I'm just saying that it makes more sense to have all the alpine events not too far from each other. However, the artificial hill slalom race in Sthlm could def add some to the spectacular factor.

[p85]

If the IOC has to overwhelmingly deal with two NOC's & two governments, might as well be just as detrimental to Krakow's chances.

The bid was submitted by a single NOC, the Polish Olympic Committee. Slovak OC were there just to assure their support for staging alpine skiing in Jasna, and that they're not going to withdraw in the very last moment.

Two governments? What two governments? Polish Government leads the whole thing and the bidding committee is based in Krakow, not Zakopane, not Jasna, KRAKOW.

[FYI]

I'm not supporting anyone. (unlike you).

That's not the impression one gets when reading things like "lets talk about krakow, that's more interesting anyway". I'm not "supporting" anyone, either BTW. I'm being "pragmatic" & actually considering things that might make the IOC lean a certain way or the other, as they have been over the last 15 years at least.

And I actually am giving Krakow the benefit of the doubt here. I've actually acknowledged that they could be a dark horse in this race after all things considered. "Unlike you" with Stockholm.

[FYI]

Oh brother...

Oh please. You enjoy this kind of stuff. So who are you woofin'!

And AF, since you never provided your honest insight to my question that I asked three times (but I answered yours), I only take that as you don't really have a true pragmatic answer.

[Athensfan]

Oh please. You enjoy this kind of stuff. So who are you woofin'!

And AF, since you never provided your honest insight to my question that I asked three times (but I answered yours), I only take that as you don't really have a true pragmatic answer.

What question?

I haven't been taking the time to wade through all your posts.

[FYI]

Yet you've 'had the time to wade' through all ones that you've criticized Stockholm with. Well, here's the question a fourth time then. So please finally answer it honestly:

Okay, Athensfan. If according to you, Stockholm is a no-go, & Almaty truly isn't your "horse" in this race. And Krakow could be a no or a go, depending how much Slovakia is involved (which I agree with, btw), & according to Baron; Oslo is a "been there, done that". And Lviv is really a non-starter & I see Beijing as an insurance policy really, who, in your honest opinion right now, do you see getting the 2022 Winter Olympic Games then.

[Athensfan]

Yet you've 'had the time to wade' through all ones that you've criticized Stockholm with. Well, here's the question a fourth time then. So please finally answer it honestly:

That's honestly the first time I've seen this question.

I think Oslo will win, assuming the government doesn't scupper the bid. I can't say I'm super excited about Oslo (I wasn't super excited about Tokyo either), but I think it's a pretty weak field.

I'd love to be surprised by one of the other candidates and am open to changing my mind.

For the record, I like Sweden and if it weren't for the distance issue I'd be all over Stockholm. For me, though, the distance is the kiss of death.

The bid I would've backed wholeheartedly was Munich, but of course we all know what happened there.

And, although you didn't ask, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Beijing made it all the way to the final and finished second behind Oslo.

[FYI]

Well, Munich wouldn't have really been compact. They were proposing four spread-out clusters. Albeit, all closer than 350 miles, but more clusters nontheless.

I agree with you about Oslo. But unless the IOC literally comes out & says that the Stockholm/Are proposal is a non-starter, I'm gonna give the Swedish bid the benefit of the doubt due to it's potential compelling attributes.

And out of the others, the only one that I could see surprising is Krakow, TBH. Beijing could leap-frog but only if Krakow doesn't impress. And the remaining two are really not up to par on one or more categories. So really not a very big impressive list.This is why I'm simply not writing Stockholm off. Especially when you have people like Bach, Gosper & Redie all disappointed over Munich's & St. Moritz's exits.

[baron-pierreIV]

Becuz of PyongChang 2018, Beijing has a snowball's chance in hell. No way 3 successive Olympic Games in Asia.

[stryker]

Will the IOC see Krakow as a joint bid, a violation of the IOC charter, something that has been mentioned multiple times? If so, then Krakow is a no go. On the other hand, for arguments sake, let's suppose Krakow pulls an upset an wins the 2022 Winter Games. Would this open the door for joint bids, at least for the Winter Olympics?

[Lord David]

If Krakow and Poland do things right, the IOC will just see the Alpine events proposed in Sweden's bid (Are) being held in Jasna, which just happens to be in another country, but closer than Are is to Stockholm. It'll probably end up similar to Salzburg using the Sliding track in Germany.

[StefanMUC]

Yes, if the IOC allowed Salzburg/Königssee in the past, it cannot have an issue with the Kraków/Jasná combination.

[p85]

Will the IOC see Krakow as a joint bid, a violation of the IOC charter, something that has been mentioned multiple times? If so, then Krakow is a no go.

Months before the deadline the bid had been consulted with the IOC and they answered it didn't violate any rules.

[Athensfan]

Yes, if the IOC allowed Salzburg/Königssee in the past, it cannot have an issue with the Kraków/Jasná combination.

As FYI points out, the IOC can take issue with anything they choose -- or not. Just because they accepted the Salzburg bid does not automatically mean they will accept Krakow. They are not required to follow their own precedents.

[baron-pierreIV]

Someone posted the exact language in the IOC Charter here about 2 weeks ago -- which allows for using venues in another sovereignty in the WOGs. It is also why Finland had previously proposed doing a WOGs with Norway but either becuz Norway didn't like to be the supporting partner, or the Finns were advised that that was too much of a stretch of the 'exception' language, they just dropped the idea. But if it proceeded, it would've been legal w/in the IOC Charter.

[Athensfan]

I agree that they IOC CAN accept Krakow. I just don't think they MUST accept Krakow.

[StefanMUC]

I agree that they IOC CAN accept Krakow. I just don't think they MUST accept Krakow.

Of course not, but the bi-nationality as such is not a killer argument. There may well be other aspects that could lead to Kraków not even being shortlisted, but we don't know enough details for that to judge just yet.

[yoshi]

Someone posted the exact language in the IOC Charter here about 2 weeks ago -- which allows for using venues in another sovereignty in the WOGs. It is also why Finland had previously proposed doing a WOGs with Norway but either becuz Norway didn't like to be the supporting partner, or the Finns were advised that that was too much of a stretch of the 'exception' language, they just dropped the idea. But if it proceeded, it would've been legal w/in the IOC Charter.

Yes, that would've been a big stretch, as Sweden is in the way. And as we all know, Sweden is quite big.

[FYI]

Of course not, but the bi-nationality as such is not a killer argument. There may well be other aspects that could lead to Kraków not even being shortlisted, but we don't know enough details for that to judge just yet.

That goes without saying, though. As has been mentioned many times already, not until the applicant files are due can a proper assessment be made & Krakow may end up having the ability of being a contender. Yes, the bi-national proposal may not be what exclusively does them in, but it certainly isn't a good start. And finding another challenging element (or two) in their bid book could be all the reasons the IOC needs to say "thanks, but no thanks".

[stryker]

If the IOC can accept Krakow then they could accept a Quebec bid using Lake Placid for the alpine events.