Jump to content

Stockholm fallout


yoshi
 Share

Recommended Posts

Suppose that Stockholm/Are won 2022 (just for the sake of the thread, let's leave arguments to the main thread). What would this do to future WOG bidding? Which cities would 'suddenly' find themselves within hosting range of suitable hills? Glasgow? NYC? Any more?

Los Angeles to Lake Tahoe is a shorter distance than Stockholm to Are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God, another way-out topic by yoshi. :rolleyes:

Well, Earth and Mars could host a joint bi-planet Olympix.

Yoshi, the subject doesn't really need ANOTHER thread by itself...


Los Angeles to Lake Tahoe is a shorter distance than Stockholm to Are.

Why go LA? Why not a Tahoe-San Francisco bid??

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

God, another way-out topic by yoshi. :rolleyes:

Well, Earth and Mars could host a joint bi-planet Olympix.

Yoshi, the subject doesn't really need ANOTHER thread by itself...

Why go LA? Why not a Tahoe-San Francisco bid??

I know. Yoshi's something, isn't he?

I picked LA because it underscores just how far the distance from Stockholm to Are really is. LA and Tahoe have NOTHING in common. They do not feel connected at all. There's no train between them. It's a 7 hour drive. That's what Sweden is proposing. It's nuts.

If the IOC goes for Stockholm, then of course San Francisco-Tahoe would suddenly become viable (and I'd be much more supportive of that bid), but personally I still think the distances are just too far.

If the IOC isn't careful, they'll end up with permanently divided Winter Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But other than Charlie Sheen's house, LA doesn't have snow. Remember, Stockholm is only proposing to host one sport (alpine skiing) at Are. So yeah, something like Boston and Smuggler's Notch is probably the more comparable comparison in the U.S. Perhaps Quebec City and some other ski area? Although other than resorts in Alberta and British Columbia, none on Canada's eastern ski resorts have the required vertical. So the could add the double whammy of a far off mountain and a binational bid with a hill like Sugarloaf USA in Maine - like Helsinki proposed for 2006.

This situation might be rather unique to Stockholm. Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands are all strong winter sporting countries that do not have an easy option for a hosting modern, relatively compact Winter Olympics. Sweden's problem is distance and Finland and the Netherlands don't even have ski hill mountains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I picked LA because it underscores just how far the distance from Stockholm to Are really is. LA and Tahoe have NOTHING in common. They do not feel connected at all. There's no train between them. It's a 7 hour drive. That's what Sweden is proposing. It's nuts.

Stockholm & Are are both snowy & cold places in the winter, unlike L.A. The United States has also hosted the Winter Olympics four times already. So of course it wouldn't be ideal for the USOC to propose such a thing. Not to mention that there's still better options in the U.S. than L.A./Tahoe. Sweden doesn't have that luxury. What's actually nuts is not recognizing all those differences.

If the IOC isn't careful, they'll end up with permanently divided Winter Games.

Such hyperbole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sochi is a summer holiday destination. They have palm trees and beaches.

If Sochi can host and Stockholm is viable with its vast distances, then there should be no problem with Winter Games in LA/Tahoe. As FYI says, there's no way to know how the IOC would react. They can make exceptions anytime they please.

If the above sounds ridiculous, perhaps there are some double-standards and personal biases that are worthy of examination.

But other than Charlie Sheen's house, LA doesn't have snow. Remember, Stockholm is only proposing to host one sport (alpine skiing) at Are. So yeah, something like Boston and Smuggler's Notch is probably the more comparable comparison in the U.S. Perhaps Quebec City and some other ski area? Although other than resorts in Alberta and British Columbia, none on Canada's eastern ski resorts have the required vertical. So the could add the double whammy of a far off mountain and a binational bid with a hill like Sugarloaf USA in Maine - like Helsinki proposed for 2006.

This situation might be rather unique to Stockholm. Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands are all strong winter sporting countries that do not have an easy option for a hosting modern, relatively compact Winter Olympics. Sweden's problem is distance and Finland and the Netherlands don't even have ski hill mountains.

Sochi doesn't have snow either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the discussion's already gone a bit overboard on the issue. It's taken over just about every thread on the 2022 bidders, whether it's relevant or not (the Krakow thread seems to be more about Stockholm, for example, than Krakow). And we've got about eight months to go before any resolution happens (unless, of course, the Swedish government pulls the plug earlier). That's gonna be a long time to continue with the “they can do it” “no they can't” back and forths with no real resolution possible between such polarised views.



But, to address Yoshi's question. The part of me that really wishes for a Swedish WOGs as the last tick on my personal Olympic bucket list says that if Stockholm does win through, it'll be a demonstration of flexibility by the IOC to open up the field for more candidates in the future. It could well be the next inevitable step in the winter games' evolution that already sees the WOGs requiring far bigger anchors than they did in the past. It could be the type of thing they're going to have to consider in the future anyway if they want to ensure a respectable pool of candidates.


Of the suggestions above, Boston's the most applicable in that case of those mentioned IMO. Maybe at a pinch San Francisco. To throw something really out there, what about a Morocco WOGs, with the High Atlas as a viable alpine venue to complement an anchor host in one of its cities?



As an aside, the "Stockholm Syndrome" influenced my choice of winter host for this year's logo comp (to be revealed this weekend).


  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take here.. no, a Stockholm win does not in any way open up the floodgates for similarly flawed bids to start popping up, let alone winning. If Stockholm becomes host of 2022, it probably means 2 things. It means that the IOC sees Sweden as a compelling destination for the Olympics (and that's hardly a stretch) and that Stockholm still has offered the best bid in spite of this major flaw they have. Doesn't mean the IOC is going to be suddenly more accepting of bids with distance issues like this. 2026 and beyond are going to be different races. A flawed bid like Stockholm might not fare as well. If another bidder is in there that is more compact and not split over this great of a distance, they're still going to stand a better chance of winning. Reno/Tahoe doesn't necessarily become a better and more winnable bid if it comes San Francisco/Tahoe or LA/Tahoe. Stockholm changes nothing in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stockhom getting the WOG would improve the chances of the countries that "deserve" to get the WOG but wouldn't have a compact venue area. I don't think we'd end up having WOGs like Paris or Rome with snow sports in the Alps. But e.g. Finland having the Alpine events abroad wouldn't anymore be such a big problem as there would've already been WOG with long distances. Of course, it would take at least 20 years to get the WOG back to Nordic countries so Finland wouldn't be the next one to get the games.

On the other hand, Sweden getting the WOG with Stockholm, not with Östersund, might make it even more unlikely to get the WOG to a small city. That would be a precedent that it's better to bid with a distant large city than with a smal city close to all the venues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take here.. no, a Stockholm win does not in any way open up the floodgates for similarly flawed bids to start popping up, let alone winning. If Stockholm becomes host of 2022, it probably means 2 things. It means that the IOC sees Sweden as a compelling destination for the Olympics (and that's hardly a stretch) and that Stockholm still has offered the best bid in spite of this major flaw they have. Doesn't mean the IOC is going to be suddenly more accepting of bids with distance issues like this. 2026 and beyond are going to be different races. A flawed bid like Stockholm might not fare as well. If another bidder is in there that is more compact and not split over this great of a distance, they're still going to stand a better chance of winning. Reno/Tahoe doesn't necessarily become a better and more winnable bid if it comes San Francisco/Tahoe or LA/Tahoe. Stockholm changes nothing in that regard.

Like for example Oslo?

A better overview of the venue plan:

Oslo cluster ("Games in the city"). All events except the alpine events and bobsleigh luge and skeleton, All venues connected with Metro, Trains or buses:

qbsb.png

OSL International airport Gardermoen (Located between Oslo and Lillehammer, 35 km North from Olympic Village, New terminal is under construction and will be completed in 2017)):

nye-osl-gardermoen-ill-team-t-osl-bredde

Lillehammer (Mountain) Cluster, Alpine events + bobsleigh, luge and skeleton:

6dv5.png

Edited by NorwayOlympics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take here.. no, a Stockholm win does not in any way open up the floodgates for similarly flawed bids to start popping up, let alone winning. If Stockholm becomes host of 2022, it probably means 2 things. It means that the IOC sees Sweden as a compelling destination for the Olympics (and that's hardly a stretch) and that Stockholm still has offered the best bid in spite of this major flaw they have. Doesn't mean the IOC is going to be suddenly more accepting of bids with distance issues like this. 2026 and beyond are going to be different races. A flawed bid like Stockholm might not fare as well. If another bidder is in there that is more compact and not split over this great of a distance, they're still going to stand a better chance of winning. Reno/Tahoe doesn't necessarily become a better and more winnable bid if it comes San Francisco/Tahoe or LA/Tahoe. Stockholm changes nothing in that regard.

But if Stockholm were to win it COULD influence the type of bid that is presented to the IOC in the first place. Other bidders could well follow Stockholm's lead and propose bifurcated Games. This could leave the IOC no choice but to begin accepting that type of model for the Winter Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if Stockholm were to win it COULD influence the type of bid that is presented to the IOC in the first place. Other bidders could well follow Stockholm's lead and propose bifurcated Games. This could leave the IOC no choice but to begin accepting that type of model for the Winter Games.

It isn't a "bifurcated Games." It is moving one (count it, one) dicipline to a distant location. Something that happens ALL THE TIME, yet no one ever calls it a bifurcated Games.

With each of your posts on this subject, I become more convinced you aren't able to understand what portion of a WOG the alpine events (and not even all of them) constitute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't a "bifurcated Games." It is moving one (count it, one) dicipline to a distant location. Something that happens ALL THE TIME, yet no one ever calls it a bifurcated Games.

With each of your posts on this subject, I become more convinced you aren't able to understand what portion of a WOG the alpine events (and not even all of them) constitute.

When all is said and done, I believe Stockholm's only option will be to stage all the Alpine events in Are. We'll see if I'm right.

As for the percentage of the Games -- we're talking about the skiing here. As I mentioned in a previous post, it would be like moving track and field 7 hours away from the rest of the Summer Games. You can count athletes and medals and do the math if you like, but at the end of the day its a marquee event that will be nowhere near the rest of the Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When all is said and done, I believe Stockholm's only option will be to stage all the Alpine events in Are. We'll see if I'm right.

As for the percentage of the Games -- we're talking about the skiing here.

I'll try this one more time. No, we aren't talking about "the skiing" here. The dicipline is "alpine skiing." Not "skiing". It's one of several skiing diciplines in the Olympics. A rather small one, with 5 mens and womens's events. Fewer than say, biathlon. Which I should point out, IS DONE ONE SKIIS. (And before you make some crack about alpine skiing being way more important that biathlon, be sure to do a bit of research on world (not US, world) interest in the various sporks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll admit I had to look up the definition of the word bifurcated. Isn't that pretty much what we have now? Particularly with Vancouver/Whistler and Sochi. That's a lot different than having all the events closer to the epicenter of the games minus 1 or 2 events (not even necessarily a full sport) as we're talking about here.

So again, in the hypothetical where Stockholm wins (meaning by whatever measure the IOC liked their bid the most), maybe it does encourage other bidders to look past what would otherwise be a fatal technical flaw and bid anyway. But unless those constitute the only choices the IOC has in a given bidding cycle, they're in no way forced to accept that. And 1 win from a flawed bid like that given whatever the circumstances are that got them that win probably isn't going to be the start of a trend anymore than Stockholm bidding in the first place is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, I said it in another thread that a Stockholm/Are setting is not different from Vancouver/Whistler, Sochi/Krasnaya or PC/Gangeung. And a Stockholm 2022 win also doesn't mean that the IOC would "have to" take other flawed bids bcuz that's what the IOC chose with Stockholm. The IOC makes exceptions whenever they see fit, & no one else is going to make them make those exceptions again unless the IOC is interested to do so in the first place.

  • Like 1
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...