USA 2024

[paul]

Regarding Oprah, she was the hit of the delegation. She's a great communicator, internationally known and a great person to stump for Chicago. She absolutely should've been there. That wasn't arrogance, that was just smart.

who's to say how smart it was......it failed MONUMENTALLY......so we do know what did result in the worst possible outcome.......so I'd say there was room for improvement by making different choices and presenting themselves differently........maybe without a talk show host who herself abandoned Chicago.

[Athensfan]

i really don't think heads of state should be a part of these presentations...only mayors....it just takes away from the bid details and having someone like Obama come in and ad-lib some prepared remarks pretending to be engaged with the process is a distraction and in this case an embarrassment. i blame the IOC for expecting it more and more after such figures started appearing. what a huge burden for the bids to have to coordinate and hope their political heads will be a part of the thing.

it should be discontinued to make it easier on everyone.

p.s. how much do you think it cost taxpayers to send the Obama's to Copenhagen??????was it worth it?

As it turned out he was in the neighborhood anyway on other business.

[paul]

The heads of state should be prohibited from attending. These are GAMES -- not Middle East peace summits. The IOC needs to get over itself and focus on bid leadership and the mayors of the bid cities. That's it. The rest is just a three-ring circus that achieves nothing more than stroking the already inflated egos of a bunch if self-important windbags.

couldn't agree more.......

...i love that term windbags.

[Athensfan]

who's to say how smart it was......it failed MONUMENTALLY......so we do know what they did resulted in the worst possible outcome.......so I'd say there was room for improvement by making different choices and presenting themselves differently........maybe without a talk show host who herself abandoned Chicago.

That's really foolish and you know it.

Chicago lost because:

The revenue deal rankled the IOC.

It was still too soon for more American Games.

There was a revolving door of leadership at the USOC.

The Olympic network proposal was bungled.

Oprah was a huge hit, but there was NOTHING she or anyone else could do to overcome the above problems.

I agree that the presentation was awful, but again, only because it was amateurish and bland.

[paul]

yeah but last place with a great bid city like Chicago? i really do think they came off as arrogant, i even got the feeling Obama was somewhat surprised and pissed after.

[baron-pierreIV]

Tokyo didn't use their senior IOC member to introduce the bid. It's not a requirement. And you should stick to being an obnoxious, whiny b*tch.

Said the spider to the fly.

[Athensfan]

yeah but last place with a great bid city like Chicago? i really do think they came off as arrogant, i even got the feeling Obama was somewhat surprised and pissed after.

He called Lula and congratulated him. I'm sure he was surprised and pissed (who wouldn't be?!), but he didn't show it. I saw flaws with Chicago 2016, but arrogance wasn't one of them.

[zekekelso]

The head of government and mayor of the city should be required to attend and be an important part of the presentation team imo. If they don't show up, the bid's a non-starter in my books. Obama should have been committed from the start.

You've got this exactly backwards. These folks should be forbidden from attending. It's a frikken sporting event. The head of state might just have something better to do that week.

Pick the best city to host... not which city is willing to kiss the IOC's ass the most.

[ofan]

You've got this exactly backwards. These folks should be forbidden from attending. It's a frikken sporting event. The head of state might just have something better to do that week.

Pick the best city to host... not which city is willing to kiss the IOC's ass the most.

It's not about kissing ass. It's about developing relationships with the ppl you'll be dealing with for 7 years, and showing the IOC that the most important person in the country is on board.

[Athensfan]

It's not about kissing ass. It's about developing relationships with the ppl you'll be dealing with for 7 years, and showing the IOC that the most important person in the country is on board.

They need to develop relationships with the people they're ACTUALLY WORKING WITH. The organizers and the mayor. Heads of state aren't involved and it's pointless for them to be there unless you're buying this silly idea that IOC members deserve to travel in such circles. It sounds like you are.

[ofan]

They need to develop relationships with the people they're ACTUALLY WORKING WITH. The organizers and the mayor. Heads of state aren't involved and it's pointless for them to be there unless you're buying this silly idea that IOC members deserve to travel in such circles. It sounds like you are.

No, I don't buy that idea, but the IOC members sure do. They wanna meet the guy who they'll be having cocktails with before the OC. I think it's also fair to say that the head of government and parliament has some say in the preparations. They need to go through all of the Olympic related bills and laws that need to be put in place, with the IOC's input, in the lead up to the Games.

[paul]

The closer heads of state get the more jacked up the whole thing is........see Sochi.

Keep it separate, don't give in to IOC egos needing stroked by heads of state and don't let heads of state get over involved in a sports fair for personal propaganda.

Everything will be more civilized and fair if these government top leaders are barred form attending sessions.

mayors YES.

[Athensfan]

No, I don't buy that idea, but the IOC members sure do. They wanna meet the guy who they'll be having cocktails with before the OC. I think it's also fair to say that the head of government and parliament has some say in the preparations. They need to go through all of the Olympic related bills and laws that need to be put in place, with the IOC's input, in the lead up to the Games.

Since when can the IOC force countries to enact legislation?! NO WAY. This is out of control and totally lacking in perspective.

The IOC WANTS the heads of state. That doesn't mean they can have them. They WANT Olympic laws. That doesn't mean they can have them.

These people seriously need to be put in their place. Why would you sacrifice all that just to host two weeks of sports? It makes no sense.

The closer heads of state get the more jacked up the whole thing is........see Sochi.

Keep it separate, don't give in to IOC egos needing stroked by heads of state and don't let heads of state get over involved in a sports fair for personal propaganda.

Everything will be more civilized and fair if these government top leaders are barred form attending sessions.

mayors YES.

I'm out of positive votes, but I totally agree!

[Athensfan]

I actually think that this whole mess with 2022 sets up the US extremely well for 2024.

The IOC needs to go west. They need a democracy. They need a total contrast and a host that will stage fun and exciting Games. They need a blockbuster. And they need it to feel fiscally responsible.

If you ask me, 2024 has the US written all over it. The IOC needs the US to bid now and I think they need them to win. Their public image is tanking. The brand will start flagging with three straight Games in Asia and a big American splash is just what they need to restore confidence and popularity.

[ofan]

I actually think that this whole mess with 2022 sets up the US extremely well for 2024.

The IOC needs to go west. They need a democracy. They need a total contrast and a host that will stage fun and exciting Games. They need a blockbuster. And they need it to feel fiscally responsible.

If you ask me, 2024 has the US written all over it. The IOC needs the US to bid now and I think they need them to win. Their public image is tanking. The brand will start flagging with three straight Games in Asia and a big American splash is just what they need to restore confidence and popularity.

They need the US to be the guys to finally stick up to them, and say no to all those demands. It's time for someone to put those weasels in their place and I agree that the US are the only ones who can, and should do it.

[paul]

.....you might be right but it'd be so nice to say fuckoff, especially if the US gets its economy together and finds a way to right the last several years and move forward positively. everything is so screwed up at the moment globally, it's just so hard to feel like the Olympics are a good thing.

and by the way what the **** is happening in Rio....it's like the stealth Olympics now.

[FYI]

Again, just because some people here are still butthurt over Denver does not mean a majority of the IOC is automatically going to do the same, particularly when we're looking at an upcoming vote being Beijing and Almaty, a.k.a. Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich.

Yeah, well, but to be fair, a race would have to get this crapy where even I would dare say that a Denver 2022 bid would start looking very, very attractive at this point. Especially after Oslo's withdrawal. But put Denver in with the likes of Munich, St. moritz, Stockholm, Oslo, Krakow (& whoever else) like initially anticipated, then their history would start to get in the way.

[mr.bernham]

I actually think that this whole mess with 2022 sets up the US extremely well for 2024.

The IOC needs to go west. They need a democracy. They need a total contrast and a host that will stage fun and exciting Games. They need a blockbuster. And they need it to feel fiscally responsible.

If you ask me, 2024 has the US written all over it. The IOC needs the US to bid now and I think they need them to win. Their public image is tanking. The brand will start flagging with three straight Games in Asia and a big American splash is just what they need to restore confidence and popularity.

Yeah and thirty years latter when LA celebrates saving the movement...yet again...the IOC will be moaning on and on about how great the next 'Barcelona '92' was and the wonders it did for the movement. I say the USOC and American companies hold the IOC by the balls, we already have them, but we need to grab them and hold them up over Freedom Tower.

[Quaker2001]

Yeah, well, but to be fair, a race would have to get this crapy where even I would dare say that a Denver 2022 bid would start looking very, very attractive at this point. Especially after Oslo's withdrawal. But put Denver in with the likes of Munich, St. moritz, Stockholm, Oslo, Krakow (& whoever else) like initially anticipated, then their history would start to get in the way.

In theory. Hard to predict what would happen in reality should Denver be up for vote (and yea, who knows what their competition would be). It's easier for us here to look at the hypotheticals involving a U.S. bid or a Durban or a Paris and say how they would be received by the IOC. Denver is much more difficult to assess because it's anyone's guess how their history comes into play. And the thing is for the purposes of this hypothetical.. all those cities you mentioned either were in the 2022 race or showed some interest. So we have a baseline for what those bids are about. We have little to go with on Denver other than their history which, for many here, tends to clouds any assumptions we might make about a bid from them.

Without getting into the same argument we've gotten into before.. what happened in 1972 plays a role in any future bid they might put together. It's not something they can or even should try to avoid. It's not something the IOC would ignore. But is it something they would hold against a future Denver bid to the point it would 'get in the way' against stronger competition? I don't think any of us really know the answer to that one.

[Rob2012]

The closer heads of state get the more jacked up the whole thing is........see Sochi.

Keep it separate, don't give in to IOC egos needing stroked by heads of state and don't let heads of state get over involved in a sports fair for personal propaganda.

Everything will be more civilized and fair if these government top leaders are barred form attending sessions.

mayors YES.

That's all very well from a US perspective, but not all countries work like the US. A project like Chicago's Olympics could be managed on a fairly local level with, I would imagine, Federal Government only really getting involved with security matters. Obama's attendence felt necessary because other World Leaders were there in 2009, but it really oughtn't have been, I agree. It was a sideshow that didn't really do the bid process any good in the end.

Here's a different perspective though: London's Mayor has far, far fewer powers than most American city mayors. He has limitied powers over local taxation and powers when it comes to delivery of services within the capital, but he wouldn't be able to sign off on a large infrastucture project without central government approval. He'd be relying completely on the treasury to release the money. He can put forward and propose large schemes, but he has no power to actually say whether they go ahead because he's not in control of the purse strings. The IOC wouldn't be happy just to see Boris Johnson turning up with CGI plans and grand ideas (Google Thames Estuary Airport and you'll see why)

I can perfectly understand why the IOC would want to speak to those in government when it comes to more centralised systems like the UK's. But I can also see that these IOC sessions have become too much of a circus. The trouble is, where do you draw the line between leaders attending being necessary and it becoming an "obligation" because they need to be "seen" to be there.

[aquaman617]

AFAIK, the entire head-of-state-must-go-to-the-IOC thing is a new phenomenon. If I recall correctly, it was Tony Blair who did it first when he popped in just before the voting for the 2012 Games. I don't have any recollection of Chirac (or would it have been Sarkozy by then?) ever being mentioned as present at the voting. Bill Clinton didn't go when SLC was selected, Bush wasn't there when Atlanta was voted on. My memory is that Blair's visit was a surprise to the IOC and was cited as a factor in London's prevailing over Paris for 2012. So much so that every candidate city's delegation as included its head of state since.

[Rob2012]

AFAIK, the entire head-of-state-must-go-to-the-IOC thing is a new phenomenon. If I recall correctly, it was Tony Blair who did it first when he popped in just before the voting for the 2012 Games. I don't have any recollection of Chirac (or would it have been Sarkozy by then?) ever being mentioned as present at the voting. Bill Clinton didn't go when SLC was selected, Bush wasn't there when Atlanta was voted on. My memory is that Blair's visit was a surprise to the IOC and was cited as a factor in London's prevailing over Paris for 2012. So much so that every candidate city's delegation as included its head of state since.

Actually you misremember slightly. Chirac was at the IOC session for the final presentations and he spoke on behalf of Paris (an awful speech), but Blair wasn't there for the final presentations because he was hosting the G8 Summit in Scotland on that day.

However, Blair did attend the IOC session in the days before the day of the final presentations, whilst Chirac didn't.

Also, Blair did appear in London's presentation in a video. speaking in both English and fluent French.

Your impressions are correct though. Blair impressed far more than Chirac, despite the President being there for the final presentation. And Chirac's opinions on various European cuisines didn't help much either.

[FYI]

But is it something they would hold against a future Denver bid to the point it would 'get in the way' against stronger competition? I don't think any of us really know the answer to that one.

And how is that any different than you proclaiming that there would be "no chance" of a hypothetical Shanghai 2028 or 2032 win, if Beijing got 2022, in a field of strong competition? That's not something that any of us really know the answer to, either.

At least I'm not citing, with 100% certainly, that a hypothetical Denver bid would be bound to lose in a very strong field of competitors. I still would hold the position, though, that in a field with a strong repeat Munich bid, a strong Swiss bid, two strong Scandinavian bids & a good potential darkhorse bid wih Krakow, especially since it's been quite a while that the Winter Olympics have been in "traditional" Europe, that a Denver bid would be in very rough waters, especially when you do add their bad-tasting history into the mix.

-

[Quaker2001]

And how is that any different than you proclaiming that there would be "no chance" of a hypothetical Shanghai 2028 or 2032 win, if Beijing got 2022, in a field of strong competition? That's not something that any of us really know the answer to, either.

At least I'm not citing, with 100% certainly, that a hypothetical Denver bid would be bound to lose in a very strong field of competitors. I still would hold the position, though, that in a field with a strong repeat Munich bid, a strong Swiss bid, two strong Scandinavian bids & a good potential darkhorse bid wih Krakow, especially since it's been quite a while that the Winter Olympics have been in "traditional" Europe, that a Denver bid would be in very rough waters, especially when you do add their bad-tasting history into the mix.

-

That's a great counter-point.. bring up a completely unrelated post of mine and give the old "how is that any different." As if 1 has anything to do with the other. This place really does have the mentality of a high school locker room!

Interesting how we've now upgraded the competition though. Before it was "the likes of Munich, St. moritz, Stockholm, Oslo, Krakow (& whoever else) like initially anticipated." Now is a strong repeat Munich bid and a strong Swiss bid and two strong Scandinavian bids and a good darkhorse in Krakow. You know what.. any bid would have trouble competing in that field, Denver or otherwise.

I don't want to have this same argument over again, particularly if we're going to try and create situations where Denver would or wouldn't have a better chance to win. Because I agree with you that in a strong field where the geopolitics of the bid probably point towards Europe (and they would for 2026) that Denver would have a tough go of it. I just get tired of hearing how matter-of-factly some people talk about how the IOC is going to react to Denver's history. Since I know I have to spell this out very clearly less you mis-represent my position.. I'm in no way saying it won't be a factor. It's part of the equation. But we don't know for sure that it's this automatic negative, as if the IOC has already passed judgment on a bid that hasn't been put in front of them based on that very specific element.

And since you referenced my comment on Shanghai, I'm going to play your game here.. yes, I stand by that conviction, just like you stand by your conviction about Durban that based on the right combination of circumstances, they'll win. Not much of a conviction really. As opposed to my saying Shanghai won't get 2028 or 2032 if Beijing gets 2022. That's a much more simple equation (and based on exactly 1 variable that we'll know the answer to in less than a year) and I didn't talk about strong competition. I said no chance in a field that includes any legitimate competition. Do you actually have your own opinion on that one or do you just not like the manner in which I gave my opinion. Because that would be very much like a certain other poster here (who I won't name since, again, I'm playing your game and offering a backhanded slap to another poster without actually mentioning their name ).

[StefanMUC]

That's all very well from a US perspective, but not all countries work like the US. A project like Chicago's Olympics could be managed on a fairly local level with, I would imagine, Federal Government only really getting involved with security matters. Obama's attendence felt necessary because other World Leaders were there in 2009, but it really oughtn't have been, I agree. It was a sideshow that didn't really do the bid process any good in the end.

Here's a different perspective though: London's Mayor has far, far fewer powers than most American city mayors. He has limitied powers over local taxation and powers when it comes to delivery of services within the capital, but he wouldn't be able to sign off on a large infrastucture project without central government approval. He'd be relying completely on the treasury to release the money. He can put forward and propose large schemes, but he has no power to actually say whether they go ahead because he's not in control of the purse strings. The IOC wouldn't be happy just to see Boris Johnson turning up with CGI plans and grand ideas (Google Thames Estuary Airport and you'll see why)

I can perfectly understand why the IOC would want to speak to those in government when it comes to more centralised systems like the UK's. But I can also see that these IOC sessions have become too much of a circus. The trouble is, where do you draw the line between leaders attending being necessary and it becoming an "obligation" because they need to be "seen" to be there.

I would draw the line at: No politicians allowed, bid officials only. These should come to the session with the acquired political support on whatever level in writing, and that's it.