Jump to content

USA 2024


Recommended Posts

USOC: 3 cities being contacted to replace Boston in 2024 bid

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) -- U.S. Olympic leaders have started contacting Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington about the possibility of bidding for the 2024 Games and believe the demise of Boston's candidacy will be ''ancient history'' by the time the host city is selected in 2017.

n an interview Saturday with The Associated Press, U.S. Olympic Committee chairman Larry Probst said a decision will be made by the end of August on which of three cities should replace Boston as the American contender in a race that already features four European cities.

''We've got to reconnect with the three cities that were part of the group of finalists,'' Probst said on the sidelines of the IOC general assembly in Kuala Lumpur. ''We've got to determine what their level of interest is in pursuing a bid and take that feedback and gather our board together and discuss that feedback with our board and make a decision.''

''That will all happen in the month of August,'' he added. ''We will have resolved this by the end of the month.''

Probst gave his most extensive public comments since the USOC cut ties with Boston on Monday, pulling the plug on a bid plagued by a lack of public support.

The USOC now faces a Sept. 15 IOC deadline to enter a bid that would replace Boston, which had been chosen ahead of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington.

Los Angeles, which hosted the 1932 and 1984 Olympics, is widely viewed as the likely choice.

''We'll talk to them just like we'll talk to San Francisco and Washington,'' Probst said.

Probst said the USOC has begun the process of sounding out the three cities about stepping in, but declined to say what kind of response the committee has received so far.

''We're going to share that feedback with our board first,'' he said.

The feedback from International Olympic members, meanwhile, has been loud and clear: ''Surprisingly strong encouragement to bid,'' Probst said.

Many IOC members have told the AP they would welcome a Los Angeles bid.

''They've heard the speculation, they've read the speculation and of course they assume it's going to happen,'' Probst said. ''They want to see a bid from the United States. We would love to host the games in 2024 and hope to have a strong bid.''

Probst said numerous IOC members have spoken to him here about Boston's withdrawal.

''Everybody thinks it's unfortunate,'' he said. ''When we chose Boston, we thought that it was going to be a strong bid. ... But at the end of the day we couldn't get the support of the local community. If you can't get the public to support a bid, you're not going to win. So we had to do what we thought was in the best interests of the USOC.''

Probst poured cold water on the possibility of a joint bid between Los Angeles and San Francisco, though he didn't rule it out completely.

''I think that would be complicated - not impossible, but complicated,'' he said.

Paris and Rome are among the declared candidates for 2024, along with Hamburg, Germany, and Budapest, Hungary. Toronto and Baku, Azerbaijan, are also weighing possible bids. The IOC will select the host city at its session Lima, Peru, in 2017.

The U.S. hasn't hosted a Summer Games since Atlanta staged the 1996 Olympics. New York and Chicago failed in bids for the 2012 and 2016 Games, respectively.

Asked whether the Boston debacle had damaged U.S. chances for 2024, Probst said: ''I don't think so. I think that episode will be ancient history by the time that we get to Lima in 2017.''

IOC President Thomas Bach this week accused Boston of failing to deliver on its ''promises'' to the USOC. Mayor Marty Walsh fired back that he wouldn't be ''forced into spending taxpayers' money at risk.''

''I have a lot of respect for Mayor Walsh,'' Probst said. ''I think he's a terrific guy. We had a good working relationship with him. We're going to take the high road and not get involved in any kind of finger pointing or accusatory remarks. I'm a big fan of Mayor Walsh. I'm clearly a big fan of Thomas Bach.''

Bach raised eyebrows this week when he declared that the IOC had a ''commitment'' from the USOC to submit a 2024 bid.

''I was a little surprised at the remark that he made,'' Probst said, ''but, yes, we would like to bid for 2024. We have said consistently that is our desire to have a bid for the Summer Games in 2024. That's the commitment that we've made.''

AP

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/usoc-3-cities-being-contacted-replace-boston-2024-122337928--spt.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Los Angeles 1984 also cost a mere $584 million. That doesn't even buy you security these days.

You know very well as the the US Federal Government paid for the security at Salt Lake in 2002 and will need to do so again in any future American Olympic Games. I am talking about removing the burden on the taxpayers for building the revenues/village.

So what would materially have to change for Boston's bid to have survived? How would the Games have to change, in your opinion for not just Boston but US cities outside of LA to be interested again?

How about eliminating track cycling events (or at least making them optional)? No city needs a velodrome.

How about modifying the rules of Track & Field so that temporary tracks can be cheaply built in stadia designed primarily for American Football, Association Football, etc.?

How about letting cities host participants in preexisting college dormitories instead of building new athletes' villages?

There are lots of ways to reduce costs. Let cities be creative and flexible instead of weighing them down with a contract full of specific requirements.

***venues*** NOT "revenues"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about modifying the rules of Track & Field so that temporary tracks can be cheaply built in stadia designed primarily for American Football, Association Football, etc.?

An athletics track is significantly large than a football field. It wouldn't fit in existing stadiums without extensive modifications. So that's not really an option and most stadiums would not want to compromise their design in order to accomodate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

USOC: 3 cities being contacted to replace Boston in 2024 bid

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) -- U.S. Olympic leaders have started contacting Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington about the possibility of bidding for the 2024 Games and believe the demise of Boston's candidacy will be ''ancient history'' by the time the host city is selected in 2017.

''We've got to reconnect with the three cities that were part of the group of finalists,'' Probst said on the sidelines of the IOC general assembly in Kuala Lumpur. ''We've got to determine what their level of interest is in pursuing a bid and take that feedback and gather our board together and discuss that feedback with our board and make a decision." ''That will all happen in the month of August,'' he added. ''We will have resolved this by the end of the month.''

Los Angeles, which hosted the 1932 and 1984 Olympics, is widely viewed as the likely choice.

''We'll talk to them just like we'll talk to San Francisco and Washington,'' Probst said. Many IOC members have told the AP they would welcome a Los Angeles bid.

Hasn't the USOC already "gathered all the feedback" from the other three cities?! The only have one month to decide their substitute & they're still gonna waste their time with San Fran & DC?! The USOC obviously hasn't learned from this Boston mess. DC, really?! And San Fran would make Boston look like child's play!

And apparently, looks like the IOC thinks Los Angeles would be better anyway. So what's the USOC's fricken problem, besides looking like a bunch of amateurs. It's already bad enough that they had to go to Kuala Lunpur on the defense. How embarrassing.

You know very well the US Federal Government paid for the security at Salt Lake in 2002 and will need to do so again in any future American Olympic Games. I am talking about removing the burden on the taxpayers for building the venues/village.

Even still, the venues, village & all other operational costs (which that alone, would cost $3 Billion according to the USOC), would cost WAY more than what L.A. 84 ever did.

And like Rob also noted, at some point, the people are going to have to pay for infrastructure improvements that are made to their city. Those things don't come for free anyway.

As also as been mentioned here before, the Olympics are a luxury. Not a right. So if you don't want to pay/or can't afford to pay for these things, then don't bid in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So apparently, the IOC needs a US city -- ANY city -- to give numbers to their 2024 race. God.

Now, if the STUPID USOC board (and I hope some of them are reading this) had only entered 2022, they wouldn't be in this 2024 mess which is doomed to end in failure again! But by entering for 2022, they would've killed 2 birds with one stone. Satisfied the IOC's wish to see another US bid; and probably would have won an Olympic Games again. Soooooooooooooo stupid!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USCO doesn't want a winter games that's why they have been bidding for 2012 and 2016. They probably knew that they couldve got 2022 but in their eyes they need a SOG.bMy guess is that they won't even bid for 2026 either. If they bid and loose 2028 maybe they will take a step back and go for a winter games but I doubt they will until they get a SOG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So apparently, the IOC needs a US city -- ANY city -- to give numbers to their 2024 race. God.

Now, if the STUPID USOC board (and I hope some of them are reading this) had only entered 2022, they wouldn't be in this 2024 mess which is doomed to end in failure again! But by entering for 2022, they would've killed 2 birds with one stone. Satisfied the IOC's wish to see another US bid; and probably would have won an Olympic Games again. Soooooooooooooo stupid!

The USCO doesn't want a winter games that's why they have been bidding for 2012 and 2016. They probably knew that they couldve got 2022 but in their eyes they need a SOG.bMy guess is that they won't even bid for 2026 either. If they bid and loose 2028 maybe they will take a step back and go for a winter games but I doubt they will until they get a SOG.

At what point during the lead-up to the submission deadline for 2022 did it seem like a wise move for the USOC to bid? Hindsight is 20/20 as we know, but between what initially looked to be a strong field of European cities and the lack of the USOC/IOC revenue agreement until mid-2012, in no way did the USOC "probably know that they could've got 2022." That's revisionist history there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An athletics track is significantly large than a football field. It wouldn't fit in existing stadiums without extensive modifications. So that's not really an option and most stadiums would not want to compromise their design in order to accomodate it.

My point is to change the rules in order to make the track small enough to fit in such stadia without compromising their use for professional football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is to change the rules in order to make the track small enough to fit in such stadia without compromising their use for professional football.

But then you would have to change the shape of it which would mess runners up and their techniques.

I remember in high school when I ran indoor track in the winter they had a 200m track. The problem is it defeated the purpose of a 100m dash because you have to go around turns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then you would have to change the shape of it which would mess runners up and their techniques.

I remember in high school when I ran indoor track in the winter they had a 200m track. The problem is it defeated the purpose of a 100m dash because you have to go around turns.

I understand your point, but is it really worth spending all that money just to preserve runners' techniques? Also, the 2024 games are still 9 years in the future. There is plenty of time to phase in the new track design gradually over that period of time and allow athletes to adapt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At what point during the lead-up to the submission deadline for 2022 did it seem like a wise move for the USOC to bid? Hindsight is 20/20 as we know, but between what initially looked to be a strong field of European cities and the lack of the USOC/IOC revenue agreement until mid-2012, in no way did the USOC "probably know that they could've got 2022." That's revisionist history there.

Agreed. In hindsight, any city the USOC would have put up for a 2022 bid would have come away the winner a day ago but, really, I can't fault them for focusing on a SOG. While SLC was 13.5 years ago, it is still more recent than Atlanta, which was 19 years ago. By the time 2024 rolls around, it will have been 28 years since the US last hosted a SOG, even longer if we have to wait until 2028 thanks to the Boston debacle. While I personally love the WOG more than the SOG, I can see why the USOC wants the SOG more and why we probably won't try for another WOG until after we've hosted a SOG. There's no way the US hosts another WOGs until the 2030s, I don't think, with 2030 only a possibility if the USOC gets very lucky and all the strong European 2024 contenders drop out of the race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is to change the rules in order to make the track small enough to fit in such stadia without compromising their use for professional football.

That's hardly a simple rule change though. Changing the size or configuration of the track is a major undertaking. And if you're doing it for the Olympics, then you're going to have to do it for World Championships and pretty much any other big event to conform to the new standards. There's no way the IAAF is doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never claimed it would be a simple change.

Then there's no way the Olympics return to the US. The IOC has tough decisions to make and they do wield influence over athletic organizations. However you slice it, building a 80,000 seat stadium for track & field is a ridiculous proposition. Even modifiable stadiums like the Stade de France are excessive and are difficult to build without public funds. As long as this sort of stadium is a requirement, the Olympics cannot be sustainable. To make a sustainable games, there are only two options:

1: Modify the track dimensions
2: Scale back the scope of the stadium (< 30,000 capacity)

We all know the IOC loves its money, so option 2 is not viable. Option 1 is the IOC's only hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's hardly a simple rule change though. Changing the size or configuration of the track is a major undertaking. And if you're doing it for the Olympics, then you're going to have to do it for World Championships and pretty much any other big event to conform to the new standards. There's no way the IAAF is doing that.

There is nothing sacred about a 400m track. People don't like change.. and it would be an undertaking. But when the alternative is to build a $1billion stadium that nobody wants every four years, it's time to start thinking about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your point, but is it really worth spending all that money just to preserve runners' techniques? Also, the 2024 games are still 9 years in the future. There is plenty of time to phase in the new track design gradually over that period of time and allow athletes to adapt.

I agree. I'd give them a 50m track...if that's what the space will allow. How did the ancient Greeks do it?? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USCO doesn't want a winter games that's why they have been bidding for 2012 and 2016. They probably knew that they couldve got 2022 but in their eyes they need a SOG.bMy guess is that they won't even bid for 2026 either. If they bid and loose 2028 maybe they will take a step back and go for a winter games but I doubt they will until they get a SOG.

The other thing to quesion is whether the IOC even had a candidate city for 2022. Realistically, their choices were probably a return to SLC, or a shaky Denver bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USCO doesn't want a winter games that's why they have been bidding for 2012 and 2016. They probably knew that they couldve got 2022 but in their eyes they need a SOG.bMy guess is that they won't even bid for 2026 either. If they bid and loose 2028 maybe they will take a step back and go for a winter games but I doubt they will until they get a SOG.

They're NOT going to get it until 2032. So why waste everyone else's time with all these failed bids? If Paris gets 2024, that can only strengthen an LA 2032 bid -- but both LA and the USOC have to be patient because if they keep running LA for '24 and '28, she could only appear to be a tired hag (or persistent one) in the voters' eyes come 2025 (voting for 2032). I mean how much renewed plans can LA keep presenting every 4 years?? Not much if 70%-80% of the venues are already in place.

Then in the meantime, their partners who will be holding empty land for them for '24, then '28 might just bail out of a 2032 run. They have to time it RIGHT. I mean, the USOC should know the drill by now. But they don't.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing sacred about a 400m track. People don't like change.. and it would be an undertaking. But when the alternative is to build a $1billion stadium that nobody wants every four years, it's time to start thinking about it.

Pretty sure we've had this discussion before. If there's nothing sacred about a 400m track, then there's probably nothing sacred about a 50m pool, the 3 meter springboard, 10 meter platform, 70 meter archery targets, the 10 foot hoop in basketball, a 250 meter velodrome, and heck while we're at it, who cares about the exact distance of the marathon, speaking of things that probably aren't sacred.

Again, the problem is that if you change the standard, you have to change every track in the world to conform. So let's see.. put the burden on 1 city, or put it on on many cities. Not a tough call there. Plenty of Olympic host cities (including Rio) have managed to figure out how to address this problem. That a New York or a Chicago has to find a creative solution to this issue is not cause to change a long-held international standard. If the issue is cost, who said these stadiums have to cost $1 billion. Ask US cities with NFL teams (particularly Atlanta, speaking of Olympic host cities) why they're spending billions on new stadiums that they may or may not "need." They're about to spend $2 billion on a new football stadium and new baseball stadium to replace 2 facilities built in the 1990s. Do they need to spend that money? Of course not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never claimed it would be a simple change.

Then there's no way the Olympics return to the US. The IOC has tough decisions to make and they do wield influence over athletic organizations. However you slice it, building a 80,000 seat stadium for track & field is a ridiculous proposition. Even modifiable stadiums like the Stade de France are excessive and are difficult to build without public funds. As long as this sort of stadium is a requirement, the Olympics cannot be sustainable. To make a sustainable games, there are only two options:

1: Modify the track dimensions

2: Scale back the scope of the stadium (< 30,000 capacity)

We all know the IOC loves its money, so option 2 is not viable. Option 1 is the IOC's only hope.

Modify the track dimensions how? Sure the IOC has influence, but are they really going to ask the IAAF to change the basic dimensions of their playing surface? That's not going to happen. Again, cities have come up with solutions to this issue. So long as that continues to happen, the IOC isn't in a position to ask for change and if they try, the IAAF will call that bluff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your point, but is it really worth spending all that money just to preserve runners' techniques? Also, the 2024 games are still 9 years in the future. There is plenty of time to phase in the new track design gradually over that period of time and allow athletes to adapt.

It's not just technique, it's also dynamic and logic. Hard to do a "dash" if you haven't been trained to curve. In the end the Olympics are for the athletes - not the host, so it's not worth sacrificing new standards, as Quaker says, just to simplify things for one city/organization.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're NOT going to get it until 2032. So why waste everyone else's time with all these failed bids? If Paris gets 2024, that can only strengthen an LA 2032 bid -- but both LA and the USOC have to be patient because if they keep running LA for '24 and '28, she could only appear to be a tired hag (or persistent one) in the voters' eyes come 2025 (voting for 2032). I mean how much renewed plans can LA keep presenting every 4 years?? Not much if 70%-80% of the venues are already in place.

Then in the meantime, their partners who will be holding empty land for them for '24, then '28 might just bail out of a 2032 run. They have to time it RIGHT. I mean, the USOC should know the drill by now. But they don't.

I disagree with you for 2032. What if NYC or Chicago comes out of the dark for 2028? I'm sure the IOC would rather have a new American games than a third Los Angeles games. Or if San Francisco puts together a good enough plan? I'm sure the usoc would like to put fourth another winning candidate other than LA.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just technique, it's also dynamic and logic. Hard to do a "dash" if you haven't been trained to curve. In the end the Olympics are for the athletes - not the host, so it's not worth sacrificing new standards, as Quaker says, just to simplify things for one city/organization.

With enough lead time, any transition is possible. Regardless, an NFL field is 120 yards long. There's enough real estate there for a straight 100 m track. It may not be part of the same oval used for all the other events, but that isn't much of a sacrifice.

Modify the track dimensions how? Sure the IOC has influence, but are they really going to ask the IAAF to change the basic dimensions of their playing surface? That's not going to happen. Again, cities have come up with solutions to this issue. So long as that continues to happen, the IOC isn't in a position to ask for change and if they try, the IAAF will call that bluff.

It all comes down to how serious the IOC is about reform. If the IAAF resisted, perhaps the 2036 games might not have any T&F events. That would starve the IAAF of prestige and money. Perhaps it could convince them to change their minds. The IOC has no qualms playing hardball with NOCs and host cities; they shouldn't have any qualms pushing relevant athletic federations.

Pretty sure we've had this discussion before. If there's nothing sacred about a 400m track, then there's probably nothing sacred about a 50m pool, the 3 meter springboard, 10 meter platform, 70 meter archery targets, the 10 foot hoop in basketball, a 250 meter velodrome, and heck while we're at it, who cares about the exact distance of the marathon, speaking of things that probably aren't sacred.

Again, the problem is that if you change the standard, you have to change every track in the world to conform. So let's see.. put the burden on 1 city, or put it on on many cities. Not a tough call there. Plenty of Olympic host cities (including Rio) have managed to figure out how to address this problem. That a New York or a Chicago has to find a creative solution to this issue is not cause to change a long-held international standard. If the issue is cost, who said these stadiums have to cost $1 billion. Ask US cities with NFL teams (particularly Atlanta, speaking of Olympic host cities) why they're spending billions on new stadiums that they may or may not "need." They're about to spend $2 billion on a new football stadium and new baseball stadium to replace 2 facilities built in the 1990s. Do they need to spend that money? Of course not.

Everything gets replaced in the eventually. It is possible to set a new standard, but not phase it in until 2052. Then there is plenty of time and plenty of warning to help everyone switch over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With enough lead time, any transition is possible. Regardless, an NFL field is 120 yards long. There's enough real estate there for a straight 100 m track. It may not be part of the same oval used for all the other events, but that isn't much of a sacrifice.

And for the 110 meter hurdles? Or should we just shorten that to 100 because a couple of cities don't want to build a track? Of course, you're also forgetting that runners after they reach the finish line have this tendency to continue running since, as we learned from the movie Spaceballs, when you're traveling at ludicrous speed, you can't just stop, you need to slow down first or else you're going to go flying into a wall. That's probably going to hurt.

It all comes down to how serious the IOC is about reform. If the IAAF resisted, perhaps the 2036 games might not have any T&F events. That would starve the IAAF of prestige and money. Perhaps it could convince them to change their minds. The IOC has no qualms playing hardball with NOCs and host cities; they shouldn't have any qualms pushing relevant athletic federations.

Like I said, let's see who calls that bluff. Because the IAAF is going to look at the IOC and tell them that's their problem. The IOC isn't about to cut track & field from the Olympics. How will that look for the prestige of the Olympics? It's one thing to push athletic federations for reform. It's another to ask a federation like the IAAF to change a very fundamental element of their competition and to do it for reasons that have nothing to do with the sport itself. No, that doesn't sound self-righteous at all.

Everything gets replaced in the eventually. It is possible to set a new standard, but not phase it in until 2052. Then there is plenty of time and plenty of warning to help everyone switch over.

As I mentioned in another thread, I was on vacation in Italy last week. I can think of a few things I saw on that trip, especially in Rome, that tend to debunk the "everything gets replaced eventually" theory. So you want to set a new standard and spend the next 30-40 years implementing it? Does that make any sense to you? What are you planning to accomplish with this anyway? Make it slightly easier for cities to bid for an Olympics? Seems like more trouble than it's worth to accomplish that. I don't know what the solution is to escalating costs for hosting an Olympics. This one seems like more trouble than it's worth. You're going to spend more retrofitting all these venues than you're going to save by allowing cities a smaller venue for athletics. Not worth it IMO. Let alone over a century of history you'd be washing away by doing that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With enough lead time, any transition is possible. Regardless, an NFL field is 120 yards long. There's enough real estate there for a straight 100 m track. It may not be part of the same oval used for all the other events, but that isn't much of a sacrifice.

Yeah, but other than the US, no other nation has a need for an NFL stadium, let alone an American football stadium. If the IOC were to implement a track reform, it should benefit all nations. Meeting soccer field dimensions would make more sense, as most of the world would would be more interested in it. Having the rules bend to ease America would defeat the purpose of the I in IOC. Standards could make track dimensions more flexible, but that would kinda just defeat the purpose of standards.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with you for 2032. What if NYC or Chicago comes out of the dark for 2028? I'm sure the IOC would rather have a new American games than a third Los Angeles games. Or if San Francisco puts together a good enough plan? I'm sure the usoc would like to put fourth another winning candidate other than LA.

You're falling into the same rut as this year. OK, pick a bid city like it's the BEST ever US bid presented. But all indications are, it's Paris' time. So there goes your Bestest/Most Beautiful bid!! For 2028, I would leave room for Durban. If you want to spend $$ and sacrifice another city just for the heck of it, Bach or his successor will welcome you. But you've probably burned another city by then. Granted, Chicago or New York might come around again...but again, I'd save that for 2032 or 2036. 2024 and 2028, in my estimation, are for two other cities which have first dibs. Remember, the US last hosted in 1996 (4 summer games); Paris in 1924 (only France's 2nd SOGs)....and Durban/So. Africa/ Africa NEVER. So, do the math.

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...