Jump to content

USA 2024


Recommended Posts

Nacre thinks Boston would be most likely to defeat an effort by initiative. I think you're WAY underestimating San Francisco's ability to simply come out and riot the effort to death, not to mention the non-violent who would definitely go initiative petition at the earliest possibility...

IMO the only sensible plan for a San Francisco bid is a something similar to London's plan with Oakland substituted for the East End. I don't think it's at all likely that a San Francisco bid gets financed, but if they can somehow wrangle billions out of California and local sponsors to regenerate Oakland I doubt anybody in the Bay Area is going to be rioting.

To clarify in order for a plan to die in a referendum it needs political support and public disapproval. I think San Francisco is a longer shot than Boston to be host, and I don't think San Francisco will even get to the public referendum stage before the funding issue kills it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Dallas is the same as Atlanta, but I think it would have been perceived that way by the IOC. A decent number of IOC members weren't even familiar with Chicago at the start of the 2016 bid. If they don't know Chicago, they're certainly not going to know anything about Dallas. Given the relative proximity of Dallas to Atlanta, I think many IOC members would have assumed there are a lot of similarities between the cities. That would be hard for Dallas to overcome.

I think you're probably right, but that's probably just the way it is.

Not that we should feel too bad for the US here as it least it can have this debate with itself when selecting a host city. Manchester, Osaka and Lille all failed and if 2024 ends up a little way south of where I'm sitting now, then we could be seeing London, Tokyo and Paris hosting. Countries with one very dominant city will always get the "come back with London" treatement from the IOC. And that's probably fair enough.

Even countries where there's not an obvious candidate or where a few cities which could vie for the prize, will not be broken down into regions in the minds of many. Whilst we're having the debate "is it the North-East's time" with the US, nobody will ever divide Germany up like that. Hell, will people in the West really perceive Beijing and Shanghai as anything other than bids from China?

In that sense, why should anyone expect Dallas and Atlanta to have distinct personalities in the minds of outsiders when it comes to hosting an Olympics?

The US may be divided into three of four clumsy geographical blocks when it comes to perception, but most countries will not even get that. You're in quite a nice position that you're able to compare the relative merits of LA and DC and take cultural aspects into account, knowing both will be treated seriously by the IOC, but at the same time allow you to show a different face of the US to the world.

Edited by Rob.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...which is why, for Athensfan, the USOC didn't leave a big enough list. The point is to maximize competition to get more out of the bid city. In the current environment, you'll probably see attrition. 2 cities may not even last 4 months, for all we know. So perhaps (even though my previous post was an assessment that the USOC thinks the IOC wouldn't accept Dallas... which, when it rightly gets scrubbed, it was better to say here anyway) nothing should have been cut at this point. Dallas would probably, at least, hold its bid to the end of the USOC process. A Los Angeles anointment is not the optimal solution unless the IOC watches everyone else fall by the wayside.

In theory that sounds good, but you're presupposing that international appeal was Dallas' only or dominant flaw. We have no idea what Dallas proposed, how their leadership worked with the USOC or why the USOC eliminated them. For all we know, there was a problem with government support at the state or local level that was clearly insoluble. It could've been any number of problems or a combination of them. We 'll probably never know.

Having more options is not better if the additional options are of poor quality. Most countries only have one city that is electable as an Olympic host. The US is unusual. Cutting 2 of 6 cities is only a reduction of 33%. The only reason to leave DC and San Francisco on the list is if you genuinely believe they could be not only the US' best available option, but an option capable of winning over the IOC.

In my opinion, DC has way too many political overtones, the Summer weather is terrible and the local government is a nightmare. San Francisco has the appeal, but lacks the layout for a strong venue plan, it is famously dogged by bureaucratic gridlock and is highly likely (in my opinion) to be mired in opposition to such an extent that it cannot deliver the Games.

The USOC has not resolved to submit a bid under any circumstances. If the best available city for 2024 can't make a serious challenge internationally, they just won't bid.

Even if they seize on a city that they feel can win, once the IOC unveils its post-Agenda 2020 bidding process, the US may conclude the process so heavily favors another candidate that there is no point in bidding.

In summary, I see no reason to believe that Dallas and/or San Diego should have been left on the list.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that sense, why should anyone expect Dallas and Atlanta to have distinct personalities in the minds of outsiders when it comes to hosting an Olympics?

My point all along. The Manchester, Osaka & Lille (not to mention Seville & Leipzig) failed bids are perfect examples how second-tier cities don't fair too well in the minds of the IOC. So I don't see how it's a "misguided or over-stated viewpoint" how Dallas could be *perceived*, even if it's vaguely, similar to Atlanta. So what that Atlanta doesn't have a rodeo culture. Is the IOC going to want to make, or even care, to make that type of distinction? As has been said many times around here before, but let's face it. Atlanta simply got lucky, being at the right place at the right place. Right in the middle of a not-so stellar field. Not necessarily bcuz that was the IOC's optimal choice.

Nacre made the good reference that our Alpha cities are more distinguishable than our Beta cities. Of course Dallas isn't "exactly" the same as Atlanta (but really, this is mainly argued by Americans themselves). But yeah, in the minds of 'outsiders' (especially ones really foreign to American culture), they're not gonna know &/or care that rodeos mainly happen in Texas. Especially when it comes down to the fastidious (& often times pompous) IOC members. Remember, this is the same IOC that gave you guys the Games bcuz Jacques couldn't keep his big mouth shut over British & Finnish food! lol :-D ;-)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory that sounds good, but you're presupposing that international appeal was Dallas' only or dominant flaw. We have no idea what Dallas proposed, how their leadership worked with the USOC or why the USOC eliminated them. For all we know, there was a problem with government support at the state or local level that was clearly insoluble. It could've been any number of problems or a combination of them. We 'll probably never know.

Dallas' bid must've had at the least, some sort of government cohesiveness. Otherwise, they woulda fell by the wayside long ago, along with the likes of Chicago, New York, Philadephia & Minneapolis. We know that the Dallas bid team also had a good leader by the name of Matt Woods. We also know that his plan centered around Fair Park with a major refurbishment of the Cotton Bowl.

So to say that we had "no idea" on Dallas' position is very exaggerated. Especially when you follow that up by saying San Fran & DC are a debacle of bureaucratic gridlock, yet those two made the USOC's short-list. So clearly, some other aspect was the determining factor in their ultimate decision making.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point all along. The Manchester, Osaka & Lille (not to mention Seville & Leipzig) failed bids are perfect examples how second-tier cities don't fair too well in the minds of the IOC. So I don't see how it's a "misguided or over-stated viewpoint" how Dallas could be *perceived*, even if it's vaguely, similar to Atlanta. So what that Atlanta doesn't have a rodeo culture. Is the IOC going to want to make, or even care, to make that type of distinction? As has been said many times around here before, but let's face it. Atlanta simply got lucky, being at the right place at the right place. Right in the middle of a not-so stellar field. Not necessarily bcuz that was the IOC's optimal choice.

Nacre made the good reference that our Alpha cities are more distinguishable than our Beta cities. Of course Dallas isn't "exactly" the same as Atlanta (but really, this is mainly argued by Americans themselves). But yeah, in the minds of 'outsiders' (especially ones really foreign to American culture), they're not gonna know &/or care that rodeos mainly happen in Texas. Especially when it comes down to the fastidious (& often times pompous) IOC members. Remember, this is the same IOC that gave you guys the Games bcuz Jacques couldn't keep his big mouth shut over British & Finnish food! lol :-D ;-)

Good post, though I like to think there was a little more to our winning bid than that! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dallas' bid must've had at the least, some sort of government cohesiveness. Otherwise, they woulda fell by the wayside long ago, along with the likes of Chicago, New York, Philadephia & Minneapolis. We know that the Dallas bid team also had a good leader by the name of Matt Woods. We also know that his plan centered around Fair Park with a major refurbishment of the Cotton Bowl.

So to say that we had "no idea" on Dallas' position is very exaggerated. Especially when you follow that up by saying San Fran & DC are a debacle of bureaucratic gridlock, yet those two made the USOC's short-list. So clearly, some other aspect was the determining factor in their ultimate decision making.

FYI, please READ.

As usual, you're criticizing a point I didn't make. I didn't say we have "no idea on Dallas position."

I said we don't know why the USOC rejected Dallas. Sure we knew a few things about Dallas' campaign, but we don't know what the USOC found lacking. We don't know enough about the proposal to even make an educated guess.

I doubt government support was the issue, but for all we know it started getting shaky last week. It was just a hypothetical example. Matt Wood's involvement doesn't guard against that. Who knows what happened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toronto is also much closer to Miami than to Vancouver. What's being discussed is city planning and culture rather than geographical distance.

I have nothing against Dallas or Houston, but if you set out to find the most extreme mismatch possible it would be hard to find a worse fit than the snobs in the IOC and jingoistic Texans. Anyway Dallas didn't get shortlisted, so let's forget about it.

I understand that, but there's this presumption by many around here that the IOC was so put off by Atlanta that anything even remotely resembling it is going to make them want to vomit or something. I agree with the idea that the United States should put it's best foot forward and that Dallas or Houston are probably not it, but again, the Atlanta comparisons are neither here nor there. You're right though, it's now a moot point.

Yikes... I obviously need the 400-level class on how to post other's quotes here. (Or the buttons just don't work?)

Nacre thinks Boston would be most likely to defeat an effort by initiative. I think you're WAY underestimating San Francisco's ability to simply come out and riot the effort to death, not to mention the non-violent who would definitely go initiative petition at the earliest possibility...

...which is why, for Athensfan, the USOC didn't leave a big enough list. The point is to maximize competition to get more out of the bid city. In the current environment, you'll probably see attrition. 2 cities may not even last 4 months, for all we know. So perhaps (even though my previous post was an assessment that the USOC thinks the IOC wouldn't accept Dallas... which, when it rightly gets scrubbed, it was better to say here anyway) nothing should have been cut at this point. Dallas would probably, at least, hold its bid to the end of the USOC process. A Los Angeles anointment is not the optimal solution unless the IOC watches everyone else fall by the wayside.

I didn't even think of it this way, but this is actually a pretty good point. We've already seen the mayor of Boston express his concerns. Who knows what'll happen with DC and San Francisco. Los Angeles who, yes, will probably emerge as the winner in this, is the only one on fairly solid footing, but who knows if they're even bulletproof when it comes down to it. So there is certainly some validity to keeping an extra city or 2 around just in case 1 or more of these cities aren't in it for the long haul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One impression I get in my research into cities like Dallas and Atlanta is that Dallas (and, really, the other major Texan cities) really really wants to be a world-class city. The various Texas boosters, like Governor Perry, really want to raise the cultural standings of their cities to make it more appealing for the families of high level corporate officers of companies that would relocate.

I could see Dallas really being more impressive on the world stage in another decade. I think the Olympics could have helped launch that, but I can see why committees would want to wait until after Dallas has 'proven' itself.

Anyway, I'm all about Boston 2024 anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have no idea what Dallas proposed, how their leadership worked with the USOC or why the USOC eliminated them. For all we know, there was a problem with government support at the state or local level that was clearly insoluble. It could've been any number of problems or a combination of them. We 'll probably never know.

/quote]

Knowing who led the bid and having an idea about a couple venues is next to no information. We don't know what Dallas proposed or what their vision was.

We also don't know how well they worked with the USOC. Perhaps they mixed like oil and water. Perhaps they just weren't on the same page.

Finally, we don't know why they were cut. As I said it could've been a variety of things and we'll probably never know.

Arguing that they should still be on the list without any of the above information doesn't make sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Big Dig is actually a positive for Boston. The city now enjoys all the positives from the project. The cost overruns are in the past.

Olympic organizers can point to the Big Dig as an example of how big project can positively transform a city.

And Olympic opponents can point to the project as an example of something where costs went spiraling out of control and it was a giant clusterfuck. If Boston politicians and businessmen need to get behind the effort of an Olympic bid, the Big Dig will be anything but helpful. Plus, aside from the budget, there's also a timetable. How many years later than planned was that project finished? For Boston to host an Olympics, they need to be ready on time. The Big Dig is an example of a major infrastructure project that, while now complete and in the past, took more time and more money than it ever should have. That's anything but a positive towards the prospective of an Olympic bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that, but there's this presumption by many around here that the IOC was so put off by Atlanta that anything even remotely resembling it is going to make them want to vomit or something. I agree with the idea that the United States should put it's best foot forward and that Dallas or Houston are probably not it, but again, the Atlanta comparisons are neither here nor there. You're right though, it's now a moot point.

I didn't even think of it this way, but this is actually a pretty good point. So there is certainly some validity to keeping an extra city or 2 around just in case 1 or more of these cities aren't in it for the long haul.

This also falls into the premise that the by the USOC including more cities than they initially claimed, it just seems like they're holding on for hope now, that other than Los Angeles, the others (which would be high on the image category (especially San Francisco), could perhaps by some enticing, come up with a winnable, electable plans. But at this point it seems shaky, at best. This also seems to suggest that maybe, just maybe, the USOC is not totally enthused with a LA prospect, even though they may appear, for the moment, the best entrant possible.

*I was only meaning to quote the second paragraph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As usual, you're criticizing a point I didn't make. I didn't say we have "no idea on Dallas position."

I said we don't know why the USOC rejected Dallas. Sure we knew a few things about Dallas' campaign, but we don't know what the USOC found lacking. We don't know enough about the proposal to even make an educated guess.

I doubt government support was the issue, but for all we know it started getting shaky last week. It was just a hypothetical example. Matt Wood's involvement doesn't guard against that. Who knows what happened?

We have no idea what Dallas proposed, how their leadership worked with the USOC or why the USOC eliminated them. For all we know, there was a problem with government support at the state or local level that was clearly insoluble. It could've been any number of problems or a combination of them. We 'll probably never know.

/quote]

Knowing who led the bid and having an idea about a couple venues is next to no information. We don't know what Dallas proposed or what their vision was.

We also don't know how well they worked with the USOC. Perhaps they mixed like oil and water. Perhaps they just weren't on the same page.

Finally, we don't know why they were cut. As I said it could've been a variety of things and we'll probably never know.

Arguing that they should still be on the list without any of the above information doesn't make sense to me.

And what do we know about Boston and DC and San Francisco? We've seen Boston progress along, but they still feel like they're in the exploratory stages. DC and SF are total mysteries. With Dallas, we know precisely who their leader was and we have a pretty good baseline on what their vision was. That's a lot more information than we have from the other cities. It's certainly not the extensive plan we saw from Los Angeles, but until late April, we didn't know anything about them either.

You're right, we don't know why Dallas didn't make the cut. Could be any number of reasons. So yes, that information and that part of the puzzle is lacking and for anyone to guess would be speculating, even though many of us seem to have theories. But we still have a pretty decent idea of what Dallas proposed. For whatever reason(s), the USOC simply wasn't interested.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that, but there's this presumption by many around here that the IOC was so put off by Atlanta that anything even remotely resembling it is going to make them want to vomit or something. I agree with the idea that the United States should put it's best foot forward and that Dallas or Houston are probably not it, but again, the Atlanta comparisons are neither here nor there. You're right though, it's now a moot point.

I didn't even think of it this way, but this is actually a pretty good point. We've already seen the mayor of Boston express his concerns. Who knows what'll happen with DC and San Francisco. Los Angeles who, yes, will probably emerge as the winner in this, is the only one on fairly solid footing, but who knows if they're even bulletproof when it comes down to it. So there is certainly some validity to keeping an extra city or 2 around just in case 1 or more of these cities aren't in it for the long haul.

Except I don't think the USOC is going to offer up a city just because it's the only one left standing. It's got to be a competitive bid. For example, if LA, SF and Boston were all derailed by opposition, I don't think the USOC would say, "Well, let's give 'em DC. The plan might be weak and the worst of the four, but they're all we've got left. Thank God we shortlisted 'em."

No. They have to believe the bid is strong and that it can win.

This is not like the IOC's 2022 bid dilemma. The IOC must shortlist every bid that could conceivably work because they keep losing candidates and they MUST hold Winter Games somewhere in 2022 -- even if it's in their least desired locale.

The USOC is not in the same position. There is no "must" here. If they have a great bid they feel can win, they'll offer it. If not, they won't. They don't have to offer a weaker bid because it's all they have. They don't have to bid at all.

Finally, the general public isn't terribly aware of what's happening at this point. I doubt the opposition will be loud enough to break a bid until after an applicant has been submitted to the IOC. Until then, the would-be protesters probably don't have much idea of what's afoot. There's not much point in protesting a bid until it's certain anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This also falls into the premise that the by the USOC including more cities than they initially claimed, it just seems like they're holding on for hope now, that other than Los Angeles, the others (which would be high on the image category (especially San Francisco), could perhaps by some enticing, come up with a winnable, electable plans. But at this point it seems shaky, at best. This also seems to suggest that maybe, just maybe, the USOC is not totally enthused with a LA prospect, even though they may appear, for the moment, the best entrant possible.

*I was only meaning to quote the second paragraph.

It's easy for us to look at the LA plans and look at the competition and say it's theirs to lose. That may be the case, but I can understand the USOC wanting to make them earn it and to make sure they're totally committed. A nice extensive bid plan is all well and good, but eventually they will need support and backing. And it's anything but a guarantee they'll get it for a project as large as the Olympics.

Except I don't think the USOC is going to offer up a city just because it's the only one left standing. It's got to be a competitive bid. For example, if LA, SF and Boston were all derailed by opposition, I don't think the USOC would say, "Well, let's give 'em DC. The plan might be weak and the worst of the four, but they're all we've got left. Thank God we shortlisted 'em."

No. They have to believe the bid is strong and that it can win.

This is not like the IOC's 2022 bid dilemma. The IOC must shortlist every bid that could conceivably work because they keep losing candidates and they MUST hold Winter Games somewhere in 2022 -- even if it's in their least desired locale.

The USOC is not in the same position. There is no "must" here. If they have a great bid they feel can win, they'll offer it. If not, they won't. They don't have to offer a weaker bid because it's all they have. They don't have to bid at all.

Finally, the general public isn't terribly aware of what's happening at this point. I doubt the opposition will be loud enough to break a bid until after an applicant has been submitted to the IOC. Until then, the would-be protesters probably don't have much idea of what's afoot. There's not much point in protesting a bid until it's certain anyway.

I don't disagree with that first point. Nothing has changed to the extent that just because the USOC has their city, it's no guarantee that city will be put up for bid to the IOC. That's why it may make sense for L.A. to have some competition here. Obviously theses cities aren't being put through the rigors of a very formalized and expensive bid process, as well they shouldn't, but they still need to do their due diligence to make sure they have the best possible candidate. If stringing a couple of cities along a little further helps accomplish that goal, and I think it might, I see no error in their decision.

As to your last point.. no, this isn't in the public eye as much, but this is the age of social media. If a city like a Boston or a San Fran or even Los Angeles gets closer to getting chosen by the IOC, opposition could start to build somewhat. Even still, I have to imagine the USOC will be mindful of which cities may be lacking in support. Certainly not expecting another Denver 1972 situation to emerge, but where you have top politicians and business entities involved, there could be opponents to Olympic bidding that may express their concerns and try to talk the powers that be out of pursuing an Olympics if they don't think it's a worthwhile effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Olympic opponents can point to the project as an example of something where costs went spiraling out of control and it was a giant clusterfuck. If Boston politicians and businessmen need to get behind the effort of an Olympic bid, the Big Dig will be anything but helpful. Plus, aside from the budget, there's also a timetable. How many years later than planned was that project finished? For Boston to host an Olympics, they need to be ready on time. The Big Dig is an example of a major infrastructure project that, while now complete and in the past, took more time and more money than it ever should have. That's anything but a positive towards the prospective of an Olympic bid.

Honestly, I don't see this as being a factor one way or another. By the time the USOC makes up its mind in 2015 (and the IOC in 2017), the Big Dig will have been 25 years in the rear-view mirror. Aside from which, its expense and delays were all foreseeable (keeping open a major interstate through the heart of a city while building a brand new one underground, use of slurry wall construction due to the landfill through which much of the tunnel traversed, all the while not disrupting power and sewer lines or impacting the operation of the subway which ran a few feet below where the new road bed was being laid). If anything, the Big Dig was and is an engineering and planning triumph. But regardless, it will be ancient history.

Boston's shortcomings are elsewhere - venue siting, transportation infrastructure needs, and a rather enthusiastic group of NIMBYs (though not as enthusiastic or powerful as they've got in SF).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arguing that they should still be on the list without any of the above information doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not arguing that they should "still" be on the list. But to quote you; "Athensfan, please READ".

What I'm suggesting is that if Dallas was cut due to all of what you're mentioning, then I also see no reason why San Fran & DC would be on any better footing in those areas & still be included, while many here (including yourself, just in third to last post) have cited that these cities are filled with bureaucratic red tape. Especially when had had the USOC come out & say that these cities still presented great bids with "matching" leadership.

Yeah, the USOC coulda just been "playing nice" & all. But when you use such praiseful words, when in reality, the picture coulda been much different, only portrays a level of complete disingenuousness at best, or total hypocrisy at worst. I don't seem much room for gray area in this instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This also falls into the premise that the by the USOC including more cities than they initially claimed, it just seems like they're holding on for hope now, that other than Los Angeles, the others (which would be high on the image category (especially San Francisco), could perhaps by some enticing, come up with a winnable, electable plans. But at this point it seems shaky, at best. This also seems to suggest that maybe, just maybe, the USOC is not totally enthused with a LA prospect, even though they may appear, for the moment, the best entrant possible.

*I was only meaning to quote the second paragraph.

"The USOC shortlisted 4 cities instead of 3, therefore they must not be excited about Los Angeles." That feels like a stretch.

Just because you have more options does not mean you have better options.

If the USOC doesn't like LA (which would be crazy after the plan we saw), they should not have shortlisted them. If they regard LA as a default consolation prize, then LA's not worthy of being the candidate and shouldn't still be under consideration.

Personally, I don't think that's the case. Not when several USOC members names are on LA's planning document. And not when LA's plans are as interesting as they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't even think of it this way, but this is actually a pretty good point. We've already seen the mayor of Boston express his concerns. Who knows what'll happen with DC and San Francisco. Los Angeles who, yes, will probably emerge as the winner in this, is the only one on fairly solid footing, but who knows if they're even bulletproof when it comes down to it. So there is certainly some validity to keeping an extra city or 2 around just in case 1 or more of these cities aren't in it for the long haul.

I think you are referring to Mayor Menino of Boston who was somewhat dubious of a bid. He's no longer the mayor. From what I've seen, Mayor Walsh is supportive of Boston's bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because you have more options does not mean you have better options.

If the USOC doesn't like LA (which would be crazy after the plan we saw), they should not have shortlisted them.

Personally, I don't think that's the case. Not when several USOC members names are on LA's planning document. And not when LA's plans are as interesting as they are.

Perhaps you're right, & the USOC doesn't have an absolute problem with LA. But does the USOC ultimately vote on the Games themselves? No, they don't. The IOC, with over 100 fastidious members from around the world do. THEY may have a problem with yet another LA Games. Especially when the last time was just as recent as 1984.

So I would think that the USOC would at least be smart enough to take that into consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing that they should "still" be on the list. But to quote you; "Athensfan, please READ".

What I'm suggesting is that if Dallas was cut due to all of what you're mentioning, then I also see no reason why San Fran & DC would be on any better footing in those areas & still be included, while many here (including yourself, just in third to last post) have cited that these cities are filled with bureaucratic red tape. Especially when had had the USOC come out & say that these cities still presented great bids with "matching" leadership.

Yeah, the USOC coulda just been "playing nice" & all. But when you use such praiseful words, when in reality, the picture coulda been much different, only portrays a level of complete disingenuousness at best, or total hypocrisy at worst. I don't seem much room for gray area in this instance.

No, you didn't. Bull did. I was responding to him in my original post. Since you went and took part of one sentence totally out of context, I explained. Amazingly, not everything I write is targeted at you. Once again, if you would READ, you might pick this up.

I don't know why Dallas was cut. You don't know why Dallas was cut. It could be any number of things, I threw a couple random ideas out there as a way of demonstrating how much we don't know and the range of possible explanations.

Frankly, we don't know much about SF or DC either. For all we know they have preliminary bid plans that put LA to shame. We are not a part of the conversation so we simply don't know.

Because we are so ignorant about the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the bids, I think it's worth dissuading members from wholeheartedly embracing the notion that Dallas was cut because of international image problems, Atlanta comparisons, etc. Maybe that was part of it or all of it or none of it. We have no idea -- at least not right now.

FYI, "praiseful" is not a word. Saying someone is "making nice" is not praise. In this case it is a fact that the USOC graciously saluted the merits of the cities they eliminated from consideration. It was common courtesy. You seem to think that because the USOC didn't explain why the cities were cut they are hiding something. How would you like it if you applied for a job, didn't get it and the employer publicly explained all of the ways you fell short so that everyone had a clear understanding of why you weren't chosen? You just don't do that. Ever. Not in a public forum. The USOC didn't do anything praiseworthy. They just showed common courtesy.

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...