Jump to content

Winning U.S. Olympic Bid City Will Be Printed On a Boarding Pass


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ugh.. for that reason alone I'm not happy with this. 2 1/2 more years we have to deal with him.

Very droll

hows the polar vortex looking.........what if they got snowed in? Would Denver get 2022..26?

USOC selects Boston for 2024 bid so in other word the 2024 Olympics will be held in either Rome, Paris, Berlin, or South Africa.

Obviously San Francisco's bid wasn't strong enough, no surprise there (otherwise, they woulda been the pick), & the USOC must've felt that L.A. was still too soon, even with a new face. But quite frankly, regardless of what city it was, 2024 is Europe's anyway if there's at least one strong contender on that front.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was really hoping Boston wouldn't be chosen seeing how they were really stuck-up on the entire matter IMO (like how some of the news reports were written and the manner in which the committee president said they had a "75% chance" of being selected by the USOC). I am especially annoyed by the fact that Rik may be hoping back on/off and shoving more BS into our faces. Ugh. Initially I tried to poke fun to cover up my disappointment, but now I'm just pissed. Oh well, I guess. Somewhere deep inside of me knew it was "Europe's time" anyway

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

At first, I thought the announcement of Boston was a little whoopsie and they had actually not chosen them, but as time drags on reality is punching me in the face T^T

Kinda hoping LA doesn't jump in for 2028 so they can shame the USOC and make them feel stupid/bad. lol

But I don't really know Boston's plan to it's full extent so I guess I shouldn't be judging too quickly...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the decision to pick Boston shows how ignorant the USOC. Boston has received an overall negative response nationally and Boston has the most local opposition, substantially more than any of the other cities. Not to mention, who wants to deal with a bunch of massholes for the next two years. The thing the pisses me off the most is that while LA was not the freshest face, it was a face you could trust and rely on, and a face that changes with every surgery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't fathom why anyone would ever want to visit LA and have to focus on that city for the next two years. I've never had the opportunity to spend time in San Francisco but Washington and Boston were far more preferable than LA, with Boston being one of my favorite cities in the US, behind Chicago.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't fathom why anyone would ever want to visit LA and have to focus on that city for the next two years. I've never had the opportunity to spend time in San Francisco but Washington and Boston were far more preferable than LA, with Boston being one of my favorite cities in the US, behind Chicago.

An Olympics means we're talking about hundreds of thousands of visitors potentially coming to your city. Meaning there needs to be infrastructure to take care of all of them and everything else an Olympics requires. That's why the question needs to be what city can most capably make themselves the city people around the world would want to visit. Clearly the USOC thinks in this instance that city is Boston. But those who came to Los Angeles in 1984 probably had a pretty good time visiting the city for the most part

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't fathom why anyone would ever want to visit LA and have to focus on that city for the next two years. I've never had the opportunity to spend time in San Francisco but Washington and Boston were far more preferable than LA, with Boston being one of my favorite cities in the US, behind Chicago.

Well for starters there's Hollywood...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was really hoping Boston wouldn't be chosen seeing how they were really stuck-up on the entire matter IMO (like how some of the news reports were written and the manner in which the committee president said they had a "75% chance" of being selected by the USOC).

Ummm, what was that again about Boston people being 'stuck-up'. Looks like you got the cities mixed up:

Sports

Column In shunning L.A., USOC turns down a gold-medal performer

Bill Plaschke

LOS ANGELES TIMES

bill.plaschke​@latimes.com

As USOC nominates Boston, not proven Olympic site L.A., to host 2024 Games, Bill Plaschke objects

Los Angeles' venues would have made it a better 2024 Olympics host than Boston, Bill Plaschke writes

The U.S. Olympic Committee could have taken a big step toward bringing home the 2024 Summer Games on Thursday by nominating a diverse entertainment capital with perfect weather, sparkling venues, past Olympic experience and a welcoming public.

Instead, it chose Boston.

Huh? How on Earth does Los Angeles lose the Olympic bid to Boston? How does the only American city to host both an Olympics (twice) and a World Cup final lose a chance to bid on the planet's biggest sports competition to a parochial burg that's never even hosted a Super Bowl or Final Four?

It feels like a Kevin McHale clothesline. It looks like a Frank McCourt smirk. It makes absolutely no sense.

In trying to convince the International Olympic Committee to bring the Summer Games back to the United States for the first time in 28 years, the USOC would have had a better than decent chance with the safe and sensible choice of Los Angeles.

By choosing Boston, it essentially raised the white flag, albeit one with a Dunkin' Donuts logo.

Start with the start. Where would the Boston opening ceremony take place? Right now, nowhere.

The city doesn't have an Olympic-type stadium. It would have to build a one. We offered the Coliseum, they offered some blueprints for a 60,000-seat modular deal that would be torn down or repurposed after the Games. Just what the Olympic reputation needs, more millions of dollars shredded by cities trying to spend their way into international respect. Then again, one supposes anything is better than the idea of the world's athletes winding their way through the creaky aisles of that firetrap known as Fenway Park.

Boston is currently missing a few other things, some of which are amazingly not mandatory for a nomination. Like a swimming pool. How do you bid for the Olympics without a place to house one of its most popular sports? Believe it or not, Boston would have to build an aquatics center, either that or fill up one of Bill Belichick's hoodies. Boston also does not have a velodrome for cycling. And, oh yeah, about those 10,500 athletes who show up for the Games? Even with dozens of colleges dotting the landscape, Boston has not figured out one place to put them all.

Boston is in a good position to win its Olympic bid

But hey, you can bet they'll be ready for the Olympic marathon.

Boston is an inspirational American icon of a city whose citizens have thrown tea parties and triumphed over terrorism. It's filled with world-class education and culture. It's a wonderful pro sports city with four major teams and crazy passion for them.

But it's just not an Olympic city, not like Los Angeles, not even close.

It is impossible to fathom the USOC's turning its back on the ready-made venues present in the Los Angeles bid, places within a javelin's throw of each other like the Coliseum, Galen Center, Staples Center, Nokia Theatre, Dodger Stadium and Rose Bowl. Our Games would have stretched west to Pauley Pavilion and Drake Stadium, south to StubHub Center, and gone coastal for real actual beach volleyball and open-water swimming.

Boston's Games can't stretch anywhere. They will wind and snake and curl around the city's ancient streets, creating the sort of traffic jams that somehow never occurred during Los Angeles' wildly successful 1984 Olympics.

Then there's this: Los Angeles residents have proved they would welcome the Games, while many in Boston already don't want them. A Boston Globe poll last summer reported that 43% of the townsfolk opposed the Olympic invasion, mostly because of the high costs and hassles that Los Angeles either won't incur or can calmly handle. What does it say about Boston that the most notable part of its presentation to the USOC last month was the "No Boston Olympics" protesters outside the doors? That's right, they were picketing even the idea of the Olympics. They were the only naysayers in sight. Yet Boston was still chosen over Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., by Olympic officials who are foolishly trying to outguess the strange minds of the IOC.

The USOC's fear was that the world's Olympic bosses would look at Los Angeles as "been there, done that." The thought was that the IOC is always hoping to cross new borders, forge new territory, bring the Games to groundbreaking places.

That is, incidentally, how they ended up in the mess that was Sochi.

But what if they are sick of uncertainty? What if they are weary of the cultural and logistical problems that arose in places like Beijing? With huge TV dollars at stakes, mostly flowing from the United States, what if they just wanted to, for once, relax and send the Games to a U.S. entertainment capital that was ready, willing and able to host them?

That is Los Angeles. That is not Boston. There seems to be little that the IOC will like or even understand about Boston. This means the 2024 Summer Games are probably going to end up elsewhere, maybe in Africa for the first time, in Johannesburg, which is cool enough.

But they could have come to the United States and hit a home run in an ideal Southland summer home. Instead, their only choice will be no choice at all. The Olympics are a ground ball, and Boston is Bill Buckner.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-la-olympics-plaschke-20150109-column.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucky London had an Olympic Stadium, velodrome and aquatic centre ready to go, otherwise our Games would've been a huge flop! :lol:

At least reading things like that puts me in Boston's corner and makes me appreciate the energy and effort they're going to to defy the odds. I've no idea if they're the right choice and until I've seen the other cities bidding don't yet know who I'll support for 2024, but there's something about a plucky underdog. I hope they put up a good fight and shut the douche who wrote that article up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucky London had an Olympic Stadium, velodrome and aquatic centre ready to go, otherwise our Games would've been a huge flop! :lol:

At least reading things like that puts me in Boston's corner and makes me appreciate the energy and effort they're going to to defy the odds. I've no idea if they're the right choice and until I've seen the other cities bidding don't yet know who I'll support for 2024, but there's something about a plucky underdog. I hope they put up a good fight and shut the douche who wrote that article up.

That douche is Bill Plaschke, noted LA sportswriter. Sounds to me like someone is a little butthurt.

He does raise 1 halfway decent point that the USOC seems convinced that a newer city is preferable to the tried and true Los Angeles. It's certainly a gamble on the USOC's part. Not sure that I'd ever associate the United States with being the "plucky underdog." Maybe it's a change of pace that they need after putting up New York and Chicago, but I still have my doubts about this plan. And yes, London was lacking many things, but at least with the stadium and the aquatics center, there was a legacy plan for it. Here, it just seems like they plan to pack it back in the box and ship it off somewhere else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
@FYI I was talking about their attitude before the the selection. Obviously, like Quaker said, the guy's a little butt hurt. I'm a little butt hurt. Maybe I was suffering from butt-hurtery at the time of that post. I'm not not condemning his actions (he sounds like an arsehole) but at least he has some justification that needs to be pointed out. LA was pretty silent for the most part during the process. Don't know though. Maybe I didn't read enough articles on each city.
Link to post
Share on other sites

He does raise 1 halfway decent point that the USOC seems convinced that a newer city is preferable to the tried and true Los Angeles. It's certainly a gamble on the USOC's part. Not sure that I'd ever associate the United States with being the "plucky underdog." Maybe it's a change of pace that they need after putting up New York and Chicago, but I still have my doubts about this plan. And yes, London was lacking many things, but at least with the stadium and the aquatics center, there was a legacy plan for it. Here, it just seems like they plan to pack it back in the box and ship it off somewhere else.

let's make a list of some Boston 'lympics legacies!

1. MBTA improvements

2. Motivation for youngsters to git off the screen and excersize

3. ?

Yeah that's all I can think of right now. Anybody wanna add? (preferably something sports related)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That douche is Bill Plaschke, noted LA sportswriter. Sounds to me like someone is a little butthurt.

He does raise 1 halfway decent point that the USOC seems convinced that a newer city is preferable to the tried and true Los Angeles. It's certainly a gamble on the USOC's part. Not sure that I'd ever associate the United States with being the "plucky underdog." Maybe it's a change of pace that they need after putting up New York and Chicago, but I still have my doubts about this plan. And yes, London was lacking many things, but at least with the stadium and the aquatics center, there was a legacy plan for it. Here, it just seems like they plan to pack it back in the box and ship it off somewhere else.

Not to mention London is an established global capital of politics, economics, education, etc. Boston is not.

Every been to Hollywood? It's a dump. (Note - not trying to know LA here... just pointout out to Berman that he may want to put a little more thought into his anti-Boston tirade.)

yes and I agree it's a dump, but people still go because of it and LA is still the entertainment capital of the world.

I also want to add that he had a good point in talking about how Boston lacks seriously in experience. They have not even hosted the Super Bowl.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention London is an established global capital of politics, economics, education, etc. Boston is not.

Can you explain to me how Boston is not a global capital of education? Boston is ranked as an Alpha- city, putting it among the likes of Seoul, Melbourne, Barcelona, Munich, and Atlanta. I wonder what happened to those cities since they surely couldn't have hosted an olympic games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, bcuz the Super Bowl is such a terrific gauge for Olympic host cities. Guess the USOC were complete fools then for not going with the likes of Jacksonville, Indianapolis or Detriot since all of those have hosted Super Bowls! And of course lets not forget Dallas too, which got told a big fat 'no thanx' from the USOC despite being a Super Bowl city. :rolleyes:

And Dallas should

Oh, & of course San Diego as well!

Link to post
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...

×
×
  • Create New...