US President Trump Says LA 2024 Olympic Games Would “Be Terrific”

[Ansem]

3 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

I guess you missed this then..

Exclusive: Mayor promises Los Angeles will support IOC if it changes bid process

 

I didn't miss that at all. But that's the mayor talking, not the USOC. The link I provided came from the USOC own documents that the newspaper use directly as a source

[zekekelso]

18 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Don't lower yourself to insults because I'm reporting a Los Angeles paper using the USOC own documents as a source!!!

Sure doesn't mean they'll keep their words but this is what they are saying...not me

The LA Paper give quotes from the USOC document which do not say what the reporter says they say. I'm not trying to insult you. I'm encouraging you to read, learn and be smarter. Have you read the article? Have you seen the quotes? Do the quotes say what the reporter says they say? 

 

[Quaker2001]

14 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Don't lower yourself to insults because I'm reporting a Los Angeles paper using the USOC own documents as a source!!!

Sure doesn't mean they'll keep their words but this is what they are saying...not me

So... what they are saying is being reported and re-reported and isn't a direct quote but rather minutes from a meeting that was held a month earlier.  I'm with zeke here.. be smarter.  Here's the key quote from the story...

“The USOC board does not foresee pursuing any bid other than for the 2024 Games,” said minutes released from a USOC board of directors meeting in December

That's extremely vague and can be interpreted a number of different ways.  To me, it's more about what they're committed to now.  And if they lose, maybe they'll consider that then.  We discussed this here when that article came out.  The consensus here is that it in no way implies the USOC would not consider running for 2028 if that opportunity presented itself.  It's likely - and yes, this is us speculating here - that it simply means they're committed to a 2024 bid and not thinking beyond that.  However..

12 minutes ago, Ansem said:

I didn't miss that at all. But that's the mayor talking, not the USOC. The link I provided came from the USOC own documents that the newspaper use directly as a source

It's a direct quote from the mayor, as opposed to something that came up during a USOC meeting.  And again, that was the LA Times reporting it, without any sort of direct quote or any source directly from within the USOC.  I sincerely doubt the mayor of the city bidding for the Olympics would come out and say that unless he thought the USOC would be thinking and acting along the same lines.

[Ansem]

9 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

So... what they are saying is being reported and re-reported and isn't a direct quote but rather minutes from a meeting that was held a month earlier.  I'm with zeke here.. be smarter.  Here's the key quote from the story...

“The USOC board does not foresee pursuing any bid other than for the 2024 Games,” said minutes released from a USOC board of directors meeting in December

That's extremely vague and can be interpreted a number of different ways.  To me, it's more about what they're committed to now.  And if they lose, maybe they'll consider that then.  We discussed this here when that article came out.  The consensus here is that it in no way implies the USOC would not consider running for 2028 if that opportunity presented itself.  It's likely - and yes, this is us speculating here - that it simply means they're committed to a 2024 bid and not thinking beyond that.  However..

I'm aware it's not a direct quote, but it's still an official document which is worth reporting. I've never claimed that they would never change their minds, just that as of that meeting, the USOC has yet to contradict what they've discussed. Hence the "be smarter" being out of line, you're free to write to the LA Times and tell them to be smarter in their reporting whenever they report something you don't want to see/hear

14 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

It's a direct quote from the mayor, as opposed to something that came up during a USOC meeting.  And again, that was the LA Times reporting it, without any sort of direct quote or any source directly from within the USOC.  I sincerely doubt the mayor of the city bidding for the Olympics would come out and say that unless he thought the USOC would be thinking and acting along the same lines.

Now this is speculation. Wouldn't be the first time nor the last that a mayor oversteps their boundaries. There may be some truths to what you're saying but this didn't come from USOC documents, memos or minutes, but from the mayor who isn't officially a member of that organization. Again, just reporting and if you disagree with the LA Times, send them an email

 

[Ansem]

24 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

The LA Paper give quotes from the USOC document which do not say what the reporter says they say.

Uh?

Quote

“The USOC board does not foresee pursuing any bid other than for the 2024 Games,” said minutes released from a USOC board of directors meeting in December.

Have you been in a business meeting before? Those minutes pretty much ARE a direct quote from the BOD in December. And if they are false, where's the USOC demanding a retraction? Instead of nitpicking, slow down, THINK, and read. That's what they've said. FACT. Is it bidding? No. Jesus...

26 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

I'm not trying to insult you. I'm encouraging you to read, learn and be smarter.

You're doing such a great job yourself

27 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

Have you read the article? Have you seen the quotes? Do the quotes say what the reporter says they say? 

Unless LA Times are to be considered "fake news", his source should be considered reliable until proven otherwise. If you want to lose it over non-bidding minutes in a meeting, then send an email to David Wharton (the journalist) and demand to see those minutes...don't forget to  "encourage him to read, learn and be smarter"...

Unbelievable...

[Ansem]

david.wharton@latimes.com

Send him an email, share his response

[zekekelso]

6 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Those minutes pretty much ARE a direct quote from the BOD in December

Congratulations... you've found the actual quote from the IOC rather than the reporters words. Let's compare:

Actual IOC words: "The USOC board does not foresee pursuing any bid other than for the 2024 Games"

Reporters words: "U.S. Olympic Committee puts full weight behind LA 2024 bid, ruling out 2028 as consolation prize"

See the difference? "Does not foresee" does not mean "ruling out 2028 as a consolation prize." And neither means "won't bid for 2028". 

[Ansem]

17 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

Congratulations... you've found the actual quote from the IOC rather than the reporters words. Let's compare:

Actual IOC words: "The USOC board does not foresee pursuing any bid other than for the 2024 Games"

Reporters words: "U.S. Olympic Committee puts full weight behind LA 2024 bid, ruling out 2028 as consolation prize"

See the difference? "Does not foresee" does not mean "ruling out 2028 as a consolation prize." And neither means "won't bid for 2028". 

OMG.... forget it man...

[Quaker2001]

47 minutes ago, Ansem said:

I'm aware it's not a direct quote, but it's still an official document which is worth reporting. I've never claimed that they would never change their minds, just that as of that meeting, the USOC has yet to contradict what they've discussed. Hence the "be smarter" being out of line, you're free to write to the LA Times and tell them to be smarter in their reporting whenever they report something you don't want to see/hear

Now this is speculation. Wouldn't be the first time nor the last that a mayor oversteps their boundaries. There may be some truths to what you're saying but this didn't come from USOC documents, memos or minutes, but from the mayor who isn't officially a member of that organization. Again, just reporting and if you disagree with the LA Times, send them an email

Yes.. reporting.  Again, zeke brings up a very valid point that the headline of the article and the USOC quote don't necessarily follow from each other.  That's why there's some questions here with how this is being reported, regardless of what was in USOC documents (and I'm not doubting what it said, but it's obviously not the full picture).  And please stop throwing out "fake news" as if that and "faulty reporting" are one in the same.  They are not.  There's a very clear distinction and we see it a lot here with stories related to Olympic bidding.

You too are speculating that because the USOC has yet to contradict that reporting, then therefore it's probably true.  That statement (as reported) is still very vague and we don't have the full context of it.  And I have better things to do with my time than e-mail the LA Times and expect a reply.  That's cute though that you think this is about what I do or don't want to see/hear. 

[FYI]

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

I've never claimed that they would never change their minds, just that as of that meeting, the USOC has yet to contradict what they've discussed. 

No, but you seem to cast a final verdict on it by saying the USOC "won't" bid for 2028, "as per their own word".

If anything, it's safe to say that it's PREMATURE to make a claim one way or the other, if that's the case then. But my bet is that they'd come back. Cuz right now they're "focused" on 2024, & in that regard, I can't say that I blame them of not thinking beyond that course for the time being.

[Ansem]

11 minutes ago, FYI said:

No, but you seem to cast a final verdict on it by saying the USOC "won't" bid for 2028, "as per their own word".

Since you're using the word "seem", you're an assumption which I tell you is false as I said that it's non-bidding. It's minutes from a meeting that happened and that's what they said during that meeting at the time. Does that mean they will NEVER bid? No, otherwise some people don't understand what "non-bidding" means. It's easy to see that showing any hope for 2028 would be read as conceding 2024 to Paris. Someone, asked for a source and I gave it to them. If they don't like what's being said, take it to the newspaper.

15 minutes ago, FYI said:

f anything, it's safe to say that it's PREMATURE to make a claim one way or the other, if that's the case then. But my bet is that they'd come back. Cuz right now they're "focused" on 2024, & in that regard, I can't say that I blame them of not thinking beyond that course for the time being.

Hence me saying that whatever was discuss was "non-bidding" but that's what they said regardless.

[Ansem]

25 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Yes.. reporting.  Again, zeke brings up a very valid point that the headline of the article and the USOC quote don't necessarily follow from each other.  That's why there's some questions here with how this is being reported, regardless of what was in USOC documents (and I'm not doubting what it said, but it's obviously not the full picture).  And please stop throwing out "fake news" as if that and "faulty reporting" are one in the same.  They are not.  There's a very clear distinction and we see it a lot here with stories related to Olympic bidding.

You too are speculating that because the USOC has yet to contradict that reporting, then therefore it's probably true.  That statement (as reported) is still very vague and we don't have the full context of it.  And I have better things to do with my time than e-mail the LA Times and expect a reply.  That's cute though that you think this is about what I do or don't want to see/hear. 

Are you done?

[FYI]

2 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Since you're using the word "seem", you're an assumption which I tell you is false as I said that it's non-bidding. It's minutes from a meeting that happened and that's what they said during that meeting at the time. Does that mean they will NEVER bid? No, otherwise some people don't understand what "non-bidding" means. It's easy to see that showing any hope for 2028 would be read as conceding 2024 to Paris. Someone, asked for a source and I gave it to them. If they don't like what's being said, take it to the newspaper.

As been noted, it's not exactly the interpretation that you're implying. You providing the "source" actually means that you're taking it at face value. If you wanna do that, then fine. But that doesn't mean that the rest of us can't question it further.

No, you didn't say that the USOC will "NEVER" bid again, & I didn't say that you said that. I said that you're casting a final verdict that the USOC "won't" bid for **2028**. Which I don't agree with, & which are two totally DIFFERENT things altogether. So stop trying to twist things around.

[FYI]

3 hours ago, Ansem said:

Why would I hold my breath. That USOC submit another bid or not doesn't make a difference to me. Toronto bidding is still not official and hasn't even been on City Council radar yet, so Toronto 2028 is premature. A lot is going here so we'll see. By no battle royal, I include Toronto as well

What exactly are you arguing then? Especially if NA is "overdue" for a Games (your words).

[Ansem]

6 minutes ago, FYI said:

You providing the "source" actually means that you're taking it at face value.

I take at face value that's what the USOC said in their meetings via their minutes...which are meant to report what was actually said.

7 minutes ago, FYI said:

But that doesn't mean that the rest of us can't question it further.

Of course you can question it, but instead of attacking/questioning the article and journalist, I'm the one not smart enough to read an article...That's hilarious...I wonder why the hell I was hire as an analyst to begin with...

9 minutes ago, FYI said:

You're casting a final verdict that the USOC "won't" bid for **2028**.

No more use of the word "seem". I accurately pointed out that the USOC said in their meeting that they won't bid for 2028 and they haven't said otherwise since then. Me saying that's its non-bidding, its me saying that doesn't mean they won't bid in the end. Am I clear?

[Ansem]

1 minute ago, FYI said:

What exactly are you arguing then? Especially if NA is "overdue" for a Games (your words).

North America isn't limited to the US, nor Canada

[FYI]

2 minutes ago, Ansem said:

North America isn't limited to the US, nor Canada

You don't say! But besides the U.S. & Canada, who else within the continent do you honestly see providing a CREDIBLE bid for the 2028 Games?

Mexico is the ONLY country left that could possibly remotely do so, but even there, that's still a big IF. Mexico has pulled out of bidding for the Youth Olympics before, so I don't see them going after the real deal Olympics anytime soon.

And after the big anxiety Rio 2016 gave the IOC, bids from developing countries I'm sure are on hiatus for quite sometime. It's what you used against (South) Africa a little bit ago as well.

[Quaker2001]

10 minutes ago, Ansem said:

No more use of the word "seem". I accurately pointed out that the USOC said in their meeting that they won't bid for 2028 and they haven't said otherwise since then. Me saying that's its non-bidding, its me saying that doesn't mean they won't bid in the end. Am I clear?

That is not accurate.  Again, don't turn this isn't a bad game of telephone where you're twisting the words around into something that may or may not mean the same thing as what was originally said.  If you take that as the USOC having already definitively decided that they won't bid for 2028, then you're welcome to interpret it that way.  Doesn't mean your interpretation is accurate, especially if you're not using the direct quote in the article.  You're replacing it with what you think it means.

[Ansem]

Just now, FYI said:

You don't say! But besides the U.S. & Canada, who else within the continent do you honestly see providing a CREDIBLE bid for the 2028 Games?

Mexico is the ONLY country left that could possibly remotely do so, but even there, that's still a big IF. Mexico has pulled out of bidding for the Youth Olympics before, so I don't see them going after the real deal Olympics anytime soon.

And after the big anxiety Rio 2016 gave the IOC, bids from developing countries I'm sure are on hiatus for quite sometime. It's what you used against (South) Africa a little bit ago as well.

Mexico City could although I doubt the Mexicans would be in favor as they have more pressing needs. Then again, Oceania (Australia) would be just as overdue. Doesn't HAVE to be North America unlike soccer where FIFA made it clear it had to be North America for 2026

[Ansem]

8 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

That is not accurate.  Again, don't turn this isn't a bad game of telephone where you're twisting the words around into something that may or may not mean the same thing as what was originally said.  If you take that as the USOC having already definitively decided that they won't bid for 2028, then you're welcome to interpret it that way.  Doesn't mean your interpretation is accurate, especially if you're not using the direct quote in the article.  You're replacing it with what you think it means.

are you done? Cause I am

[Quaker2001]

2 minutes ago, Ansem said:

are you done? Cause I am

Obviously you're not.  Let's do some actual investigating here rather than relying on just the 1 article.  Doing so gives us these, and again be careful of what the headline reads and whether or not the actual story follows...

USOC not expected to pursue 2028 Olympics if L.A.'s bid for 2024 Games fails

Los Angeles 2024, USOC Officials Rule Out Bidding for 2028 Games

Again, do some thinking rather than to look at 1 line and say "well, that was in a document, so how can it be disputed."  And especially to acknowledge how the same thing is being reported differently.

So 1 last time.. we all know what was reported.  We can all offer opinions on what was actually meant, but you're not helping the discussion when you say you "accurately pointed out" something when that's not even close to accurate.

[Ansem]

1 minute ago, Quaker2001 said:

Obviously you're not.  Let's do some actual investigating here rather than relying on just the 1 article.  Doing so gives us these, and again be careful of what the headline reads and whether or not the actual story follows...

USOC not expected to pursue 2028 Olympics if L.A.'s bid for 2024 Games fails

Los Angeles 2024, USOC Officials Rule Out Bidding for 2028 Games

Again, do some thinking rather than to look at 1 line and say "well, that was in a document, so how can it be disputed."  And especially to acknowledge how the same thing is being reported differently.

So 1 last time.. we all know what was reported.  We can all offer opinions on what was actually meant, but you're not helping the discussion when you say you "accurately pointed out" something when that's not even close to accurate.

You're funny 

[FYI]

3 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Mexico City could although I doubt the Mexicans would be in favor as they have more pressing needs. 

Exactly my point. So Mexico is a BIG "if" at this point. Not to mention that other little problem that they have, which is their altitude, which was a big issue at Mexico City 1968. And again, after the angst of Rio 2016, I seriously doubt that the IOC is in all that of a hurry to be returning to Latin America anytime soon. 

8 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Then again, Oceania (Australia) would be just as overdue. Doesn't HAVE to be North America unlike soccer where FIFA made it clear it had to be North America for 2026

No kidding that it doesn't "HAVE" to be NA, but NA would be much more "overdue" than Australia would be. And it's just all the more reason for the USOC to go for a 2028 bid if 2024 fails. And especially as you say, if a Toronto bid would still not be certain. The USOC would be total idiots to stay away from such ideal conditions that they hadn't seen in any of their previous bids. I'm starting to think that you just enjoy to argue "what ifs" just for the hell of it.

[Ansem]

Just now, FYI said:

Exactly my point. So Mexico is a BIG "if" at this point. Not to mention that other little problem that they have, which is their altitude, which was a big issue at Mexico City 1968. And again, after the angst of Rio 2016, I seriously doubt that the IOC is in all that of a hurry to be returning to Latin America anytime soon. 

No kidding that it doesn't "HAVE" to be NA, but NA would be much more "overdue" than Australia would be. And it's just all the more reason for the USOC to go for a 2028 bid if 2024 fails. And especially as you say, if a Toronto bid would still not be certain. The USOC would be total idiots to stay away from such ideal conditions that they hadn't seen in any of their previous bids. I'm starting to think that you just enjoy to argue "what ifs" just for the hell of it.

USOC bidding is a what if as well. You should include yourself in that criticism. Pretty sure way up there I said that LA bidding or not changes nothing for me.

[FYI]

Just now, Ansem said:

USOC bidding is a what if as well. You should include yourself in that criticism. Pretty sure way up there I said that LA bidding or not changes nothing for me.

Whatever. Obviously the USOC bidding again does mean something to you, if your "Toronto will put up a serious challenge for 2028. So watch out" is anything to go by.

Everything that gets posted here is "what ifs", but some have more merit than others. Otherwise, this site would be meaningless. I still stand by my conviction that if L.A. loses 2024, that they'll be back for 2028. Whether you agree with that or not, changes nothing for me, either.