Jump to content

Sapporo Confirms Withdrawal From 2026 Winter Olympic Bid To Focus On 2030


GBModerator

Recommended Posts

Sapporo in Japan has dropped its bid to host the 2026 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games to instead shift focus on earthquake recovery efforts.  Officials say the city will now organize a bid for the 2030 edition of the Games. The decision was made after a meeting at International Olympic Committee (IOC) headquarters in Lausanne […]

The post Sapporo Confirms Withdrawal From 2026 Winter Olympic Bid To Focus On 2030 appeared first on GamesBids.com.

View the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, barring an upset in November in Calgary, right now, it's between the Italian bid v. Calgary v. a still doubtful Swedish bid. 

The IOC might not even have to vote again!  :-) 

But for 2030, they already have Sapporo, Salt Lake and probably Lillehammer as they had said before.  If Calgary gets 2026, Sapporo will lock up 2030.  If Italy gets 2026, Salt Lake would be a shoo-in for 2030.  

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

I don’t see how this changes anything in the double-angle. At least not by the “dramatically decreased, close to zero percent”. If anything, the choice has already been made for the IOC. Cuz now if need be, the IOC will only have SLC to turn to for 2026, if everyone else just disappears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

If Calgary gets 2026, Sapporo will lock up 2030.  If Italy gets 2026, Salt Lake would be a shoo-in for 2030.  

Or replace Calgary with Salt Lake City 2026, if Calgary says no in November. Sapporo still can get 2030 in this case. Italy is tricky, cuz there is some opposition forming already. Not to mention, that their bid is a mess to begin with. So we’ll see with that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, FYI said:

I don’t see how this changes anything in the double-angle. At least not by the “dramatically decreased, close to zero percent”. If anything, the choice has already been made for the IOC. Cuz now if need be, the IOC will only have SLC to turn to for 2026, if everyone else just disappears.

Well then open your eyes :blink:.. how does this *not* change things?

Sapporo made this announcement after meeting with IOC officials.  So clearly they're more privy to behind the scenes discussions with the IOC than we are.  If they were sensing that the IOC may do a double, why would they make this announcement about being out of the running for 2026, but coming back to bid for 2030?  This isn't like with LA where they had a fully crafted bid to offer the IOC.  Sapporo won't have that.  They're not going to participate in the 2026 bid process, so there is no possibility of them getting anything next year unless they change their mind and decide to bid.  That's not happening.

Once again, same question I've been asking.  How would a double work here knowing this new piece of information?  Sapporo can no longer be a part of a double.  If Salt Lake is in the mix (and who knows where they are at right now, what is the other city?  They can't award an Olympics to a city that isn't bidding in this cycle.  Not to mention that the field of potential cities for 2030 just increased by 1, and a potentially strong bid at that.

You keep saying that there are possibilities that exist where the IOC would pull the trigger on another double.  So enlighten us.. what remaining scenario would result in a double?  Because you can't use Sapporo anymore.  They're out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Well then open your eyes :blink:.. how does this *not* change things?

Well then, “open your eyes” as well, Quaker (yet I’m the one who “scoffs” whenever someone doesn’t agree with them :rolleyes:). I did NOT say that this ‘doesn’t change things’. Does it, though? Yes it does. What I said is that it doesn’t change things to the “dramatically decreasing ‘zero’ percent” of a double perhaps not happening. There’s a difference. 

14 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Once again, same question I've been asking.  How would a double work here knowing this new piece of information? 

What are you talking about? This piece of information just came out today. So how is it the “same question you’ve been asking”. :blink:

17 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

This isn't like with LA where they had a fully crafted bid to offer the IOC.  Sapporo won't have that.  They're not going to participate in the 2026 bid process, so there is no possibility of them getting anything next year unless they change their mind and decide to bid.  That's not happening.

Sapporo can no longer be a part of a double.  If Salt Lake is in the mix (and who knows where they are at right now, what is the other city?  They can't award an Olympics to a city that isn't bidding in this cycle.  Not to mention that the field of potential cities for 2030 just increased by 1, and a potentially strong bid at that.

You know who else won’t have a ‘fully-crafted’ bid to offer in this cycle, but can yet still wind up with 2026 anyway (“if need be”)? Salt Lake City. So that point is neither here nor there, since both SLC & now Sapporo say that they’re not bidding for 2026, but instead will focus on 2030. 

24 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

You keep saying that there are possibilities that exist where the IOC would pull the trigger on another double.  So enlighten us.. what remaining scenario would result in a double?  Because you can't use Sapporo anymore.  They're out.

Is Sapporo really out, though? This isn’t like Sion & Graz, where their citizens, NOC’s & politicians, respectively, called it quits for good. Sapporo & the IOC are still going to move forward with the “close dialogue already underway for the 2030 Winter Olympics”, just like SLC already has/is.

And actually, the IOC could perform a double with any of the other remaining cities as well (barring Erzurum), doesn’t necessarily have to be with Sapporo (or even Salt Lake) if the occasion/circumstances were to arise, considering no one else really wants this thing much anymore, & Bach wants to create “less losers in the bid process”. But of course, in the end, it may not happen. Never said it was 100% in the cards. I just don’t see it as “dramatically close to zero” either, even with this recent tidbit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FYI said:

I don’t see how this changes anything in the double-angle. At least not by the “dramatically decreased, close to zero percent”. If anything, the choice has already been made for the IOC. Cuz now if need be, the IOC will only have SLC to turn to for 2026, if everyone else just disappears.

Yes, I see the sentence afterwards.  I appreciate you trying to use my exact words rather than to offer a counter-argument.  And I do like the irony here that I'm the one who is taking a more definitive position on something, where your argument is more "we just don't know."  Usually it's the other way around.

38 minutes ago, FYI said:

What are you talking about? This piece of information just came out today. So how is it the “same question you’ve been asking”. :blink:

The question of how a double would work, because I've been skeptical of that idea for a while.  I did concede that I could see it as Salt Lake and Sapporo in some order after I had said it would likely only work with a European city.  But now there's no Sapporo.  And I'm asking the question again.. how would a double work now that Sapporo is out (and we knew last week they were on their way to dropping out, so this news is hardly out of left field)

47 minutes ago, FYI said:

You know who else won’t have a ‘fully-crafted’ bid to offer in this cycle, but can yet still wind up with 2026 anyway (“if need be”)? Salt Lake City. So that point is neither here nor there, since both SLC & now Sapporo say that they’re not bidding for 2026, but instead will focus on 2030.

You're absolutely right, and the USOC would likely want to vet potential candidates before they put one forward.  We can talk about potential behind closed doors deals all we want, but if the argument is that the IOC could do with 2026/2030 what they did with 2024/2028, this situation is nothing like the last one where they had 2 cities actually bidding that got an Olympics.  Not really the same if you award an Olympics to a city and then ask them to come up with a plan after the fact.

50 minutes ago, FYI said:

Is Sapporo really out, though? This isn’t like Sion & Graz, where their citizens, NOC’s & politicians, respectively, called it quits for good. Sapporo & the IOC are still going to move forward with the “close dialogue already underway for the 2030 Winter Olympics”, just like SLC already has/is.

Like the fat kid in dodgeball, Sapporo is really out.  They just made a very public statement (citing meetings with the IOC) that they are no longer interested in 2026 and are focusing instead on 2030.  They don't us their citizens, NOCs, politicians, or this forum an explanation as to why they are making that decision.  Whether it's the rail line or earthquake recovery efforts or whatever else as the reason.  I'm fairly confident that if there was a hint of a 2026/2030 double, the IOC would have made them aware and then they wouldn't have made a foolish decision to say they're interested in an Olympics they wouldn't even be able to bid for.

56 minutes ago, FYI said:

And actually, the IOC could perform a double with any of the other remaining cities as well (barring Erzurum), doesn’t necessarily have to be with Sapporo (or even Salt Lake) if the occasion/circumstances were to arise, considering no one else really wants this thing much anymore, & Bach wants to create “less losers in the bid process”. But of course, in the end, it may not happen. Never said it was 100% in the cards. I just don’t see it as “dramatically close to zero” either, even with this recent tidbit.

I do see it that way.  You disagree, but you're not really offering a compelling argument to support it.  You're just saying they could do it with any of the cities remaining.  I'm calling BS on that one.  Again, I was starting to believe in the possibility of Salt Lake/Sapporo, but you keep talking about (I'll use your tactic here) "if the occasion/circumstances were to arise."  What occasion/circumstance would arise that a double is the solution?  Can you provide a concrete example?  I know you're not predicting that it's going to happen, so I'm not holding you to that, but you keep talking about these possibilities of where it could happen and you don't have an answer other than to use a vague Bach-ism.  If we're going to argue semantics (and if you're going to quote me, do it correctly and include the comma, it makes a difference.. "dramatically, close to 0%"), do you think this changes " anything in the double-angle"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

You're absolutely right, and the USOC would likely want to vet potential candidates before they put one forward. 

Oh, come on now. What’s there to vet? We all know by now that SLC is the best, suitable winter candidate in the U.S. Unless of course the USOC wants another 2024 debacle, then it’s pretty much a given who that choice will be.

21 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Sapporo is really out. They just made a very public statement (citing meetings with the IOC) that they are no longer interested in 2026 and are focusing instead on 2030.  They don't us their citizens, NOCs, politicians, or this forum an explanation as to why they are making that decision.  

Who said anything about owing explanations to anyone, anywhere? Although Sapporo did give some, but that’s neither here nor there in the end.

But you know who else made a very public statement (last year, also citing meetings with the IOC) that they are not interested in 2026 & are focusing instead on 2030? Again, Salt Lake City (with the possibility in mind in case of a double). So I don’t think of Sapporo being as “really out” as much as you claim you do.

34 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Again, I was starting to believe in the possibility of Salt Lake/Sapporo, but you keep talking about (I'll use your tactic here) "if the occasion/circumstances were to arise."  What occasion/circumstance would arise that a double is the solution?  Can you provide a concrete example?  

Oh, really? You mean when you were so ‘scoffingly’ against that possibility before? :rolleyes:

But anyway, you’ve admitted yourself that you can see a double more easily with Europe in the mix. Well, we still have Italy, & I can see them moreso getting to the final vote than Stockholm. And with Calgary still iffy, maybe the IOC would be wise to try & entice them with a later Games (like they did with L.A.) in order to try & prevent a(nother) referendum failure there. Or maybe even a Calgary/SLC double.

45 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

I know you're not predicting that it's going to happen, so I'm not holding you to that, but you keep talking about these possibilities of where it could happen and you don't have an answer other than to use a vague Bach-ism.  

Says the one with the vague Quaker-Isms. :P 

Anyway, I just gave a couple of other possible options, besides a SLC/Sapporo one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, FYI said:

Or replace Calgary with Salt Lake City 2026, if Calgary says no in November. Sapporo still can get 2030 in this case. Italy is tricky, cuz there is some opposition forming already. Not to mention, that their bid is a mess to begin with. So we’ll see with that one.

But the USOC has also said that they don't want a Winter Games taking precedence over LA 2028, PLUS the expanded World Cup will already be taking place in the US that year, so I think the USOC fears that the sponsorship pool is going to be tapped out if Salt Lake 2026 sneaks in there, ahead of the WC and LA.  It will all depend on the new USOC leadership and/or how flexible the LA people are.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, FYI said:

And BTW - thanks for “not holding me to that”. :P

Just trying to get out in front of when you think you need to tell me that you never said it was 100% in the cards, as if I thought otherwise.

4 hours ago, FYI said:

Oh, come on now. What’s there to vet? We all know by now that SLC is the best, suitable winter candidate in the U.S. Unless of course the USOC wants another 2024 debacle, then it’s pretty much a given who that choice will be.

You just answered your own question.. you really trust the USOC, the organization that once picked Boston over LA, to know what's best?  The organization that sent a letter to 35 cities only to eventually wind up with what's now the obvious choice?  Even if it was just Salt Lake without competition from Denver or Reno/Tahoe, maybe the USOC would like to discuss it with them so they have the particulars.  Less they throw Salt Lake into the fray without a concrete plan.  Being that it would be a privately backed bid as it always is in the United States, perhaps they want to make sure they know where the funding is coming from before they did the IOC "here's our bid, what do you think?"  Let them get their house in order, which requires some work and not just a snap of the fingers.

4 hours ago, FYI said:

Who said anything about owing explanations to anyone, anywhere? Although Sapporo did give some, but that’s neither here nor there in the end.

But you know who else made a very public statement (last year, also citing meetings with the IOC) that they are not interested in 2026 & are focusing instead on 2030? Again, Salt Lake City (with the possibility in mind in case of a double). So I don’t think of Sapporo being as “really out” as much as you claim you do.

https://www.sltrib.com/pb/sports/2018/03/14/usoc-tells-ioc-it-wants-to-put-an-american-city-up-for-next-round-of-bidding-for-the-winter-games
“We’re thrilled that they are moving forward,” Bullock said, contending the approach is consistent with the strategy laid out in the Utah Olympic Exploratory Committee’s report in February that endorsed a bid for the 2030 Games — with the offer that Salt Lake City could be ready in 2026 if called upon.
That's what we heard from them.  They're acknowledging that 2026 could be out there, so they're remaining on the ready just in case the IOC calls them.  Not the same as what Sapporo just did, very directly acknowledging their intentions on 2026.  Sapporo said they were ending their 2026 bid.  Salt Lake never said that.  Do you actually think the Sapporo folks are going to wake up 1 morning and decide "you know what, just kidding about 2026, we'll bid"  And again, if you think the IOC will reach a desperation point where they'd give them a call, then why would a meeting between the 2 sides result in this?  Don't give us this BS that this is some sort of tactical move.  Their tactic is that they're not going to pursue a 2026 bid.  No need to try and find a narrative to explain that.

5 hours ago, FYI said:

But anyway, you’ve admitted yourself that you can see a double more easily with Europe in the mix. Well, we still have Italy, & I can see them moreso getting to the final vote than Stockholm. And with Calgary still iffy, maybe the IOC would be wise to try & entice them with a later Games (like they did with L.A.) in order to try & prevent a(nother) referendum failure there. Or maybe even a Calgary/SLC double.

We still have those cities for 2026 (for now).  Where would added 2030 into the mix help the situation?  These bids aren't Paris and LA.  Calgary is a pretty unstable bid.  Last thing the IOC need is to put them on hold for another 4 years and give the voters there more time to find a reason to try and shoot down the bid.  And if there's a double, especially if it's Salt Lake which isn't actually in the bidding, what of Sapporo and any other cities that might bid for 2030?  "Sorry guys, but we already gave out the Olympics you wanted, maybe come back for 2034."  Then Sapporo would be really really out.

6 hours ago, FYI said:

Anyway, I just gave a couple of other possible options, besides a SLC/Sapporo one.

You sure did.  Good for you!:lol:  And when you come across one that actually sounds sensible, you feel free to let us know.  Because right now this feels like only a slight step above Olympianfan.  It's suggesting a double for the sake of suggesting a double.  Not actually looking at the idea to see if it's a good one.  But hey.. possible options! 

Again, SLC/Sapporo was starting to look interesting, but not so much anymore.  The dynamic of 2024/2028 was that there were 2 great bids, so who cares who might have been out there for 2028.  Here, there are several cities (and good ones, unlike the European also rans that Abra-spams-a-ton was sure would emerge) waiting in the wings for 2030.  What is the point of locking in not 1, but 2 cities that may be sub-par when there's the potential of better cities on deck the next time around?  Otherwise, this all sounds like a massive double fetish on your part

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

The dynamic of 2024/2028 was that there were 2 great bids, so who cares who might have been out there for 2028. 

Yeah, sure. You conveniently say that now & hindsight is always 20/20, isn’t it. But you (& some others) were staunchly against it happening ITFP. Yet it happened. And before you go off the deep end again & tell me that I’m simplying things just cuz it happened once - but for the umteenth time, I’m not saying that it’s 110% in the cards or have some “fetish” about a double. 

But also saying that it’s practically “zero” at this point in time IMO is still a bit premature (no matter how different you wanna read the tea leaves). To go by your logic, there’s still a complete year to go until the decision before we can write off anything at this juncture, & considering how much of a pickle the IOC is in these days & making unprecedented decisions & “reforms” as of late cause of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

These bids aren't Paris and LA.  Calgary is a pretty unstable bid.  Last thing the IOC need is to put them on hold for another 4 years and give the voters there more time to find a reason to try and shoot down the bid.  

No sh!t that these bids aren’t Paris & L.A. Calgary might be unstable, so that’s why I said if they were to somehow give them incentive to take a later Games, like they did with L.A, then there’s a chance that Calgary could be even more receptive to the idea then.

As a matter of fact, one of the GB’s article about Calgary mentioned that very thing. So no, not really a “slight step above Olympicfan’s” double delusions. But thanks again for being your usual, condescending self. You never fail in that department. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FYI said:

Yeah, sure. You conveniently say that now & hindsight is always 20/20, isn’t it. But you (& some others) were staunchly against it happening ITFP. Yet it happened.

Thefuck are you talking about?  Do you actually think that I was staunchly against the double?  Or did you come up with that because it helps your narrative if that was my position?  As if it makes a difference.  Yea, it happened because the circumstances made it a smart move.  These are different circumstances, and as much as we can say it's unpredictable, there's not really a foreseeable outcome where a double makes sense here.  Work within the parameters that are present rather than trying to pretend like Sapporo isn't "really out" as if you're trying to make this up as we go along.

13 minutes ago, FYI said:

And before you go off the deep end again & tell me that I’m simplying things just cuz it happened once - but for the umteenth time, I’m not saying that it’s 110% in the cards or have some “fetish” about a double. 

FFS yourself.  Now we're up to 110%.  For the umpteenth time, I know (and you know I know) that I don't think you're predicting it's going to happen.  But yes, you are trying to invent scenarios where it might be possible that don't make sense given what we know.  And it probably wouldn't even occur to you this could happen if it didn't happen before.  You don't have to remind me -  because I know you're going to now if I don't - that the IOC acknowledged they'd consider a double.  As we both like to say though, circumstances change.  That's what happened in the past week, so we should account for that rather than try to pretend that Sapporo saying they're dropping their 2026 doesn't change things because they're not "really out."

19 minutes ago, FYI said:

But also saying that it’s practically “zero” at this point in time IMO is still a bit premature (no matter how different you wanna read the tea leaves). To go by your logic, there’s still a complete year to go until the decision before we can write off anything at this juncture, & considering how much of a pickle the IOC is in these days & making unprecedented decisions & “reforms” as of late cause of that.

So your logic is.. the IOC might do crazy ****, so let's not dismiss any possibilities that sound like crazy ****.  No.. that's pretty damn crazy.  If we can't write off anything, does that include Erzurum hosting?  Because you've pretty much dismissed that possibility.  Can't have it both ways.  There are certain restrictions even the IOC has to work with.  If Sapporo says no, maybe they actually mean it and it's not a case of them saying no just as some sort of strategic move.  And that it's not a case of you trying to create a narrative to suit your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, FYI said:

No sh!t that these bids aren’t Paris & L.A. Calgary might be unstable, so that’s why I said if they were to somehow give them incentive to take a later Games, like they did with L.A, then there’s a chance that Calgary could be even more receptive to the idea then.

How will that make them more stable?  What incentives could they give to Calgary that would make this work?  Especially when it's their citizens that need to be convinced this is a good idea.  Calgary is not LA.  The "this happened before, so they should try it again" line of thinking doesn't make sense.  To throw the logic you threw at me back at you.. we'll know more about Calgary's status in a couple of months (theoretically).  So that will become clearer at that point.  But there are 2 potential outcomes there, albeit with some middle ground.  Either the plebiscite produces a positive outcome and Calgary can push forward with a 2026 bid.  Or it produces a negative outcome and either they drop out entirely or then maybe the IOC needs to offer them some incentives.  But why would a later games be the solution there?  LA was agreeable to that because the alternative was to go head to head against Paris and they could shift their focus to 2028.  Why would Calgary be interested in that and if the IOC does try and offer them 2030, where does that leave 2026?  Isn't the whole idea of keeping Calgary in the running that they need to find a 2026 host?  And not necessarily 2026 AND 2030 hosts.

17 minutes ago, FYI said:

As a matter of fact, one of the GB’s article about Calgary mentioned that very thing. So no, not really a “slight step above Olympicfan’s” double delusions. But thanks again for being your usual, condescending self. You never fail in that department. :P

Takes one to know one.  I'll look forward to you telling me again that you're not saying it's 100%/110% (or perhaps a higher number) in the cards.  Because it's not condescending at all to think I don't know that.  I know exactly the point you're trying to make here.. that these things could happen.  And it's up to either of our imaginations to put a percentage on it.  You're still not thinking through how or why they would come to pass.  So yes, my perception is that you're a little too attached to this concept of a 2026/2030 double and not taking a more serious look at how the IOC gets from here to there, regardless of whether or not it actually happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

But the USOC has also said that they don't want a Winter Games taking precedence over LA 2028, PLUS the expanded World Cup will already be taking place in the US that year, so I think the USOC fears that the sponsorship pool is going to be tapped out if Salt Lake 2026 sneaks in there, ahead of the WC and LA.  It will all depend on the new USOC leadership and/or how flexible the LA people are.  

If the USOC says NO and Sweden say NO then the only logical thing to do is go and ring up Almaty Kazakhstan and get them to host the 2026 Winter Olympic and Paralympics Games.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Olympianfan said:

If the USOC says NO and Sweden say NO then the only logical thing to do is go and ring up Almaty Kazakhstan and get them to host the 2026 Winter Olympic and Paralympics Games.

Once again..

Kazakhstan decide not to bid for 2026 Winter Olympics but could be interested in 2030

Almaty is out.  Really out.  The IOC can't just give them a call and say "here's that Olympics you wanted 4 years ago."  The only cities that the IOC can give an Olympics to are the ones that are actually bidding.  Almaty isn't going to suddenly decide they want to get back in on 2026 because the IOC is desperate.

What they should do and I bet they will do is call up the USOC.  They've stayed on the periphery here, but they didn't flat out say they were not bidding for 2026, only that they were focused on 2030.  I'm sure that folks in Salt Lake are seeing the Italy news and might be contacting the USOC as well and saying "we're here if you need us."  Either way, it only works if the NOCs and the cities are willing participants.  The IOC can't simply invite a city into the mix because they want them.

18 hours ago, FYI said:

But anyway, you’ve admitted yourself that you can see a double more easily with Europe in the mix. Well, we still have Italy, & I can see them moreso getting to the final vote than Stockholm. And with Calgary still iffy, maybe the IOC would be wise to try & entice them with a later Games (like they did with L.A.) in order to try & prevent a(nother) referendum failure there. Or maybe even a Calgary/SLC double.

LOL Want to re-revise that one?  :wacko:  LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

What they should do and I bet they will do is call up the USOC.  They've stayed on the periphery here, but they didn't flat out say they were not bidding for 2026, only that they were focused on 2030.  I'm sure that folks in Salt Lake are seeing the Italy news and might be contacting the USOC as well and saying "we're here if you need us."  

But the USOC did rule out a 2026 bid, remember: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.apnews.com/amp/58318e327c364b0e8ab16ff79154fccd

So now you’re saying that they didn’t “flat out” say no. :rolleyes: 

And what happened to the USOC would still need to “vet” other cities before picking their next winter candiate before giving the nod to SLC.

What was that again about ‘creating your own narrative to suit your own argument’ spiel. ^_^

22 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

LOL Want to re-revise that one?  :wacko:  LOL

With Turin Out, Italy Moves Forward With Milan-Cortina Bid

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/09/18/sports/olympics/ap-oly-2026-bids-italy.html

That was from this morning. Which also states that CONI is sending representatives from Milan & Cortina to Lausanne tomorrow. So unless the New York Times is “fake news”, you know where you can shove your “LOL”. :P

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...
×
×
  • Create New...