Jump to content

Russia planning 2036 Olympic Games bid with several possible host cities under consideration


GBModerator
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not gonna threadjack too hard, but the IOC has put ALL of its eggs in the Vancouver/SLC basket for 2030/2034 seems like.  And Vancouver is by no means a certainty.  If Vancouver becomes a referendum and its voted no, then what?  If we are trying to save SLC for 2034 for corporate commercial reasons, what is the alternative?  Ask Almaty if they want to proceed with their 2022 bid in 2030?    I guess the plus is we know that Almaty will be one of like, six places left on earth that will have real snow, but I digress.  We are going to need a yes or no answer from Vancouver, and soon so doomsday scenarios can be prepared for, or alleviated.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2021 at 3:47 PM, AustralianFan said:

l2I67kt.jpg

This approach absolutely sucks - and its truly surprising that the IOC can't see the reputational risk of dragging candidates along like that. That diagram is so high level and vague. It will certainly backfire when they use this approach to appoint a more contentious host - such as Russia or China. 

Brisbane slid under the radar because its a relatively unremarkable decision to return to safe hands Australia - but I can see this really closing out interest from new frontiers entirely and will create a fair amount of heat of the choice of host is contentious (such as Moscow or Shanghai). 
I think as soon as interest picks up again they'll be back to voting. Coates got what he wanted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Australian Kiwi said:

This approach absolutely sucks - and its truly surprising that the IOC can't see the reputational risk of dragging candidates along like that. That diagram is so high level and vague. It will certainly backfire when they use this approach to appoint a more contentious host - such as Russia or China. 

Brisbane slid under the radar because its a relatively unremarkable decision to return to safe hands Australia - but I can see this really closing out interest from new frontiers entirely and will create a fair amount of heat of the choice of host is contentious (such as Moscow or Shanghai). 
I think as soon as interest picks up again they'll be back to voting. Coates got what he wanted. 

Not likely.    This is the way it is now.

No candidates are dragged along in the new process,  where on earth did you get that idea?    The new process does the opposite.

There will only ever be one host selected to host an Olympic Games

This is also just a decision flow diagram.   It doesn’t go into why the entire host selection was changedin the first place to reduce unecessary costs by dragging several candidates along to a costly packed final vote.

This is where it goes into the new process:  >> The New Norm: It’s a Game Changer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AustralianFan said:

Not likely.    This is the way it is now.

No candidates are dragged along in the new process,  where on earth did you get that idea?    The new process does the opposite.

There will only ever be one host selected to host an Olympic Games

This is also just a decision flow diagram.   It doesn’t go into why the entire host selection was changedin the first place to reduce unecessary costs by dragging several candidates along to a costly packed final vote.

This is where it goes into the new process:  >> The New Norm: It’s a Game Changer

You gotta admit hes got a point, no one was gonna criticise electing autralia, but how will the approach work with dictatorships, or developing countries? it wont be seen that good having an aproach to qatar, china or russia in the future. And also, how does that work in uncertain environments, like winter olympics, are they gonna just postpone conversations with cities like SLC if they only want olympics in certain year?

Bidding process is always transformed. Remember when FIFA tried to impose a continental rotation an ended up with only one bid for 2014 WC? and then they lifted that rule and received like 5 bids for the 2018 WC. I dont doubt IOC will go the same road, its like they already have a fine lineup of aspirant cities. Bet for them it was easier to say no to delhi, budapest or jakarta, than it will be to say no to istanbul, madrid, post WC doha, london or even st petersburg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Chris_Mex said:

You gotta admit hes got a point, no one was gonna criticise electing autralia, but how will the approach work with dictatorships, or developing countries? it wont be seen that good having an aproach to qatar, china or russia in the future. And also, how does that work in uncertain environments, like winter olympics, are they gonna just postpone conversations with cities like SLC if they only want olympics in certain year?

Bidding process is always transformed. Remember when FIFA tried to impose a continental rotation an ended up with only one bid for 2014 WC? and then they lifted that rule and received like 5 bids for the 2018 WC. I dont doubt IOC will go the same road, its like they already have a fine lineup of aspirant cities. Bet for them it was easier to say no to delhi, budapest or jakarta, than it will be to say no to istanbul, madrid, post WC doha, london or even st petersburg

The 2032 host was only the first.

It’s new for everyone and the way it works has been clearly laid out from the beginning.

Resistance to change in some quarters is entirely understandable until the process is better understood and more host elections in dfferent circumstances have occured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Australian Kiwi said:

This approach absolutely sucks - and its truly surprising that the IOC can't see the reputational risk of dragging candidates along like that. 

Bach justifies it as the old process having  "too many losers" involved. But it seems that the "new process" does pretty much the same thing, but in a different method.

3 hours ago, Australian Kiwi said:

That diagram is so high level and vague. It will certainly backfire when they use this approach to appoint a more contentious host - such as Russia or China. 

You'd think that the IOC would be learning with what they're going through now with the lead-up of Beijing 2022 (not to mention Sochi 2014, scaring off a lot of cities with it's cost blowouts & the doping scandal), but it seems that they're just glutton for punishment.

3 hours ago, Australian Kiwi said:

Coates got what he wanted. 

Exactly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, FYI said:

Bach justifies it as the old process having  "too many losers" involved. But it seems that the "new process" does pretty much the same thing, but in a different method.

I still feel one of the biggest problems was the brutality of the final votes. Only one city can win, but the old process - as dramatic and fantastic as it was on the day host cities were selected (and as great as that was for this place!) - made runners up feel like snubbed losers. Chicago was unlucky to end up bottom, but it was just one of those things. Having the city centre filled with expectant people, and then having their name read out as the first city to be dumped it bound to lead to bad feeling.

I really wonder if such wholesale changes were needed. Was "too many losers" really the problem or was it the way cities were brushed aside one by one? A less costly bidding process with a less brutal final vote (but still giving the IOC host city options), might've been one way to go.

That's not to say some of Bach's reforms aren't good.

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like the talent shows on TV, maybe 1/5th of the total vote should go to an Internet vote -- but not from the countries with the candidate cities?  (And the remaining 4/5ths for the IOC members.)  Might that mitigate the whole process?  And perhaps -- open voting for the IOC members?  Would that be beneficial or not?  

And for the Winter votes -- if you do NOT send athletes to those Games, you have NO BUSINESS voting!! 

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

17 minutes ago, Rob. said:

I still feel one of the biggest problems was the brutality of the final votes. Only one city can win, but the old process - as dramatic and fantastic as it was on the day host cities were selected (and as great as that was for this place!) - made runners up feel like snubbed losers. Chicago was unlucky enough to end up bottom, but it was just one of those things. Having the city center filled with expectant people, and then having their name read out as the first to be dumped is bound to lead to bad feelings.

But isn't that how any highly-coveted prize contest works, though? Certainly political elections work like that (& certainly all those school prom queen votes & beauty contests. Not to mention Olympic athletes themselves, when they don't win gold. Particularly in the judging competitions).

Who can forget the night when you-know-who won, & all those Hillary supporters in packed headquaters & election night gatherings, the look of dismay, shellshock & total disappointment on their faces. I don't see how that's any different from how the old bidding process worked. It's just par-for-the-course when something is so highly desired. 

And it's also not like the 'new process' doesn't make for snubbed feelings, either. Germany, India & Qatar were quick to point out how surprised & disapppointed they were on how quickly they felt they were just brushed aside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Annoying a few people in NOCs - who'll always want to bid anyway if they can get their government on board - is one thing. Getting the population of a whole city hating your guts because they feel humiliated in front of the world is something else entirely! It's quite some feat.

Despite supporting Chicago 2016, I was one of those on here who mocked a couple of our Chicagoan members' reactions for American exceptionalism after that vote. As if Madrid or Tokyo or Rio finishing bottom would be fine but HOW DARE THEY DO THIS TO US. But actually, the voting process is brutal. It does leave a bad taste.

I just wonder if there's a middle ground between the old way and this new way. One which keeps the options and competition of the old system whilst still keeping cities on board after a loss (which is clearly better in the new system even if it still has some problems in that regard).

The Prom King and Queen stuff I've only ever seen in naff American films. Doesn't translate. :P

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob. said:

Annoying a few people in NOCs - who'll always want to bid anyway if they can get their government on board - is one thing. Getting the population of a whole city hating your guts because they feel humiliated in front of the world is something else entirely! It's quite some feat.

Are you still talking about Chicago here? Since you use the word 'humiliated'? Most people in Chicago, at the time, didn't even want the Olympics. So in their case, I don't see how they would've "hated the IOC's guts" when they lost. If anything, I'm sure that most were indifferent to relieved that 2016 was going to Rio instead. That whole bid was none other than mayor Daley's idea (a full 360 from years prior, when he wanted nothing to do with an Olympic bid), & not one that the city itself necessarily wanted.

1 hour ago, Rob. said:

Despite supporting Chicago 2016, I was one of those on here who mocked a couple of our Chicagoan members' reactions for American exceptionalism after that vote. As if Madrid or Tokyo or Rio finishing bottom would be fine but HOW DARE THEY DO THIS TO US. But actually, the voting process is brutal. It does leave a bad taste.

Yeah, I remember that, but I always thought that you were misguided with that every time you brought it up. It's not that different from when Paris lost 2012 to London, which was quite the upset, & sent the French on here into a frenzy. Or how the Castellanos on here were so nasty when anyone would "dare" say that they may not win because of X or Y factor. So I don't think that it had anything to do with so-called American exceptionalism. Maybe a couple in the media portrayed themselves that way, but that's hardly a case to use that term so broadly.

It's fair to say, that the general consensus before, was that continental rotation, &/or geo-politically which country hosted the most recent, always played a key role in deciding the next winner in ANY given race. So it was only natural to assume, at the time, that Madrid or Tokyo would fall first, since London was hosting the preceding Games in Europe (not to mention that Barcelona was relatively still too soon - even JAS warned them about that), & Beijing being the preceding Games in Asia before that. Before the vote, 2016 was viewed pretty much as a race between "the Americas' ". And it was long viewed that Rio's main competition was Chicago, not Madrid or Tokyo. So yeah, objectively, it was quite the surprise when Chicago finished at the bottom of that vote. 

Many speculated that Obama's presence in Copenhagen may have actually hindered, instead of helped, Chicago's chances. Since some in the IOC were annoyed with the extra security inconveinencing them, & Obama stealing some of their spotlight at their very own shindig. So that likely cost them some crucial votes. That, & there was another element involving the Brazilians & the Japanese. So yeah, in that sense, the voting process was brutal & left a bad aftertaste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

The 2032 host was only the first.

It’s new for everyone and the way it works has been clearly laid out from the beginning.

Resistance to change in some quarters is entirely understandable until the process is better understood and more host elections in dfferent circumstances have occured.

It might be the first, it might have some advantages, but that doesn’t mean it’s flawless or that it may not need, or get, tweaks in the future. Or that it may even be scrapped eventually in favour of another, or even the old, process. It’s not resistance to change to suggest there is room, or need, for improvement.

Sure, it’s got some good aspects - it aims to save a lot of the time, money and political capital of old bid races by streamlining the promotion of more robust and feasible bids to the top of the queue. It aims to produce fewer “losers”. 

But let’s just look at one issue - transparency- an issue that’s already been raised not just here in the forums but in the wider sporting and general media. Sure, this “first time” produced a generally acceptable host in Brisbane - yet even that already produced cries of “foul” from other emerging aspirants to 2032 (Germany, Indonesia, Doha), from those here for whom it doesn’t meet their criteria for a host, and grounds for questioning whether there was a conspiracy involved considering Coates’ involvement with establishing the process. Now, as many have pointed out above, imagine if it in future elevated a more questionable candidate. Or, say in a hypothetical, it was the system in place when even some of the more acclaimed recent hosts were selected. Barcelona? - only won through because JAS slipped it through. Lillehammer? - only won because JAS wanted the Nobel Peace Prize. Atlanta? - only won because the exec committee was in bed with its major sponsor. Those criticisms happened already, but would have been amplified by an even greater order of magnitude had those hosts come through a backroom, unobservable, bureaucratic process. Would this system have elevated Sydney? Or would Beijing, JAS’s “preferred candidate”, have won out after all? The old system inevitably still had its share of manoeuvres, suspicions and deals behind the scenes, but at least it produced inspectable and comparable bid books, worldwide ongoing and detailed scrutiny and comment, the ability to interrogate and find flaws in bid plans, and a playing field that at least was made to appear that everyone was on the same level and playing by the same book. I’m not saying all old host decisions were above board, but this new system’s lack of transparency inevitably can cast doubts and potentially make any new host decision look shady. 

This new system will only work till it’s seen not to work or not to be fair. It relies on the assumption that the exco will choose it’s hosts with integrity, trust and responsibility. Sadly, with what we’ve seen from the likes of the IOC and FIFA in the past decades, it’s not going to be hard to raise doubts about shifting so much power into the hands of the exco and removing so much accountability and scrutiny from the process.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, FYI said:

Bach justifies it as the old process having  "too many losers" involved. But it seems that the "new process" does pretty much the same thing, but in a different method.

This whole “too many losers” rhetoric is more Bach’s attempt to explain away why so many were running scared from mounting any sort of bids for the winter games (and it’s still the WOGs that are the biggest problem). Sure, Munich “losing” 2018 may have contributed a smidge to German reluctance to approve any approaches for succeeding winter or summer games, but we all know it was far more the fact that the Sochi $50 billion price tag turned the general perception of the winter games from something small towns, alpine hamlets and underdeveloped ski resorts could host into an investment that could surpass even a summer games and require a huge megalopolis to handle. And a more critical and all pervasive media ready to jump on and popularise “wasteful” examples from games like Athens or Rio.

Also, not to mention the fact that it finally achieved the long attempted goal that not even JAS could pull off - take the host city selection out of the hands of the IOC membership and hand it to the executive committee. I’m actually surprised the membership gave up so placidly - they’d long managed to resist any attempts to take away one of their few remaining concrete powers.

I’m not sure if “losing” was ever too much of a turn off. Losing multiple bids never stopped the likes of Australia, Britain or France from persevering till they won through, or deterred perennials like Madrid or Istanbul. Yes, every bid is a product of its time and circumstances, but I don’t know if it’s ever stopped a genuine ground level desire and determination by a country or city to want to go for it.

That said…

8 hours ago, Rob. said:

I still feel one of the biggest problems was the brutality of the final votes. Only one city can win, but the old process - as dramatic and fantastic as it was on the day host cities were selected (and as great as that was for this place!) - made runners up feel like snubbed losers. Chicago was unlucky to end up bottom, but it was just one of those things. Having the city centre filled with expectant people, and then having their name read out as the first city to be dumped it bound to lead to bad feeling.

I really wonder if such wholesale changes were needed. Was "too many losers" really the problem or was it the way cities were brushed aside one by one? A less costly bidding process with a less brutal final vote (but still giving the IOC host city options), might've been one way to go.

That's not to say some of Bach's reforms aren't good.

Yeah, I can see some of your point there. We here always tended to look at decision day like a World Cup Final and cheer for our sides, but unlike a sports team which will just commiserate and move onto the next match, losing a host vote could be a crushing blow to an endeavour that required years of shepherding, favourable social and political capital, negotiations and alliances, technical planning, promotion and popular support and emotional investment.  One thing that often irked me on GamesBids was how often a losing bid or bid plan was considered “flawed”, when most often there was nothing flawed about it other than facing a rival that ended up being more appealing for geopolitical or emotional reasons (or simply the winner had a better luck or better campaign strategist).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2021 at 2:12 AM, Rob. said:

I still feel one of the biggest problems was the brutality of the final votes. Only one city can win, but the old process - as dramatic and fantastic as it was on the day host cities were selected (and as great as that was for this place!) - made runners up feel like snubbed losers. Chicago was unlucky to end up bottom, but it was just one of those things. Having the city centre filled with expectant people, and then having their name read out as the first city to be dumped it bound to lead to bad feeling.

 

This is an excellent point. The IOC loved the spectacle of those big, widely televised announcements and the drama they would create.

I think perhaps a good starting point might have been to keeping the voting process quieter and less like a national election.

Make it a closed session.

No final pitches. From candidates - they're not there. Only pre-recorded videos and bid books. Just IOC members.

Don't reveal eliminations in drips and drabs ("the city of ... has been eliminated" - awful). Simply announce the elected city via press release with the final results.

A month or so later the IOC executive can travel to the elected host city to sign contracts and celebrate without rubbing the other cities noses in it.

Perhaps offer the unsuccessful candidates automatic (conditional) qualification for shortlisting for the next Olympiad (this would work in the IOC's favour more than theirs and could provide some structure to the "continuous dialogue"). Waive applicant fees, etc, to entice them to stick with it. 

Chicago's experience was a case in point of poor optics. Instead it could have been: 

Rio de Janeiro elected host of 2016 Olympic Games. In recognition of the worthy bids from Madrid, Tokyo and Chicago, the IOC hopes they will accept our offer of continuous dialogue over the coming four years towards electing the host of the 2020 Olympics.

Of course - other cities could join Madrid, Tokyo, and Chicago but perhaps members could be encouraged to value persistence. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2021 at 4:39 AM, Rob. said:

Annoying a few people in NOCs - who'll always want to bid anyway if they can get their government on board - is one thing. Getting the population of a whole city hating your guts because they feel humiliated in front of the world is something else entirely! It's quite some feat.

Despite supporting Chicago 2016, I was one of those on here who mocked a couple of our Chicagoan members' reactions for American exceptionalism after that vote. As if Madrid or Tokyo or Rio finishing bottom would be fine but HOW DARE THEY DO THIS TO US. But actually, the voting process is brutal. It does leave a bad taste.

On 8/23/2021 at 5:44 AM, FYI said:

Are you still talking about Chicago here? Since you use the word 'humiliated'? Most people in Chicago, at the time, didn't even want the Olympics. So in their case, I don't see how they would've "hated the IOC's guts" when they lost. If anything, I'm sure that most were indifferent to relieved that 2016 was going to Rio instead. That whole bid was none other than mayor Daley's idea (a full 360 from years prior, when he wanted nothing to do with an Olympic bid), & not one that the city itself necessarily wanted.

Yeah, I remember that, but I always thought that you were misguided with that every time you brought it up. It's not that different from when Paris lost 2012 to London, which was quite the upset, & sent the French on here into a frenzy. Or how the Castellanos on here were so nasty when anyone would "dare" say that they may not win because of X or Y factor. So I don't think that it had anything to do with so-called American exceptionalism. Maybe a couple in the media portrayed themselves that way, but that's hardly a case to use that term so broadly.

 

 

Wasn't Rob saying though that he has moved on from his view that it was a case of American-exceptionalism? 

That aside I certainly do agree that it probably wasn't - and was simply more a case of terrible optics and poor "bedside manner" in the way it was announced. 

If an Australian city exited like that it would have caused uproar. I have no doubt that if by some strange quirk of voting patterns in first round of voting in 2005 resulted in "having obtained the least number of votes... the city of London has been eliminated"  would have caused serious uproar among the British and I don't think they would be have returned for another shot anytime soon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Australian Kiwi said:

Wasn't Rob saying though that he has moved on from his view that it was a case of American-exceptionalism? 

That aside I certainly do agree that it probably wasn't - and was simply more a case of terrible optics and poor "bedside manner" in the way it was announced. 

If an Australian city exited like that it would have caused uproar. I have no doubt that if by some strange quirk of voting patterns in first round of voting in 2005 resulted in "having obtained the least number of votes... the city of London has been eliminated"  would have caused serious uproar among the British and I don't think they would be have returned for another shot anytime soon. 

Pretty sure hearin "the city of tokyo, just spent 15 billion dollars in a fortnight TV event..." causes a bigger uprorar than lossing a bid in front of a packed plaza

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies - above should read: 

I just did a bit of a Google - most candidate cities that have the unfortunate 'humiliation' of first round elimination do not return. Only exceptions in past 50 years is Istanbul (last for 2000, bidded for 2008).

LA 1980 doesn't really count as it was a two horse race. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2021 at 8:56 AM, FYI said:

Bach justifies it as the old process having  "too many losers" involved. But it seems that the "new process" does pretty much the same thing, but in a different method.

I don't think it was wrong to try and reduce the costs of cities having to campaign for votes, which can cost $150 million, or the political cost to local officials in a host city for losing a bid. (Losing the Olympics helped push mayor Daley out of office in Chicago after 22 years in office, although corruption and city finances were probably a bigger reasons he didn't run for another election.) The problem is that they have pinballed to the other extreme of rule by executive edict.

Hopefully they bring back the Evaluation Commission to evaluate hosting proposals objectively and publish the findings. That could be used to ensure that host countries and cities meet certain basic requirements for both hardware (transport, hotel capacity, etc) and software (freedom of the press, human rights, etc).

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Australian Kiwi said:

I just did a bit of a Google - most candidate cities that have the unfortunate 'humiliation' of first round elimination do not return. Only exceptions in past 50 years is Istanbul (last for 2000, bidded for 2008).

LA 1980 doesn't really count as it was a two horse race. 

More often than not, though, there was a good reason for the first city to be eliminated - most were obvious also fans. Chicago was an outlier and probably the biggest ever shocker in that sorry line-up - even the IOC members were reportedly aghast at that. But ultimately it didn’t deter the USOC from throwing their hat in again for 2024. Similarly, when Australia was dumped out of the 2022 FIFA WC vote with a measly one vote, there was quite an outcry here. Yet the OZ FA is already eyeing a bid again. 

You can look at it the other way and note it’s been a long time since a city was ever elected on its first bid. The old saying was you had to lose one to win one.

49 minutes ago, Nacre said:

Hopefully they bring back the Evaluation Commission to evaluate hosting proposals objectively and publish the findings. That could be used to ensure that host countries and cities meet certain basic requirements for both hardware (transport, hotel capacity, etc) and software (freedom of the press, human rights, etc).

I agree with you that something like that, some sort of transparency or public scrutiny, should be done. The trouble is with this new process - where the exco basically partners with their favoured bidder and works with them to and fro to refine the “bid” until they are satisfied they can can present their “preferred bidder” for rubber stamping by the membership - there’s really no in-built need for that. It works on the assumption that by the time it goes for rubber stamping, those basic requirements have been ticked off anyway. And, on the one example we’ve had so far, there was no rival to compare it to either.

Though, I do notice the new system does leave it possible, at least on paper, that more than a single candidate could be presented to a final IOC membership vote. But who knows what that would mean? It could be another case of appointing a “winner” and “loser” or it could be to leave the option open for another “double awarding” like 2024-28.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2021 at 11:16 PM, iceman530 said:

"restrictions are expected to be lifted before the end of 2022", well, there ya have it.  As I said.  Bygones are bygones.  Russia and the IOC put on their dog and pony show to show Russia got punished.  Russia bids for 2036 will be fair game.  All aboard for St Petersburg I suppose

The IOC realized the ban they did was a meme and Russians gave zero f**s about it, celebrating and cheering for their athletes anyway despite not being able to use the Russian flag. They consider "annoying the Globohomo west" a token of honor now, much like all of the anti-western nations do these days. Russia should had been banned alltogether but we all know how greedy the IOC is anyway. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Russia gets it, specially now that few if any wants the Olympics anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ikarus360 said:

The IOC realized the ban they did was a meme and Russians gave zero f**s about it, celebrating and cheering for their athletes anyway despite not being able to use the Russian flag. They consider "annoying the Globohomo west" a token of honor now, much like all of the anti-western nations do these days. Russia should had been banned alltogether but we all know how greedy the IOC is anyway. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Russia gets it, specially now that few if any wants the Olympics anymore.

perfect summarization.  Its frustrating, but its dead on.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/24/2021 at 4:37 AM, Australian Kiwi said:

Wasn't Rob saying though that he has moved on from his view that it was a case of American-exceptionalism? 

Up to a point. :lol:

I do think some reactions reeked of American exceptionalism, but the way these final votes had evolved into global x-factor style televised events was asking for trouble.

I'm not saying some Chicagoans were unique in reacting badly to defeat in an Olympic bid race, but I do think the way some expressed their anger was definitely mockworthy. e.g. "we sent THE President, how dare you" (ignoring the fact that every country sends their leaders).

Anyway, that's all water under the bridge. I'll agree to disagree with FYI on it.

Some drivers will tut and others will go into full out road rage at a badly designed junction, but you want to try to design it well so that doesn't happen in the first place. I'm looking at this from the IOC's pov.

The knockout votes were fantastic drama but weren't conducive to good ongoing relations. On the other hand, I'm not sure the new system which offers no real competition, just rubber stamping, isn't swinging the pendulum too far the other way. Surely we need a balance between competitiveness and not pissing everyone off?!

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

14 minutes ago, Rob. said:

Up to a point. :lol:

I do think some reactions reeked of American exceptionalism, but the way these final votes had evolved into global x-factor style televised events was asking for trouble.

I'm not saying some Chicagoans were unique in reacting badly to defeat in an Olympic bid race, but I do think the way some expressed their anger was definitely mockworthy. e.g. "we sent THE President, how dare you" (ignoring the fact that every country sends their leaders).

 

I don't think it was losing, but more the brutality of the first elimination with such little support in the first round? As an Australian I can certainly empathise with the sense of shock at being eliminated with just a single vote in our bid for the 2022 World Cup. Again, imagine if London had exited the 2012 race first - or even second - when it was billed as a London v Paris race? The British tabloids would have lost their minds and cast a hex on Lausanne.  

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...