Jump to content

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


GBModerator
 Share

Recommended Posts

Mate, don't forget England went out first in that FIFA race as well. It's not entirely comparable to the way the IOC did things though as the voting totals were only published afterwards, quietly amid the jubilation of the winner. For all FIFA's many faults, that was a better way of doing things; there was no "bye bye loser" moment in front of the whole world. I don't know about Australia, but after the upset of losing had passed the anger here wasn't at coming last, it was the ****-show of the whole process and at what followed. And subsequent events at FIFA culminating in the dawn raid by the FBI proved us right.

I absolutely get Chicagoans visceral annoyance at being publicly removed from the room first (which is exactly why I've been arguing it's good the IOC got rid of the brutality of the public knockout vote system), but I still think some reactions reeked of American exceptionalism. I say that as someone who supported Chicago's bid, and I'm not changing my mind on something I observed 11 years ago. :D

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/24/2021 at 2:53 AM, Sir Rols said:

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.   

Exactly, virtually no one was expecting that first-round exit. Who can forget the collective gasp in that room when Jacques Rogge announced that Chicago would be the first city to go. Even Swiss IOC member at the time, Rene Fasel said; "everybody was 'shocked' at that result. Everybody expected Chicago and Rio, everybody. If it had been Chicago & Rio in the end, it would have been much closer".

So for some to be so flippant about it, "as if it would've been okay for any of the other candidates to have gotten thrown out first", is simply not looking at the bigger picture of the dynamics of that particular race, simply because they "observed" a few bad apples that demonstrated so-called American exceptionlism after the loss. Any vehement supporters from ANY given nation campaigning in a similar contest would've reacted in the very same fashion. So I don't see why the U.S. needs to be singled out in that context.

12 hours ago, Australian Kiwi said:

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.  

Precisely! Moscow was the city in that race that was suppose to be eliminated first, & that's exactly how it panned out. But can you imagine had London or Paris been given the boot FIRST?! These boards would've gone insane!! "But, but we sent in our charismatic Prime Minister to shake hands & smooth over those ungrateful IOC members! How 'DARE' they do this to us". 'As if' having Moscow, New York or Madrid going out first would've been okay then, right? 

The British media & supporters would've descended upon Lausanne & spray-painted & egged the IOC headquarters like the Swiss did back in 1999 when Sion surprisingly lost 2006 to Turin. :lol: Sending in heads of states back then, was also a big game that turned the IOC host city voting sessions into the big & pony show that everyone here came to enjoy. So at the time, that was all fair game, & should be viewed through a lens of perspective-ness, & not by the behavior of a rowdy few that cloud the bigger picture.

On 8/24/2021 at 1:50 AM, Nacre said:

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.

Sure, but that's assuming that's why the IOC took those actions in the first place. But we shouldn't pretend that the IOC did it because they really wanted to "reduce costs" in the bidding process. Back in the hayday, the IOC didn't really care that cities would spend $100-million plus on Olympic bids. They enjoyed all that graft because it benefitted them. They're only now so concerned about that cause (most democratic) cities DON'T want to spend that kind of money anymore on campaigns, let alone hosting these days. 

If the IOC could go back to the 'good old glory days' of Olympic bidding campaigns, that were becoming elite parties themselves, & cities willing to debt-out their future generations for the so-called privilege of hosting the greatest sporting spectacle on the planet, they'd do it in a New York minute!

But yes, the 'new way' is the other extreme of doing everything behind closed doors & back room deals now.

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...