Salt Lake City Olympic bid president concedes 2030 “challenging” as preparations for 2034 remain part of the project

[GBModerator]

Salt Lake City’s bid to host the 2030 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games may be the most prepared in the fledgling race, but it might be timing that blocks the city from hosting its second Games in under 30 years. The Utah capital, that along with neighbouring Park City hosted the Winter Games in 2002, […]

The post Salt Lake City Olympic bid president concedes 2030 “challenging” as preparations for 2034 remain part of the project appeared first on GamesBids.com.

View the full article

[Quaker2001]

So I guess the LA28/SLC2030 issue is a bigger one than we thought.  Or at least something none of the respective parties wanted to admit was a challenge.

No doubt the IOC is desperately hoping for good news with Sapporo.  I'm sure they could go Salt Lake in 2030, but I'm guessing the USOPC wouldn't be too thrilled about that

[baron-pierreIV]

This report was issued at the behest of LA-28 and SLC has probably foreseen and been advised by marketers that by 2030 (or 2029 really when the tickets go on sale), the US sporting public might be undergoing Olympic/Huge Event (there will be a Super Bowl right before the Winter Games)/World Cup fatigue.  Of course, snowfall will be even more sparse by 2034.  

MiGod, if Sapporo or Vancouver don't grab 2030, they have no one else to blame but themselves.   

Edited June 3, 2022 by baron-pierreIV

[Quaker2001]

1 hour ago, baron-pierreIV said:

This report was issued at the behest of LA-28 and SLC has probably foreseen and been advised by marketers that by 2030 (or 2029 really when the tickets go on sale), the US sporting public might be undergoing Olympic/Huge Event (there will be a Super Bowl right before the Winter Games)/World Cup fatigue.  Of course, snowfall will be even more sparse by 2034.  

MiGod, if Sapporo or Vancouver don't grab 2030, they have no one else to blame but themselves.   

The World Cup is probably less of an issue, but the 2 Olympics happening 18 months apart was always going to be a tough sell for the USOPC and perhaps they're starting to feel that a little more now that the 2030 announcement is less than a year away.  The problem is less about ticket sales but more about sponsorships.  If the USOPC is asking for big bucks for LA (and I'm sure they are), that depletes the pool of available money to spend on 2030.

[Chris_Mex]

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

The World Cup is probably less of an issue, but the 2 Olympics happening 18 months apart was always going to be a tough sell for the USOPC and perhaps they're starting to feel that a little more now that the 2030 announcement is less than a year away.  The problem is less about ticket sales but more about sponsorships.  If the USOPC is asking for big bucks for LA (and I'm sure they are), that depletes the pool of available money to spend on 2030.

If in an hypotetical case SLC says no to 2030, barcelona fails to build a bid and sapporo gets down by a referendum, wouldnt that make vancouver a direct path towards the preffered host status?, also reducing SLC chances for 2034 because of the continental rotation?(touching wood, that'd kill the winter olympics)

[FYI]

"The IOC estimates that it will be ready to identify bids for 'targeted diglog' in December, and though it has not been specifically discussed, the IOC's Future Host Commission and Executive Board could target and elect two editions of the Games *at one time*. The dual allocation of Paris and Los Angeles has already set a recent *precedent* for this line of thinking."

I guess Rob didn't get the memo from that other line of thinking, of "just because 'that thing' that happened 'once' before, doesn't mean that's how we should look at this here. And that the idea is that they address each situation differently based on the individual circumstances" mantra. 

[FYI]

1 hour ago, Chris_Mex said:

wouldnt that make vancouver a direct path towards the preffered host status?, also reducing SLC chances for 2034 because of the continental rotation?

If push comes to shove, continental rotation goes out the window (we already have "recent precedence"  for this anyway, see PyeongChang 2018 & Beijing 2022). The more pressing issue here is to have good, SOLID hosts for the Olympics, & in particular the Winter Games.

Unlike the "time-frame" rule (remember that), the continental rotation thing (to use another favorite word here) is NOT a "rule". It's just something the IOC unofficially exercised whenever they could *afford* to do so. In this scenario we have here, not so much.

[baron-pierreIV]

2 hours ago, Chris_Mex said:

, also reducing SLC chances for 2034 because of the continental rotation?

Continental rotation would only come into play for the Summer Games.  Because of the more limited Winter sites, CR does not play there -- i.e., PyoengChang 2018 followed by Beijing 2022.  Winters are fall where they may.  

[TorchbearerSydney]

I think Continental rotation Summer/ Winter has gone.....and Winter/ Winter .........  it is still alive for Summer Games till the 2040s......

[Chris_Mex]

5 hours ago, FYI said:

If push comes to shove, continental rotation goes out the window (we already have "recent precedence"  for this anyway, see PyeongChang 2018 & Beijing 2022). The more pressing issue here is to have good, SOLID hosts for the Olympics, & in particular the Winter Games.

Unlike the "time-frame" rule (remember that), the continental rotation thing (to use another favorite word here) is NOT a "rule". It's just something the IOC unofficially exercised whenever they could *afford* to do so. In this scenario we have here, not so much.

it was a precedent because 2022 elections was asia vs asia, if the election was asia vs europe take for granted last winter olympics would have taken place in the old continent and also having 2028/30 and 2034 would mark 3 olympics in the same 2 countries in only 6 years. If 2034 comes at their time and a reliable bidder such as france, germany, sweden or even an asian country as japan or china shows up, those games will instantly not go to the americas again

[Quaker2001]

8 hours ago, Chris_Mex said:

If in an hypotetical case SLC says no to 2030, barcelona fails to build a bid and sapporo gets down by a referendum, wouldnt that make vancouver a direct path towards the preffered host status?, also reducing SLC chances for 2034 because of the continental rotation?(touching wood, that'd kill the winter olympics)

Continental rotation is a myth.  The IOC isn't usually that forward thinking, anyway.  Especially when there aren't a lot of options out there.

2030 with SLC isn't a matter of them saying no.  If the IOC wants them, they'll make it work.  They'll likely have to help the USOPC along a little bit with regard to all the sponsorship deals at that point.  And if they go with Vancouver for 2030, that certainly doesn't shut the door entirely on SLC for 2034, especially given who the other options are.

31 minutes ago, Chris_Mex said:

it was a precedent because 2022 elections was asia vs asia, if the election was asia vs europe take for granted last winter olympics would have taken place in the old continent and also having 2028/30 and 2034 would mark 3 olympics in the same 2 countries in only 6 years. If 2034 comes at their time and a reliable bidder such as france, germany, sweden or even an asian country as japan or china shows up, those games will instantly not go to the americas again

You might be right, but that's likely more about the IOC strengthening their presence in Europe than any sort of rotation.  I don't see the IOC looking at things that way.

[Quaker2001]

6 hours ago, FYI said:

"The IOC estimates that it will be ready to identify bids for 'targeted diglog' in December, and though it has not been specifically discussed, the IOC's Future Host Commission and Executive Board could target and elect two editions of the Games *at one time*. The dual allocation of Paris and Los Angeles has already set a recent *precedent* for this line of thinking."

I guess Rob didn't get the memo from that other line of thinking, of "just because 'that thing' that happened 'once' before, doesn't mean that's how we should look at this here. And that the idea is that they address each situation differently based on the individual circumstances" mantra. 

Well to borrow one of your phrases.. good for Rob.

Your last point is spot on.  You're right, it's all a moot point if the circumstances aren't right here.  The "precedent" doesn't mean anything.  I mean after all, the entire bid process has changed.  It's the new norm.  Or didn't a certain other poster make that clear enough for us yet? 

[FYI]

1 hour ago, Chris_Mex said:

it was a precedent because 2022 elections was asia vs asia, if the **election** was asia vs europe take for granted last winter olympics would have taken place in the old continent and also having 2028/30 and 2034 would mark 3 olympics in the same 2 countries in only 6 years. If 2034 comes at their time and a reliable bidder such as france, germany, sweden or even an asian country as japan or china shows up, those games will instantly not go to the americas again

France, Germany & Sweden all seem iffy, at best, at this juncture. France is very busy preparing for the 2024 Summer Olympics, Germany's track record on Olympic bids isn't all that great (if anything, I see them going after a Summer Olympics next, than another winter bid). And Sweden is probably still reeling from their 2026 loss. 

And lol, you really think that the IOC is going to go with China again, only 12 years later after 2022 (especially with the big geopolitical headache the Chinese gave the IOC with those Games)? Yeah, I don't think so. If you'd said South Korea again, I'd probably give you that one. But China? LOL

And if Japan doesn't want 2030 now, I don't see them being all that gung-ho for 2034, either. This is the same Japan that also passed on 2026. So if they pass up 2030, too (especially when it can basically be given to them on a silver-platter in this case), then I really wouldn't hold up too much hope with them just doing a 360 just four years later. 

Plus, that just brings us to the point about an "election". That's gone now (as are new-norm "buddy" around here constantly likes to remind us). Even in this GB's article, it states: "The new Olympic bidding process allows 'interested parties' to join a 'continuous dialog' to discuss hosting options before one or more cities are identified for 'targeted dialog' and a *specific* edition of the Games, so at the moment SLC and rivals are just in the pool for *any* future Games".  

It's that very last part, that indicates, that the IOC can basically choose whoever they want, whenever they want, for whatever Games they want. The IOC has also said before, that they'll pick a host whenever "the right partner comes along". So in other words, that means that they won't necessarily wait for who else might come along if they feel they have found a solid enough *partner* for whichever Games. And as been pointed out to you already, not just by me, but by at least three other posters as well, continental rotation really isn't much at play here, & in particular for the Winter Games, where the very good options are far & few between. 

[FYI]

40 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Well to borrow one of your phrases.. good for Rob.

As I've told you in the past, that phrase is from YOUR playbook, not mine.

But if you're basically going to undermine Rob's opinion just because you don't agree with it or "see things differently", well, "good for you". 

But I know who's opinion I'd rather take up on this one. So yeah, I guess "good for me" if that's the case then. 

44 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Your last point is spot on.  You're right, it's all a moot point if the circumstances aren't right here.  The "precedent" doesn't mean anything.  I mean after all, the entire bid process has changed.  It's the new norm.  Or didn't a certain other poster make that clear enough for us yet? 

Of course it's "spot on", cause it's YOUR opinion. 

And of course the bid process has changed. But as you also like to say, "this is the IOC we're still talking about here" - who does what they want, whenever they want, however they want. There's absolutely *nothing* in the new bid process that says they can't do another double. On the contrary, the new process just makes that easier IMO.

[baron-pierreIV]

Nope, Continental Rotation (Europe every 3rd SOG) still works to some extent for the Summers.  Look at the last 60 years of Summer Olympic Games: 

1960 - Italy / Europe
1964 - Japan / Asia

1968 - Mexico / No. America 

1972 - Germany / Europe

1976 - Canada / No. America

1980 - Russia / Europe

1984 - USA / No. AMerica

1988 - Korea / Asia
1992 - Spain/ Europe
1996 - US / No America

2000 - Oz /Oceania
2004 - Greece/Europe

2008 - CHina/Asia
2012 - UK/ Europe
2016 - Brazil / So America

2020 - Japan - Asia

2024 - France/ Europe
2028 - US /No. America
2032 - Oz / Oceania, so
2036 - will be back to Europe -- especially after Winters 2030 and 2034 will be/might be Asia & No. America;

So at least every 3rd Summers must return to Europe (and once in a while, the IOC just skips one SOG to quickly go back to Europe)  and the in-between two slots are left to whichever of the other continents can field a good host.  Just as they try to rotate their IOC Sessions (as do the other international sports federations), the OGs are rotated ON PURPOSE; so does the G7, the G-20 hostings, etc.. It is a rule of international organizations. Thus. as sure as the day is long, Summer 2036 and Winter 2038 will surely be in Europe.  

Edited June 4, 2022 by baron-pierreIV

[FYI]

"Continental rotation" I think plays more in the sense of (at least since the end of WWII), that two consecutive Summer Olympics haven't been played on the same continent. It's not exactly a "myth", but it's also not a hard-core, linear "rule", either. It's not something "official", but rather a geopolitical *consideration* for the IOC to balance whenever they can do so.

And as been already mentioned, I think for the Winter Games, CR plays less of a factor since there's less than ideal locales for those. The '92 & '94 Winter Games were both in Europe, for example. The only pattern that can really be established here, is that Europe has never gone more than 12 years without a *Summer* Olympics. But other than that, I don't see any other meaningful trend beyond the occasional IOC stray to a new continent. And what happens when a particular *country* has gone longer than a continent? Depending on who the players & factors are, I think the former should overtake the latter, IMO.

[Quaker2001]

6 hours ago, FYI said:

As I've told you in the past, that phrase is from YOUR playbook, not mine.

But if you're basically going to undermine Rob's opinion just because you don't agree with it or "see things differently", well, "good for you". 

But I know who's opinion I'd rather take up on this one. So yeah, I guess "good for me" if that's the case then. 

Gee, never realized you were such a big fan of buts. 

Typical FYI post here.  Looks for confirmation bias.  Finds confirmation bias.  Shoves that confirmation bias in someone else's face.

Why do I get the feeling that if Rob didn't agree with *your* opinion, you wouldn't be highlighting it right here.  Not trying to undermine him.  If you want to play the game that's typical of this site where we're supposed to choose sides, go right ahead.  Precedents clearly mean next to nothing with the IOC since they can and probably will do whatever they want.  If 2 Olympics are awarded next year, it's not because of precedent.  It's because of circumstances.  I know you scoff at that notion and again seem really excited to give me the "SEE, LOOK AT WHAT ROB SAYS" line.  I still don't buy thought that's how the IOC is going to see if where they do this because they did it once before.

6 hours ago, FYI said:

And of course the bid process has changed. But as you also like to say, "this is the IOC we're still talking about here" - who does what they want, whenever they want, however they want. There's absolutely *nothing* in the new bid process that says they can't do another double. On the contrary, the new process just makes that easier IMO.

How many times over do I need to correct you mis-representing my position.  I have never argued that they *can't* do a double or that the only reason they could do it here is because it happened before.  You know darn well I've said repeatedly that if they had the right cities in the right place at the right time, it could happen.  Well, that possibility just became a little more real that SLC seems like they may be pushing harder for 2034 than for 2030.

Yes, the IOC could do whatever they want.  What they wind up doing will be dictated by what's in front of them.  If they never did a Paris/LA double, we probably wouldn't be talking so much about this one (or for all the double fetishes here from people randomly picking 2 cities and turning it into something.. as opposed to the very tangible situation we're looking at here).  As you just implied, there's very little in the process that dictates what they can do relative to what they've done before.  Just like with Brisbane.. there was no precedent to pick a city with very little warning as their preferred candidate.  Until there was.

[FYI]

5 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Typical FYI post here.  Looks for confirmation bias.  Finds confirmation bias.  Shoves that confirmation bias in someone else's face.

How many times over do I need to correct you mis-representing my position.  

That last bit sounds very AFan’ish. And no, not the current new-norm fanatic one, either. 

5 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Why do I get the feeling that if Rob didn't agree with *your* opinion, you wouldn't be highlighting it right here.  Not trying to undermine him.  

That doesn’t make any sense, though,  since we’re not talking about “my opinion”. We’re talking about Rob’s. Which I hardly ever find any reason to doubt (unlike you), especially when he’s really into the thick of all things Olympic than anyone of us here.

So if I’m going to gauge who’s opinion I’m going to value more on the Olympic subject matter (that’s not directly on these forums), well, that’s easy. 

5 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

If you want to play the game that's typical of this site where we're supposed to choose sides, go right ahead. 

“Typical Quaker post here”. Looks for what they ‘think’ is wrong with this site. Finds what they ‘think’ is wrong with this site. Then ‘shoves’ what they ‘think’ is wrong with this site in someone’s else‘s face.

5 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Precedents clearly mean next to nothing with the IOC since they can and probably will do whatever they want.  If 2 Olympics are awarded next year, it's not because of precedent.  It's because of circumstances.  I know you scoff at that notion and again seem really excited to give me the "SEE, LOOK AT WHAT ROB SAYS" line.  I still don't buy thought that's how the IOC is going to see if where they do this because they did it once before.

To quote one of your phrases again, “good for you”. Q. But to quote another infamous phrase around here; “you’re entitled to your opinion, ‘but’  opinions are not evidence”. 

5 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

I have never argued that they *can't* do a double or that the only reason they could do it here is because it happened before.  You know darn well I've said repeatedly that if they had the right cities in the right place at the right time, it could happen.  Well, that possibility just became a little more real that SLC seems like they may be pushing harder for 2034 than for 2030.

Well, talk about “confirmation bias” here, huh Q. 

5 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Yes, the IOC could do whatever they want.  What they wind up doing will be dictated by what's in front of them.  If they never did a Paris/LA double, we probably wouldn't be talking so much about this one (or for all the double fetishes here from people randomly picking 2 cities and turning it into something.. as opposed to the very tangible situation we're looking at here).  As you just implied, there's very little in the process that dictates what they can do relative to what they've done before.  Just like with Brisbane.. there was no precedent to pick a city with very little warning as their preferred candidate.  Until there was.

To quote another Q-phrase line here, “no sh!t, Sherlock”. Of course the IOC will have to use what’s in front of them to ‘dictate’ what they’ll do next. That’s a given.

However, don’t make it sound like I’m one of those other posters that just “randomly” is picking two cities for another double-“fetish”. Talk about always “how many times over do I need to ‘correct you’ mis-representing my position”.

I have never claimed that ANY two cities would fit the double bill. You also know darn well that I’ve agreed that it has be the right combination of two cities. Though your argument before was always more ‘no can do’ than anything else. Call it “picking sides” or whatever else you want. However , if some of us don’t particular want to sit on the fence on certain subejects, that doesn’t make our arguments irrational or ‘nonsensical’ simply because you don’t want to “pick a side”. 

 

 

 

 

[Quaker2001]

9 hours ago, FYI said:

That doesn’t make any sense, though,  since we’re not talking about “my opinion”. We’re talking about Rob’s. Which I hardly ever find any reason to doubt (unlike you), especially when he’s really into the thick of all things Olympic than anyone of us here.

So if I’m going to gauge who’s opinion I’m going to value more on the Olympic subject matter (that’s not directly on these forums), well, that’s easy. 

No, it makes perfect sense.  I respect Rob's opinion as you do, but this is something he very casually mentioned in his story.  And in the very next paragraph, he offers a quote from the head honcho from SLC saying they haven't heard anything about it.  Did you really make that post earlier to talk about Rob's opinion, or did you do it just to needle me a little?  I think we both know the answer.  How extremely smarmy and FYI of you.

And it wouldn't be the first time you cherry-picked a part of one of Rob's stories and ran with it.  There was a story from November where you plucked out a line and said they could rush to announce a host to avoid bad PR.  I said that wasn't likely to happen, in part because of the sponsorship issues with the USOPC.  Which you then proceeded to dismiss, perhaps in an effort just to be contrarian. 

So again, maybe be careful about a "could" that you're going to throw at me just to engage in another pissing contest.

10 hours ago, FYI said:

“Typical Quaker post here”. Looks for what they ‘think’ is wrong with this site. Finds what they ‘think’ is wrong with this site. Then ‘shoves’ what they ‘think’ is wrong with this site in someone’s else‘s face.

Who's projecting now?  Unless you're somehow going to tell me your original post wasn't about shoving it in my face.  Hey, that's fine if it was (and clearly it was), but then that's funny if you're going to turn that around on me.

10 hours ago, FYI said:

To quote one of your phrases again, “good for you”. Q. But to quote another infamous phrase around here; “you’re entitled to your opinion, ‘but’  opinions are not evidence”. 

Well, talk about “confirmation bias” here, huh Q. 

No, the evidence is the factual element of this story where SLC folks are saying 2030 is a challenge and that they haven't heard any talk about 2034 being on the table, even though that's coming into play for SLC as a plan B.  Those are the important takeaways from this story, IMO.  Not that broached the subject of a double.  Which again, you're only bringing up to rile me up.  And me not having much self control obviously fell for the bait.

10 hours ago, FYI said:

To quote another Q-phrase line here, “no sh!t, Sherlock”. Of course the IOC will have to use what’s in front of them to ‘dictate’ what they’ll do next. That’s a given.

However, don’t make it sound like I’m one of those other posters that just “randomly” is picking two cities for another double-“fetish”. Talk about always “how many times over do I need to ‘correct you’ mis-representing my position”.

I have never claimed that ANY two cities would fit the double bill. You also know darn well that I’ve agreed that it has be the right combination of two cities. Though your argument before was always more ‘no can do’ than anything else. Call it “picking sides” or whatever else you want. However , if some of us don’t particular want to sit on the fence on certain subejects, that doesn’t make our arguments irrational or ‘nonsensical’ simply because you don’t want to “pick a side”. 

I didn't make it sound like that, but that's what you wanted to hear.  If I wanted to attribute something to you, I would have come out and said it directly.  None of this backhanded slap garbage where you didn't say me (or "other poster"), but it's obvious where that was coming from.  No, I'm not talking about you with the double fetish.  Even if your ego wants to believe that's what it was.  I know you never claimed that.  Did I say you did?  Should I find some of the old posts where it was like throwing darts (again, NOT from you) picking cities.

And don't give me the "sit on the fence" line either.  You've played the "could" game before.  My approach on this is the same now as it always has been.. talking about a past precedent is bullshit, and I would say that to Rob's face if I got the chance.  That's my opinion and if others see it different, no I don't think it's irrational.  At the very least though, I think it's a misguided way to look at things.

As usual, you and I see more eye to eye on some of this than either of us want to admit.  We both think it's about the right circumstances.  I know that's what you think and you know that's what I think.  What's happening with 2030 is starting to come more into focus rather than being about hypotheticals.  That being said, our trusted insider told us that 1 of the cities that would almost certainly be a part of any 2030/2034 double says they haven't heard anything about it.  No doubt in my mind that could change.  I think we can be fairly confident that if that happens, Rob will tell us all about it.  And not just "sit on the fence" and suggest maybe it could get discussed.

[FYI]

On 6/5/2022 at 1:03 AM, Quaker2001 said:

No, it makes perfect sense.  I respect Rob's opinion as you do, but this is something he very casually mentioned in his story.  And in the very next paragraph, he offers a quote from the head honcho from SLC saying they haven't heard anything about it.  Did you really make that post earlier to talk about Rob's opinion, or did you do it just to needle me a little?  I think we both know the answer.  How extremely smarmy and FYI of you.

And it wouldn't be the first time you cherry-picked a part of one of Rob's stories and ran with it.  There was a story from November where you plucked out a line and said they could rush to announce a host to avoid bad PR.  I said that wasn't likely to happen, in part because of the sponsorship issues with the USOPC.  Which you then proceeded to dismiss, perhaps in an effort just to be contrarian. 

So again, maybe be careful about a "could" that you're going to throw at me just to engage in another pissing contest.

Of course it does. To you that is. And yeah, Bullock said that. And (talk about "plucking out a line" from the story & "running with it")? So what do you expect him to say anyway? "Yeah, the IOC is ready to do a double, & we'll be ready, willing & able to take on the task whenever they say the word" - when everything is suppose to be done under wraps nowadays? I don't think so. Plus, considering SLC would rather host sooner rather than later, any talk of a double most likely wouldn't be on Bullock's mind anyway.

And I don't have to be "careful" about anything. I think you enjoy these pissing contests, since you like to dumpster dive into old topics to see what kind of "dirt" you can dig up so you can then "shove it into people's faces". That's just the usual 'extremely smarmy & Quaker of you' tactic.

On 6/5/2022 at 1:03 AM, Quaker2001 said:

Who's projecting now?  Unless you're somehow going to tell me your original post wasn't about shoving it in my face.  Hey, that's fine if it was (and clearly it was), but then that's funny if you're going to turn that around on me.

 Still you. Speaking about that November GB's story, in late March when there was another story about how it didn't pan out that way, you sure were quick to "needle me a little" about how "see, there was no rush at all to anoint SLC 2030". So don't act all coy & innocent now, with this 'turning it around on you' nonsense, if that remark from then wasn't at all about "shoving it in my face", especially with your little  at the end. 

On 6/5/2022 at 1:03 AM, Quaker2001 said:

No, the evidence is the factual element of this story where SLC folks are saying 2030 is a challenge and that they haven't heard any talk about 2034 being on the table, even though that's coming into play for SLC as a plan B.  Those are the important takeaways from this story, IMO.  Not that broached the subject of a double.  Which again, you're only bringing up to rile me up.  And me not having much self control obviously fell for the bait.

There is no 'the evidence is the factual element of this story'. That's just more 'confirmation bias' on your part. Again, what do you expect SLC to say out in the open, when the process is now so hush-hush, wink-wink & secret handshake? If there's any talk of a double, it's going on ATM between the USOC & the IOC. Bullock & SLC are in the back-burner for now, since again, they'd rather host 2030 than 2034 anyway. That's not about "riling you up", it's about discourse. But it you take it as "bait", then so be it. I can't help you with that.

On 6/5/2022 at 1:03 AM, Quaker2001 said:

I didn't make it sound like that, but that's what you wanted to hear.  If I wanted to attribute something to you, I would have come out and said it directly.  None of this backhanded slap garbage where you didn't say me (or "other poster"), but it's obvious where that was coming from.  No, I'm not talking about you with the double fetish.  Even if your ego wants to believe that's what it was.  I know you never claimed that.  Did I say you did?  Should I find some of the old posts where it was like throwing darts (again, NOT from you) picking cities.

And don't give me the "sit on the fence" line either.  You've played the "could" game before.  ***My approach on this is the same now as it always has been.. talking about a past precedent is bullshit, and I would say that to Rob's face if I got the chance.***  That's my opinion and if others see it different, no I don't think it's irrational.  At the very least though, I think it's a misguided way to look at things.

As usual, you and I see more eye to eye on some of this than either of us want to admit.  We both think it's about the right circumstances.  I know that's what you think and you know that's what I think.  What's happening with 2030 is starting to come more into focus rather than being about hypotheticals.  That being said, our trusted insider told us that 1 of the cities that would almost certainly be a part of any 2030/2034 double says they haven't heard anything about it.  No doubt in my mind that could change.  I think we can be fairly confident that if that happens, Rob will tell us all about it.  And not just "sit on the fence" and suggest maybe it could get discussed.

LOL, now who's got the "ego".

This was always more than just hypotheticals, because we always had a good idea of who the cities were/were not going to be. So it was never that "misguided". And for the third time, SLC saying that they haven't heard anything about it doesn't really prove anything (do you think repeating that somehow makes it more true?). Since again, a double would mean in their case, that they'd most likely be hosting later rather than sooner, which is not what they want. That's what the USOC would prefer. 

[Quaker2001]

4 hours ago, FYI said:

Of course it does. To you that is. And yeah, Bullock said that. And (talk about "plucking out a line" from the story & "running with it")? So what do you expect him to say anyway? "Yeah, the IOC is ready to do a double, & we'll be ready, willing & able to take on the task whenever they say the word" - when everything is suppose to be done under wraps nowadays? I don't think so. Plus, considering SLC would rather host sooner rather than later, any talk of a double most likely wouldn't be on Bullock's mind anyway.

And I don't have to be "careful" about anything. I think you enjoy these pissing contests, since you like to dumpster dive into old topics to see what kind of "dirt" you can dig up so you can then "shove it into people's faces". That's just the usual 'extremely smarmy & Quaker of you' tactic.

You clearly do too seeing that you invited me into this one.  And I took the bait.  You're right, maybe I do, but obviously I'm not the only one.  Alas, I digress...

SLC has been outspoken that they're ready to go at a moment's notice for whatever Olympics the IOC wants to engage them on.  And now Bullok and complany are much more specifically talking about 2034.  Nothing about this process is based on "suppose to."  It doesn't have to be done under wraps.  That's just how the IOC is operating right now, and it's hardly a secret who the candidates are.  So again, that Bullock is saying there hasn't been any discussion of a double, maybe that's something we can just take at face value.  That those discussions haven't happened yet.  Doesn't mean they can't happen in the future.  Since Sapporo is the bigger variable, that could be why it hasn't come up yet.  To use a Quaker-ism.. "we just don't know!"
 

4 hours ago, FYI said:

 Still you. Speaking about that November GB's story, in late March when there was another story about how it didn't pan out that way, you sure were quick to "needle me a little" about how "see, there was no rush at all to anoint SLC 2030". So don't act all coy & innocent now, with this 'turning it around on you' nonsense, if that remark from then wasn't at all about "shoving it in my face", especially with your little  at the end.  

Oh no, you pegged it right on that one.  That was absolutely about shoving it in your face.  And hey, if I claim I'm above that, well we know that's just a lie.

But there's some similarities here.  You see a paragraph in a GB article and want to make a bigger deal out of it than it deserves.  And if I were to comment with a "wait and see" (again, I know.. soooo Quaker of me), I'd be accused of being wishy-washy.

4 hours ago, FYI said:

There is no 'the evidence is the factual element of this story'. That's just more 'confirmation bias' on your part. Again, what do you expect SLC to say out in the open, when the process is now so hush-hush, wink-wink & secret handshake? If there's any talk of a double, it's going on ATM between the USOC & the IOC. Bullock & SLC are in the back-burner for now, since again, they'd rather host 2030 than 2034 anyway. That's not about "riling you up", it's about discourse. But it you take it as "bait", then so be it. I can't help you with that.

If this process is supposed to be so secretive, then why is SLC being so forthcoming about where they stand?  Because they're pretty open about dropping the hint that maybe 2034 could be better than 2030.  And if there is talk of a double, than Bullock just flat out lied when he said there isn't.  There's a lot of direct quotes from Bullock here.  It's not confirmation bias to focus on those rather than to pluck out the 1 paragraph you find interesting (mostly to invite a pissing contest) and ignore the very next paragraph where a direct quote says it's not a thing ATM.

[FYI]

8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

You're right, maybe I do, but obviously I'm not the only one. 

There's no "maybe" about it. You *absolutely* do, & you win the Olympic Gold medal in that event.

8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

 To use a Quaker-ism.. "we just don't know!"

No, that's more like the other AFan-ism from the past, remember. 

8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Oh no, you pegged it right on that one.  That was absolutely about shoving it in your face.  And hey, if I claim I'm above that, well we know that's just a lie.

Exactly. So what's this nonsense about "how funny it is that I'm now trying to turn it around on you" when you admit that you lied. 

8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

But there's some similarities here.  You see a paragraph in a GB article and want to make a bigger deal out of it than it deserves.  And if I were to comment with a "wait and see" (again, I know.. soooo Quaker of me), I'd be accused of being wishy-washy.

No, again, that's more from the other sooo AFan-ish from the past. That's from their playbook. The "we just don't know/don't have enough evidence" mantra, sitting on the fence, wishy-washy, devil's advocate school of thought. Seems like you picked up quite a few cues from them since then.

8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

If this process is supposed to be so secretive, then why is SLC being so forthcoming about where they stand?  Because they're pretty open about dropping the hint that maybe 2034 could be better than 2030.  And if there is talk of a double, than Bullock just flat out lied when he said there isn't.  There's a lot of direct quotes from Bullock here.  It's not confirmation bias to focus on those rather than to pluck out the 1 paragraph you find interesting (mostly to invite a pissing contest) and ignore the very next paragraph where a direct quote says it's not a thing ATM.

Well, if they're now being more open about 2034, shouldn't that suggest that it's also being part of the "continuous dialog" here? Why can't we take that at face value then, instead on solely relying on what Bullock himself may or "may not know". And maybe Bullock is lying. I mean you admittedly do it, so..  And okay, so there are quite a few  quotes from him there, but they're pretty generic. More like diplomatic in nature. They're not anything striking nor news breaking. So talk about 'you seeing a few quotes in a GB's article & want to make a bigger deal out of it than it deserves'.

[Quaker2001]

3 hours ago, FYI said:

Exactly. So what's this nonsense about "how funny it is that I'm now trying to turn it around on you" when you admit that you lied. 

I see reading comprehension is not a strong point of yours.  When did I lie?  Of course you'd read that sentence and be all "OMG, Q admitted it!"  No, unlike you, I'm not trying to be subtle and coy when I'm calling you out.  I'll be pretty direct about it.  None of this "I guess Rob didn't get the memo" nonsense as if that wasn't a pretty formal invitation into a pissing contest.  That gold medal is all yours.  I'm looking for silver at best after that.

3 hours ago, FYI said:

Well, if they're now being more open about 2034, shouldn't that suggest that it's also being part of the "continuous dialog" here? Why can't we take that at face value then, instead on solely relying on what Bullock himself may or "may not know". And maybe Bullock is lying. I mean you admittedly do it, so..  And okay, so there are quite a few  quotes from him there, but they're pretty generic. More like diplomatic in nature. They're not anything striking nor news breaking. So talk about 'you seeing a few quotes in a GB's article & want to make a bigger deal out of it than it deserves'.

Still didn't admit it.  But clearly that's now ingrained in your head, so I probably have to treat you like a common Trump supporter and give up hope of convincing you otherwise! 

This is all absolutely about continuous dialog.  That's one of the good things about this process, that if a city doesn't get selected, they have a leg up on the next round of discussions.  I don't think Bullock is being intentionally vague or diplomatic here.  Yes, I'll take his comment at face value that there hasn't been talk of a double.  If there had been, he probably would have said so.  To imply that he's lying just to give credence to the point you're hoping he made is a little ridiculous.  None of this is to say that might not change in a few months.  There's nothing to believe though it's happening already other than that you seem to want it to be happening so you can question "my line of thinking."

I think we've reached that inevitable point in the pissing contest where we start resorting to GIFs or memes, so on that note, here's a double for you..

[FYI]

“Typical (Quaker) post there”. Full of deflections, projections, “confirmation biases” & resulting in petty, personal attacks & insults (with finger[s]) towards the end there, all because when someone just doesn’t agree with “your line of thinking”. I “thought you were better than that”, Q. 

Those tactics sound very familiar, though, like from “some other poster” over in the other thread right now. Or that other one from L.A. a few years back. Or speaking of, a “certain former president”. 

But since you also suffer from another attribute like our “sunshine buddy” next door, this one is for you: