baron-pierreIV Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Hear, hear! I'm always bemused by this notion that many posters believe that 2012 was always destined for Europe. If anything, I would have thought geopolitics would have favoured the Americas (it would have been their first since Atlanta 16 years earlier). The fact it didn't go to the Americas was more, as you said, due to a litany of errors on the NY bidding team's side rather than a pre-ordained Euro win.And it just goes to show to many of the posters here who predict future games or are steadfast on their forecasts because of geopolitical/rotational reasons _ rotation, geopolitics or regional "turns" don't mean a thing when a particular region doesn't put forward a bid that can stack up against the competition. That's when the 'Anoma Lee" factor strikes. And it just throws everything outta whack. I just wish they stuck to the rotation scheme. It's so much easier to predict than dealing with all these A. Noma Leigh conspirac-ists whose destiny shall be to remain nameless!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainad Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Hear, hear! I'm always bemused by this notion that many posters believe that 2012 was always destined for Europe. If anything, I would have thought geopolitics would have favoured the Americas (it would have been their first since Atlanta 16 years earlier). The fact it didn't go to the Americas was more, as you said, due to a litany of errors on the NY bidding team's side rather than a pre-ordained Euro win.And it just goes to show to many of the posters here who predict future games or are steadfast on their forecasts because of geopolitical/rotational reasons _ rotation, geopolitics or regional "turns" don't mean a thing when a particular region doesn't put forward a bid that can stack up against the competition. My thoughts exactly which is why I posed the question and asked it yet again of one of the main proponents.I'm pleased to see that I'm not alone in getting irritated whenever I hear it trotted it out (all too frequently).It's as if New York were completely wasting their time by applying for 2012 in the first place (I'm pretty sure Mike Bloomberg and Dan Doctoroff did not see it this way otherwise I highly doubt they would have wasted their valuable time) and that London and Paris had only to announce they were entering the race and everyone else should have just shrugged their shoulders and backed off! It's just unrealistic! Geo-politics aside,the IOC votes for the bid that it likes best whether that be for technical reasons or political reasons or sentimental reasons or whatever...! If this were not so,then forecasting the outcome of Olympic bids would quickly become formulaic and predictable and this forum would soon become a very boring place indeed!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Exactly. It seems that the Euro "destiny" plot is being trumpeted by all the former NYC 2012 supporters, who can't come to terms that the bid was not up to par & that's why they lost. And surely Havana stood no chance, so there went North America's options out the window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOlympiadsW Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 oh please that's crap....whether it was NYC, Chicago, or ANY other US city 2012 wasn't comming here PERIOD....it was predtermined to go to Europe, that was no coincidence....anyway it doesn't matter NYC's and the USOC's efforts for 2012 will only strenghthen a US 2016 bid if anything and at this poibt that is all that matters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 oh please that's crap....whether it was NYC, Chicago, or ANY other US city 2012 wasn't comming here PERIOD....it was predtermined to go to Europe, that was no coincidence....anyway it doesn't matter NYC's and the USOC's efforts for 2012 will only strenghthen a US 2016 bid if anything and at this poibt that is all that matters Oh come on! That's just bullsh!t. If it was anybody's "turn" it was the Americas _ since Atlanta, Europe had already hosted once (Athens), Asia-Pacific twice (Sydney, Beijing). NYC was certainly one of the frontrunners and only really died completely once the stadium deal fell through. In the 2016 race the Western Hemisphere is favoured even more strongly, for the same reasons (with the added bonus of an added Euro hosting in-between). And Europe has little chance. But if the USOC shoots itself in the foot again (there's still 2 campaigning years to go, anything could happen) and Tokyo stuffs up, believe me, in a choice between, say, Rio or Madrid or Rome, the Euros would have to be favoured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Oh please, yourself. It's obvious not everyone, without some bias, buys into the Euro destiny crap. Even if 2012 wasn't coming to the U.S., it still would've been a much, much tighter finish for NYC had their bid been solid. Like Mainad pointed out, Michael Bloomberg & Co. wouldn't have wasted their precious time if they bought into that sh1t, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOlympiadsW Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 nah given all of the factors ANY bid from the USA (not necessarily the Americas or NA in general) was not going to win 2012...most of these problems went WAY beyond any stadium switch and no one is going to tell me the IOC wasn't gearing up for a Europe 2012 win...if you can't see that there's something seriously wrong..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Actually, the majority of people on this thread (i.e. Stu, Roltel, Mainad, etc) can see quite rationale. It's others that are blind-sided. And of course it's after all the *factors* & not "destiny". That's the whole point. FACT; New York's bid deteriorated. FACT; Havana had no chance. FACT; London's intense lobbying drew the gap even closer. So in the end, the FACT was, that Europe was going home with the prize. Geographically, 2012 was North America's to lose & they did. Just like some would say 2012 was Paris' to lose & they also did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOlympiadsW Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 yes everyone that doesn't see your way must be biased because you must of course be right!....2012 was NOT going to the USA and things were made in a way that gave Europe a very distinct advantage.....and the USA stands a SUPERB chance at getting 2016 in what is shaping up to be a pretty "dull" and predictable race for IOC standads....and for anyone who supports the USOC and wants to see a USA Games again that is all that matters at the end of the day...for those looking for excitiment or are not enthused by the idea of the US hosting again, well that just sucks for them I guess.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 yes everyone that doesn't see your way must be biased because you must of course be right!....2012 was NOT going to the USA and things were made in a way that gave Europe a very distinct advantage.....and the USA stands a SUPERB chance at getting 2016 in what is shaping up to be a pretty "dull" and predictable race for IOC standads....and for anyone who supports the USOC and wants to see a USA Games again that is all that matters at the end of the day...for those looking for excitiment or are not enthused by the idea of the US hosting again, well that just sucks for them I guess.... What factors exactly do you see as giving Europe a distinct advantage for 2012? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 "yes everyone that doesn't see your way must be biased because you must of course be right!" The very exact same thing could be said of you. But again, the majority on here, not just me, are "biased" to believe otherwise. But silly of us, because 'you must of course be right'. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 What is the POINT of splitting hairs about what happened 2 years ago? I mean, really, so it wasn't NYC. NYC had only a 1-in-5 chance. The Bush White House seemed to be unpopular to some IOC voters -- so certainly THAT weighed in FAVOR of the Europeans. Anyway, to me, this is really whistling in the wind. It's done; it's over with nearly 2 YEARS ago. Certain parties learned from the mistakes (and some haven't). Finis. End of story. Jeez, such hair-splitting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 What's the "point" of these forums then, if you can't counter what others are saying? Call it what you like, but you do hair splitting as well, when you're going off on a rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 What is the POINT of splitting hairs about what happened 2 years ago? I mean, really, so it wasn't NYC. NYC had only a 1-in-5 chance. The Bush White House seemed to be unpopular to some IOC voters -- so certainly THAT weighed in FAVOR of the Europeans.Anyway, to me, this is really whistling in the wind. It's done; it's over with nearly 2 YEARS ago. Certain parties learned from the mistakes (and some haven't). Finis. End of story. Jeez, such hair-splitting. Oh well, it gives us something to argue about. Religious schisms have been caused by even narrower hair splitting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainad Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 yes everyone that doesn't see your way must be biased because you must of course be right!....2012 was NOT going to the USA and things were made in a way that gave Europe a very distinct advantage.....and the USA stands a SUPERB chance at getting 2016 in what is shaping up to be a pretty "dull" and predictable race for IOC standads.... So you think the 2016 race will be 'dull and predictable',like 2012 you mean? Don't you think Tokyo might give the US challenger a run for its money? If Tokyo (or any of the other non-US contenders) does get 2016,I hope you won't then claim that it was all a foregone conclusion,that the IOC had 'fixed' it to go back to Asia or wherever and that the US candidate never had any real chance?? and for anyone who supports the USOC and wants to see a USA Games again that is all that matters at the end of the day... Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 OK, here's my prediction for Guatemala 2007. One region will be 'destined' to win 2014. The 2 others will 'not.' Is that too Nostradamus? Too pre-ordained? OK, then how about, one region might win; 2 others might not. But then again, a meteor could fall on the conference hall in G. City, so there might not be a 2014 at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainad Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 OK, here's my prediction for Guatemala 2007. One region will be 'destined' to win 2014. The 2 others will 'not.' Is that too Nostradamus? Too pre-ordained? OK, then how about, one region might win; 2 others might not. How about this one? I can confidently predict that it is a foregone conclusion that no US city has a cat-in-hell's chance of winning 2014!! But then again, a meteor could fall on the conference hall in G. City, so there might not be a 2014 at all. What about 2016? Does a city actually need the IOC in order to stage an Olympic Games?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.