The Usoc Vote On April 14

[Rob2012]

One possible handicap for Chicago could be that some IOC members might not care to have back-to-back English-speaking cities hosting the Games in 2012 and 2016.I know it has happened twice before (St.Louis 1904 followed by London 1908 and as recently as Atlanta 1996 followed by Sydney 2000) but times change as we know and the prevalent anti-American mood might not have completely dissipated by 2009. There will likely always be some who can never resist slapping down 'the Anglo-Saxons' if they feel they are grabbing too much! Not saying it will happen but just something that might have to be accounted for by those who are tempted to argue that Chicago will have a pretty clear run vis a vis the other contenders.

I think too much is made of so-called anti-American sentiment. It is a relatively recent and in many ways faddish phenomenon, certainly in its current guise (i.e. backlash against the Iraq invasion) and I'm not sure how deeply it will have penetrated the halls of the IOC. If it does exist within the minds of IOC members, I think the prospect of a huge windfall will quell any lingering doubts about giving the Games to the US. Let's face it, the IOC is selfish. If its members were really that concsious of World Politics, we'd be going to Toronto next year, not Beijing.

As for it being two English speaking countries in a row; I don't think that will even enter the equation. I think apart from the French, who hate the fact that English is the language of globalisation, nobody else is really bothered. In fact, I think I'm right in saying English is incredibly fashionable in a lot of Asian countries at this moment in time. So that could work to America's advanage. And, of course, in terms of the presentations in 2009, it most certainly should work to their advantage!

On the other hand,if Rio manages to get its act together and come up with a convincing bid,then it will be the city to beat in my opinion.Remember that Rio represents the Americas just as much as Chicago and many IOC members are just itching for South America to host its first ever Olympic Games.But it's going to be a big if,I grant you!

You could be right. But I really can't see Brazil coping with both the WC and the SOGs. One or t'other is much more realistic and their focus looks like it'll be the World Cup. If this is the case, I think the path to the Olympics will be quite smooth for Chicago. All of our expectations have been raised after the 2012 race, but I don't think this race will anything like as close, as nasty, or as tense as that Battle Royal.

[Sir Rols]

There will likely always be some who can never resist slapping down 'the Anglo-Saxons' if they feel they are grabbing too much!

With a bit of luck, it might lure Cordelia back to our welcoming locale!

On the other hand,if Rio manages to get its act together and come up with a convincing bid,then it will be the city to beat in my opinion.Remember that Rio represents the Americas just as much as Chicago and many IOC members are just itching for South America to host its first ever Olympic Games.But it's going to be a big if,I grant you!

I agree with you, it's a very big IF, but if they can get their act together they'd have sentiment on their side. Apart from the burden of a WC-Olympics double, they've got the best conduituiions in their favour ever.

Does anyone know which Brazil is leaning more towards, 2016 Olympics or the 2014 World Cup? Do they plan on trying to get both?

My understanding is that Brazil is officially at the administration dragging its heels and humming and hawing before committing to a WC, but it IS their's for the taking. And it would garner extremely strong popular support.

Rio, on the o0ther hand, HAS said it will throw its hat into the ring for 2016, but I don't know if it has gone beyond the city level and received the blessing of the national government yet. As always, with an Olympics, it can always be perceived as a single city thing, rather than a bid for the whole country.

[Sir Rols]

The Stadium will be a tough part to Chicago's bid to sell to the IOC.

Watch the video on this site. It's accompanied with this article.

http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_105183040.html

Well, one thing about the temporary stadium is that it will be a test of whether the IOC's serious about making the Olympics more affordable and within reach of the developing world.

Most of us here at one time or another seeem to indicate we'd love to see the games go to Africa or South America, but most of us also admit that it's a tough ask and irresponsible for such nations to do so when hosting the games is such an expensive task. Even the IOC makes the odd statement about wanting it to go to those places, with the caveat that it can only be done so if the games were made somehow "more manageable".

Well, here's the chance. It's one of the few concrete proposals I've seen that could make the games "more manageable". It makes more sense than dropping a few low profile sports with little expense like Modern Pentathon.

If it's the stadium plan that sinks Chicago's bid in favour of a more expensive, flashier and permanant proposal, what sort of message is the IOC giving to other hopefuls that would like the tgames, but would need to have to do so more cheaply and responsibly?

[Mainad]

I think too much is made of so-called anti-American sentiment. It is a relatively recent and in many ways faddish phenomenon, certainly in its current guise (i.e. backlash against the Iraq invasion) and I'm not sure how deeply it will have penetrated the halls of the IOC. If it does exist within the minds of IOC members, I think the prospect of a huge windfall will quell any lingering doubts about giving the Games to the US. Let's face it, the IOC is selfish. If its members were really that concsious of World Politics, we'd be going to Toronto next year, not Beijing.

Well,I think it may have played a factor in New York only finishing 4th in the contest for 2012,but it's difficult to be sure.You're no doubt right,but I think it is a factor that might have to be taken into consideration depending on what the political outlook is in 2009 is all I am saying.As far as world politics goes,I think that was precisely why Beijing was given 2008 over the much more technically adept bid from Toronto.JAS and many of the IOC members were anxious for the Games to go to China for the first time in history and this played a crucial part in that decision.So I don't think you can discount political considerations at all,although the current IOC president does seem to be a much more unbiased and politically neutral personality than his predecessor.

As for it being two English speaking countries in a row; I don't think that will even enter the equation. I think apart from the French, who hate the fact that English is the language of globalisation, nobody else is really bothered. In fact, I think I'm right in saying English is incredibly fashionable in a lot of Asian countries at this moment in time. So that could work to America's advanage. And, of course, in terms of the presentations in 2009, it most certainly should work to their advantage!

But it may not just be the French.The Russians,Asians,Latin Americans and others may also balk at voting for two 'Anglo-Saxon' cities in a row.Again,you are probably right that it won't be a factor but I think you can never be entirely sure with an organization as unpredictable as the IOC can be.It's just something to look out for in my view.

You could be right. But I really can't see Brazil coping with both the WC and the SOGs. One or t'other is much more realistic and their focus looks like it'll be the World Cup. If this is the case, I think the path to the Olympics will be quite smooth for Chicago. All of our expectations have been raised after the 2012 race, but I don't think this race will anything like as close, as nasty, or as tense as that Battle Royal.

Exactly,which is why I stressed 'if'.Nevertheless,Rio seems to be intent on bidding,so who knows? And whether or not the 2016 race will be a close one or not,I think it is a danger to just assume that Chicago is going to be a shoo-in.IOC history is littered with failed bids from cities who were considered 'shoo-ins'.

[thatsnotmypuppy]

Also into this equation of the Americans 'turn' being 2016 we must ponder the chances of Monterrey. Monterrey could be this Bid cycles Madrid. Mexico's economy is booming, Monterrey is modernising rapidly and their is no question of dubious legacies as a majority of existing venues will be reconfigured and improved upon.

It may end up with Chicago playing Paris to Tokyo's London, with Monterrey the latino spoiler in thier midst.

Mexico is far more realistic an option than Brazil at this point either way.

[Stu]

Well, one thing about the temporary stadium is that it will be a test of whether the IOC's serious about making the Olympics more affordable and within reach of the developing world.

I think the IOC are very serious about making the Games obtainable to Africa and Latin America, however, during the election process they are also obviously swayed by striking architectural legacies - these are expensive and usually permanent.

If anything dissuades the IOC from voting for Chicago it will probably be the fact that Tokyo, or Rio, or somewhere else is offering brand new and awe inspiring architecture and a sustainable legacy - Chicago's plans at the moment don't offer that. Beijing's venues certainly have the giganticist ego boost for the IOC and London is leaving a huge permanent legacy to the area around the Olympic Park.

[Heike]

I think the IOC are very serious about making the Games obtainable to Africa and Latin America, however, during the election process they are also obviously swayed by striking architectural legacies - these are expensive and usually permanent.

If anything dissuades the IOC from voting for Chicago it will probably be the fact that Tokyo, or Rio, or somewhere else is offering brand new and awe inspiring architecture and a sustainable legacy - Chicago's plans at the moment don't offer that. Beijing's venues certainly have the giganticist ego boost for the IOC and London is leaving a huge permanent legacy to the area around the Olympic Park.

Tokyo perhaps will offer brand new architecture; Rio will be lucky if they can offer the PAN AM GAMES on schedule.

[ejaycat]

Mexico's economy is booming, Monterrey is modernising

What??

Last I heard, a good part of Mexico's economy is comprised of remittances being sent back home from Mexicans who work outside of Mexico, the majority of them in the US. If Mexico's economy were booming, there wouldn't be a border debate in the US.

[Guardian]

It is sad, when certain people start resorting to the "language conspiracy" to support one candidate over another. In fact, that can applied to other superficial criteria that some of us sometimes use. I guess trust can only go so far nowadays.

[Mainad]

Any 'flies on the wall' here who were at the vote last Saturday?

Just how close was it? Anyone heard any rumours??

I like to know the numbers and it annoys me when these things are kept secret.Why should the USOC behave differently in this respect than the IOC itself?

[Filipe_Golias]

I like to know the numbers and it annoys me when these things are kept secret.Why should the USOC behave differently in this respect than the IOC itself?

Probably because the "race is not finished yet"? Plus, knowing the numbers would show how much of a support the winning bid had among the USOC, even though they say "it was close" (politically correct?)

[Mainad]

Probably because the "race is not finished yet"? Plus, knowing the numbers would show how much of a support the winning bid had among the USOC, even though they say "it was close" (politically correct?)

But this particular race,the domestic one,is finished! And of course the numbers would show how much support the two bids received...that's what I want to know.And why not? The IOC releases its voting figures at the end of each election,so why can't the USOC? They don't have to pretend it was close if it wasn't.We're all big boys and girls and can face the facts,can't we? What have they got to gain or hide by concealing the details??

[Filipe_Golias]

But this particular race,the domestic one,is finished! And of course the numbers would show how much support the two bids received...that's what I want to know.And why not? The IOC releases its voting figures at the end of each election,so why can't the USOC? They don't have to pretend it was close if it wasn't.We're all big boys and girls and can face the facts,can't we? What have they got to gain or hide by concealing the details??

But after the election there's no problem to reveal them, because nothing except the IOC can take the Games away.

Nevertheless, I agree with you.

[baron-pierreIV]

Any 'flies on the wall' here who were at the vote last Saturday?

Just how close was it? Anyone heard any rumours??

I like to know the numbers and it annoys me when these things are kept secret.Why should the USOC behave differently in this respect than the IOC itself?

WHY do you have to know right away? Will it change things any?

The College of Cardinals, the Nobel Committee or the Hollywood Film Academy don't reveal their votes; why should the USOC?

If the IOC wants to be more open, that's their business. Besides, with some 111 members, the big bid delegations, various hangers-on, etc., it would be difficult to keep those secret.

Ueberroth said it wasn't a landslide; so the vote would've been a 6-5, a 7-4 or max, an 8-3. Would you be able to sleep now, Main? :wink:

[Koolshundle]

You're kind of stretching it with this statement, aren't you? What would they have to do with Olympic bids?

Barack Obama is not an Illinois native; Hillary Clinton is, though, but she now represents New York state.

Barack Obama is Illinois' senator, and has lived here since the mid 80s. My point by this statement is that if either one of them are President in 2009, they would serve as good spokesman's for Chicago, as both have spent a considerable amount of their lifetime their.

Even if it is just a video clip, a popular world leader's support can go a long way.

[Mainad]

WHY do you have to know right away? Will it change things any?

Coz I like to know the details and it will give me a clearer idea of how close or how far LA was from winning the vote!

And I've not asked right away,the vote was last Saturday wasn't it?

The College of Cardinals, the Nobel Committee or the Hollywood Film Academy don't reveal their votes; why should the USOC?

Because the IOC does so and,as owners of the Games,it is they who set the tone for the way Olympic business should be done.Consequently,the USOC and all other NOCs should follow the same tradition and not try to be like the College of Cardinals (who only keep it secret because God doesn't like it to be known which way He votes!).

If the IOC wants to be more open, that's their business. Besides, with some 111 members, the big bid delegations, various hangers-on, etc., it would be difficult to keep those secret.

But the USOC's business is essentially the same as the IOC's.If the one can be open about it,why can't the other?

Ueberroth said it wasn't a landslide; so the vote would've been a 6-5, a 7-4 or max, an 8-3. Would you be able to sleep now, Main? :wink:

Why are we having to guess? Why can't he just tell us? If it was 6-5 for instance,that suggests to me that the vote was tied and Ueberroth must have cast the decider.If it was 8-3,then that is pretty much a landslide by my reckoning,not close at all.

So which is it? Most sporting organizations release the voting figs (eg. the UEFA vote on the 2012 host yesterday).Wouldn't you like to know how many votes presidential candidates receive in the race for the White House or would you just be content to receive a simple announcement that Senator So and So won?

[nykfan845]

Who cares about the votes? All that matters is Chicago won.

[baron-pierreIV]

Why are we having to guess?

Because it's more fun that way!

Ueberroth must have cast the decider.

Not necessarily. He is one of the 11 board members. It's NOT like FIFA. An odd number (11) was purposely set so that there wouldn't have to be a tie-breaker. Altho he is mostly identified with the success fo 1984, I think PU would've voted for Chicago. And IF and WHEN all is revealed, it would be funny if the non-Southern California board members voted for LA; and those with southern CA connections, ended up voting for Chicago!! But it doesn't matter; that's all history now.

[Mainad]

Not necessarily. He is one of the 11 board members. It's NOT like FIFA. An odd number (11) was purposely set so that there wouldn't have to be a tie-breaker. Altho he is mostly identified with the success fo 1984, I think PU would've voted for Chicago. And IF and WHEN all is revealed, it would be funny if the non-Southern California board members voted for LA; and those with southern CA connections, ended up voting for Chicago!!

In that case tell us so we can all have a laugh!!

[baron-pierreIV]

In that case tell us so we can all have a laugh!!

Pssst...you'll have to wait for the Official Chicago/St. Louis 2016 DVD due out in October 2016.