There's a lot of he said/she said in regards to the aftermath of the 2016 vote. A lot of the venom seems to be directed at the USOC. Sure, I will agree they have a part in this but I am not so sure it is all their fault. Blame must be shared here-for the US taking a bid to Copenhagen they had no chance of winning by all accounts. You've heard of wrongful hiring? I am coining a new term-wrongful bidding.
First off I blame Charlie Battle. He was the consultant to Chicago's people. This is the second bid (besides NYC's) that he's sent down the tubes. Sure he had a success with ACOG-but (and this is a huge but), that was in 1996. A lot has changed on the Olympic scene since then. From all accounts, Chicago 2016 management hired him directly, and not upon recomendation of the USOC.
Faulted info that sending the Obama's to Copenhagen would seal the deal. Who exactly told Chicago this? Whomever it was, they need to be fired. Going to war with faulty info is a sure way to lose.
Potential conflicts of interest between members of Chicago 2016 and possible venue sites that were not disclosed to the IOC.
You have to wonder what the other US cities that were competing with Chicago to be the official US bid have to be thinking now. Would the result have been different if it was any other city but them? We'll never know-but I will bet that we would have walked away with a lot more than 18 votes and not knocked out in the first round.
I am not entirely convinced that the USOC is the bad guy here. Sure, they hold some responsibility for the debacle but it is not entirely their fault. I would have to see more evidence than just vague accusations of "they didn't develop relationships with the IOC" or "they are more focused on Vancouver." Yadda Yadda Yadda.
Everybody calm the heck down. Come back when you can be rational and give me a better reason than what has been written out there about why Chicago didn't make it.
Then and only then we can build on the future-which might include a winning Winter or Summer bid.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
Let the blames begin
Wow, none of us saw that coming. The low vote count for Chicago. I knew they would go out in the first round of voting. I just didn't know how bad it would get.
It was clear that the majority of those that voted for Chicago and then Tokyo threw their votes to Rio. Madrid wasn't even close. I just got an email from a friend of mine who said she thought the vote "had more to do with the USOC than Chicago specifically." True the USOC is in crisis. But Chicago has only themselves to blame. Close to 50 percent of citizens against the bid is pretty high numbers. The IOC doesn't like that.
Sure, the USOC has some part in this. But and this is a big but, the eventual blame for the loss rests with Chicago. $100 million spent on the bid-gone forever. Their over-the-top presentation versus Rio's quiet confidence is what I am hearing sealed the deal.
Let this be a lesson to future US bid cities. Get your house in order-before the IOC tells you to.
Otherewise as we saw today, the results will get ugly.
It was clear that the majority of those that voted for Chicago and then Tokyo threw their votes to Rio. Madrid wasn't even close. I just got an email from a friend of mine who said she thought the vote "had more to do with the USOC than Chicago specifically." True the USOC is in crisis. But Chicago has only themselves to blame. Close to 50 percent of citizens against the bid is pretty high numbers. The IOC doesn't like that.
Sure, the USOC has some part in this. But and this is a big but, the eventual blame for the loss rests with Chicago. $100 million spent on the bid-gone forever. Their over-the-top presentation versus Rio's quiet confidence is what I am hearing sealed the deal.
Let this be a lesson to future US bid cities. Get your house in order-before the IOC tells you to.
Otherewise as we saw today, the results will get ugly.
Too painful to watch
I am cringing....some notes on the first 20 minutes of Chicago's presentation.
Could someone tell me what U2 has to do with the city of Chicago? How about a musical act native to the city?
Pat Ryan and Mayor Daley have made major diction gaffes, which in turn has made the presntation quite stiff and unwatchable.
The "Blues" video at the beginning-disjointed.
The second video shown-had a weird ending that caught Pat Ryan by surprise.
Michelle Obama's yellow dress-inappropriate for such a high-stakes presentation. (Some of the men look like they just rolled out of bed-comb your hair, please!)
I've seen enough-good night.
Could someone tell me what U2 has to do with the city of Chicago? How about a musical act native to the city?
Pat Ryan and Mayor Daley have made major diction gaffes, which in turn has made the presntation quite stiff and unwatchable.
The "Blues" video at the beginning-disjointed.
The second video shown-had a weird ending that caught Pat Ryan by surprise.
Michelle Obama's yellow dress-inappropriate for such a high-stakes presentation. (Some of the men look like they just rolled out of bed-comb your hair, please!)
I've seen enough-good night.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
War of the words
Rio versus Madrid.
America's superiority.
Who's out in the first round.
Who isn't.
Someone asked me how can one still be plugged in to what is going on if you aren't there? Simple-my friends are there. I got an email from one of them last night.
We all have our favorites, and I think it is a given that it could go any way. What mistake I think we *all* are making (I am guilty of it as anyone else) is saying who goes out in the first round. I still stand on my prediction of Chicago, it not in the first round, at least by the second. The impression I am gettting is that the appearances of Oprah, Michelle and Barack can be summed up in three words: not too cool.
Of course you will have the droolers who think they can do no wrong and write about it as such. As I wrote before, you will never find a bigger supporter of the President than me. But this is one time he needs to sit put in DC and let the IOC do it's job, without outside interference.
One thing is for sure-the vote will be close. And I think each bid city has one factor that could possibly take votes from them. No one is perfect, BUT it is the severity of therse factors that could determine the vote.
Chicago: crime
Rio: crime
Madrid: Interference by former IOC President Samaranch
Tokyo: Hosted previous Olympics.
Now if you were an IOC voter, who in the above would you vote for? I have a strong message for the folks trying to take down Tokyo, you will be embarassed as hell if they win, and if they don't how close the vote will be for them if it is a two city race that has/had only one vote separating them and whoever the eventual host city is. But I stand on my prediction: Tokyo wins it all.
Then the uppity war of the words will have come to an end-for another two years, until we meet in South Africa.
America's superiority.
Who's out in the first round.
Who isn't.
Someone asked me how can one still be plugged in to what is going on if you aren't there? Simple-my friends are there. I got an email from one of them last night.
We all have our favorites, and I think it is a given that it could go any way. What mistake I think we *all* are making (I am guilty of it as anyone else) is saying who goes out in the first round. I still stand on my prediction of Chicago, it not in the first round, at least by the second. The impression I am gettting is that the appearances of Oprah, Michelle and Barack can be summed up in three words: not too cool.
Of course you will have the droolers who think they can do no wrong and write about it as such. As I wrote before, you will never find a bigger supporter of the President than me. But this is one time he needs to sit put in DC and let the IOC do it's job, without outside interference.
One thing is for sure-the vote will be close. And I think each bid city has one factor that could possibly take votes from them. No one is perfect, BUT it is the severity of therse factors that could determine the vote.
Chicago: crime
Rio: crime
Madrid: Interference by former IOC President Samaranch
Tokyo: Hosted previous Olympics.
Now if you were an IOC voter, who in the above would you vote for? I have a strong message for the folks trying to take down Tokyo, you will be embarassed as hell if they win, and if they don't how close the vote will be for them if it is a two city race that has/had only one vote separating them and whoever the eventual host city is. But I stand on my prediction: Tokyo wins it all.
Then the uppity war of the words will have come to an end-for another two years, until we meet in South Africa.
Monday, September 28, 2009
How the vote will go down
Winner: Tokyo
Rio: one vote separating Tokyo and Rio (could even see a tie vote)
Madrid: out in second round
Chicago: out in first round
My prediction: 3 rounds of voting IF Madrid picks up extra votes from a change of mind of those possibly planning to vote for Chicago. If that doesn't happen, Chicago and/or Madrid don't get enough votes for all four to force a second ballot of all bids.
Or you could see a 2008-vote type situation with Chicago and Madrid going out on the first ballot and a second vote to decide between Tokyo and Rio.
What would be a surprise: a decision on the first ballot which is not likely.
Prediction: the appearance of President Obama blows up in Chicago's face-and those IOC members who think the appearance of the President as meddling (there are some) throw their votes to one of the other three cities.
I stand on it.
Rio: one vote separating Tokyo and Rio (could even see a tie vote)
Madrid: out in second round
Chicago: out in first round
My prediction: 3 rounds of voting IF Madrid picks up extra votes from a change of mind of those possibly planning to vote for Chicago. If that doesn't happen, Chicago and/or Madrid don't get enough votes for all four to force a second ballot of all bids.
Or you could see a 2008-vote type situation with Chicago and Madrid going out on the first ballot and a second vote to decide between Tokyo and Rio.
What would be a surprise: a decision on the first ballot which is not likely.
Prediction: the appearance of President Obama blows up in Chicago's face-and those IOC members who think the appearance of the President as meddling (there are some) throw their votes to one of the other three cities.
I stand on it.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Copenhagen cool-and the eyes and ears
Sadly, I won't be in Copenhagen (due to some family issues.) Family first-above all else. You only have one set of relatives-there will be other IOC meetings. But that doesn't mean my presence won't be there. My "eyes and ears" will be there.
I think it is quite interesting that some other writers who have been so hot on the Chicago bid are now backing off. Sorry guys...I have called it from the beginning that Chicago will lose-and lose big, possibly in the first round of voting. And even if President Obama shows up in Copenhagen, it won't make one bit of difference. I recall what a senior IOC member said to me many years ago: "We aren't impressed by celebrity. What impresses us is a good bid plan and the resources to back it up. We don't want to have to possibly bail you out if you get into difficulties."
What concerns me now is that the murder rate (especially among minors) in Chicago is the highest it's ever been. Also, the city has had random days off for non-essential municipal staff in order to save money on a projected $500 million dollar deficit. Is this a city that should be bidding? No way.
OK to review-20 reasons, expounded on my 10 original reasons Chicago will come home empty:
1. City deficit-$500 million and no end in sight.
2. Snotty treatment by Chicago 2016 of press-and evasive answers when they do decide to talk. We aren't stupid.
3. Sky-high murder rate.
4. Embracement by some members of the IOC to No Games Chicago-some are listening to their concerns-and they are valid.
5. A mayor that has continued the city's business model of "politics as usual"-a legacy that has been around since the original Mayor Daley.
6. The city's legacy of human rights abuses-anyone remember 1968?
7. The belief in the non-existant "Oprah" factor-the IOC really doesn't give a damm who she is (and this issue has come up before.)
8. Lawsuit settlements in the millions to citizens victimised by corrupt cops.
9. The presence of Michelle Obama in Copenhagen. You will never find a bigger supporter of the President than me-but this is one time he and his wife need to butt out.
10. Possible tax considerations. Montreal was paying off their debt for close to 30 years and folks in Chicago don't want that to happen there.
11. Chicago 2016 refusing to acknowledge opposition to the bid by neighborhood activists and community groups.
12. Possible displacement of affordable housing for venue construction.
13. Lack of legacy plans for venues-many white elephants on the table.
14. Questionable amounts of salaries being paid to bid officials. It's offensive in this economy-and not the smartest use of budgeting.
15. The "we can't lose" mentality of the bid committee. Oh yes you can-and will.
16. Poor international relations people working for them. Not qualified-and you know who you are. I have your business card on my desk right now.
17. Your bid team's uppity attitude at Sport Accord. If you want a major international event such as the Olympics, you have to embrace all people and cultures.
18. Possible environmental issues for the Chicago waterfront-and no plans to preserve that area.
19. Poor and/or non-existant response to basic emails and inquries. You clearly have something to hide-and I told you as much in Denver.
20. Making stupid mistakes all around-but stupid is as stupid does. You only have yourselves to blame.
Besides, keep up what you are doing-Tokyo will love you for it.
I think it is quite interesting that some other writers who have been so hot on the Chicago bid are now backing off. Sorry guys...I have called it from the beginning that Chicago will lose-and lose big, possibly in the first round of voting. And even if President Obama shows up in Copenhagen, it won't make one bit of difference. I recall what a senior IOC member said to me many years ago: "We aren't impressed by celebrity. What impresses us is a good bid plan and the resources to back it up. We don't want to have to possibly bail you out if you get into difficulties."
What concerns me now is that the murder rate (especially among minors) in Chicago is the highest it's ever been. Also, the city has had random days off for non-essential municipal staff in order to save money on a projected $500 million dollar deficit. Is this a city that should be bidding? No way.
OK to review-20 reasons, expounded on my 10 original reasons Chicago will come home empty:
1. City deficit-$500 million and no end in sight.
2. Snotty treatment by Chicago 2016 of press-and evasive answers when they do decide to talk. We aren't stupid.
3. Sky-high murder rate.
4. Embracement by some members of the IOC to No Games Chicago-some are listening to their concerns-and they are valid.
5. A mayor that has continued the city's business model of "politics as usual"-a legacy that has been around since the original Mayor Daley.
6. The city's legacy of human rights abuses-anyone remember 1968?
7. The belief in the non-existant "Oprah" factor-the IOC really doesn't give a damm who she is (and this issue has come up before.)
8. Lawsuit settlements in the millions to citizens victimised by corrupt cops.
9. The presence of Michelle Obama in Copenhagen. You will never find a bigger supporter of the President than me-but this is one time he and his wife need to butt out.
10. Possible tax considerations. Montreal was paying off their debt for close to 30 years and folks in Chicago don't want that to happen there.
11. Chicago 2016 refusing to acknowledge opposition to the bid by neighborhood activists and community groups.
12. Possible displacement of affordable housing for venue construction.
13. Lack of legacy plans for venues-many white elephants on the table.
14. Questionable amounts of salaries being paid to bid officials. It's offensive in this economy-and not the smartest use of budgeting.
15. The "we can't lose" mentality of the bid committee. Oh yes you can-and will.
16. Poor international relations people working for them. Not qualified-and you know who you are. I have your business card on my desk right now.
17. Your bid team's uppity attitude at Sport Accord. If you want a major international event such as the Olympics, you have to embrace all people and cultures.
18. Possible environmental issues for the Chicago waterfront-and no plans to preserve that area.
19. Poor and/or non-existant response to basic emails and inquries. You clearly have something to hide-and I told you as much in Denver.
20. Making stupid mistakes all around-but stupid is as stupid does. You only have yourselves to blame.
Besides, keep up what you are doing-Tokyo will love you for it.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Cheating ends January 1st
Suits. Yes, those suits. The ones that were worn at the recent FINA championships in Rome where swimmers broke all sorts of records. And guess who was complaining about them? Yup. Bong Boy.
Ironcially, he didn't get upset until he was beat in a race and had to settle for second place. But it was Phelps who lobbied for FINA to include the suits in the first place.
Pot.Kettle.Black.
I think we have a narrow-minded view of what cheating is. It's not all doping. I am just as guilty of a narrow-minded view as anyone out there. We're so busy worrying about the latest positive dope test, that other things have come down the pike position and blindsided us.
It's the swimming equivelent of Barry Bonds-well, almost. And it was nipped in the bud before the next Olympics.
As to the records set in Rome? Simple: toss 'em out-along with the swimmers who decided to have a bit of high-tech help in their arsenal, to the detrement of the others who competed clean.
Give me Mark Spitz in his Speedos any old day.
Ironcially, he didn't get upset until he was beat in a race and had to settle for second place. But it was Phelps who lobbied for FINA to include the suits in the first place.
Pot.Kettle.Black.
I think we have a narrow-minded view of what cheating is. It's not all doping. I am just as guilty of a narrow-minded view as anyone out there. We're so busy worrying about the latest positive dope test, that other things have come down the pike position and blindsided us.
It's the swimming equivelent of Barry Bonds-well, almost. And it was nipped in the bud before the next Olympics.
As to the records set in Rome? Simple: toss 'em out-along with the swimmers who decided to have a bit of high-tech help in their arsenal, to the detrement of the others who competed clean.
Give me Mark Spitz in his Speedos any old day.