Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
No, it's not. The bid committee had its own unique challenges for size, scope, number of events, infrastructure upgrades, and IOC demands.
The same situation applies with the 2026 bid, even if the amount of dollars involved and the priorities have shifted.
It's not invoking "emotional bait" unless you're talking about making the sell based on feelie touchies which you seem to think is happening. There is far more to it than that.
This is a chance to building new, upgrade, and take advantage of facilities that have served 30 years to the Calgary public and, with another Olympics in tow, can continue to serve Calgarians for another 30 years with the right level of investment from multiple parties.
The 1988 Olympics will always be inextricably tied to this 2026 bid, but is that a bad thing since those games were considered a success? It would be far more of a fallacy to try and sell the Greece or Brazil games as "success", which this isn't.
|
Look, there's no point to going back and forth anymore. The question that never gets answered by Olympic supporters that basically proves it's not worth it, in any way, is the following:
"If the benefits of hosting the Olympics were as plentiful as it's supporters think, why are fewer cities bidding? Why aren't cities tripping over themselves to bid?"
Because you know it's not worth it, I know it's not worth it, we all know it's not worth it. But the party is pretty sweet (albeit not affordable for the vast majority of the city). The big disgrace in all of this is doing infrastructure improvements for the benefit of citizens is not a good enough reason. Hoping to lure the corrupt IOC? Let's light that money on fire ASAP. Just disgusting, and I'd like to hope even Olympic supporters can acknowledge that.