In the aftermath of Chicago’s shocking first-round exit in Friday’s Olympic bid announcement, the prevailing theory — at least from what I’ve seen and read — is that it was some sort of anti-American bias. Sure, Barack Obama was there, and his brand is a friendlier one to nations far and wide than the last regime’s, but wounds apparently still run deep for some IOC members. (Jerry Calangelo is the latest one to say Chicago had the goods, but anti-American sentiment was the reason for our downfall.)

But is this theory wrong? I mean, there’s no way to really know this. It’s just speculation, even if it’s educated speculation, right? Well, Alan Abrahamson has a much more convincing argument for why Chicago lost the bid, one that makes more sense. Essentially, the USOC is a mess. They’ve gone through several leaders the last few years — which was a concern that was voiced early on during Chicago’s try for the games — and according to Darren Rovell, now that CEO Stephanie Streeter is out (bid fallout?), the USOC is searching for its sixth CEO since 2000. That’s just not stable leadership.

But it’s not really the actual leadership of the USOC that’s as much of an issue. It’s forging deep relationships with members of the IOC, something nearly impossible to do with so much change at the top this decade. And not only that, but Mike Lee, the British strategist that helped bring the 2012 Games to London and was a key part of Rio’s winning bid, knew Chicago didn’t stand a chance in Copenhagen. The Rio team knew they would win, and knew they would face-off against Madrid in the final round. They predicted they’d have more than 65 votes. They ended up with 66. So why were they so accurate in their prediction and America was so embarrassingly off?

Keep reading →

With today’s not-all-that-surprising announcement that Chicago is not in any way fit to host a major world event, one city celebrates victoriously while another celebrates spitefully and righteously. But who, really, face any kind of consequence from all this Olympian hoopla? Let’s take a look.

WINNERS

Rio de Janeiro. Obviously.

People who like campy, ironic t-shirts. As I type this, Daley Plaza is littered with discarded and leftover Chicago 2016 apparel from this morning’s rally. Can you imagine how funny those shirts will be seven years from now? They’re comedic gold just waiting to happen, right up there with Dukakis ‘88 bumper stickers and 103.5 - The Blaze! keychains.

People who use the CTA. Red, Brown and Blue Line riders, I want you to think for a moment about riding the L during your line’s last major reconstruction (or, for those on the West Side, what’s going on now). Now imagine that’s happening to the entire system. At once. All the time. For seven years. Breathe a sigh of relief, people.

History buffs and outdoorsy types. Besides being a fantastic space in its own right, Washington Park is also listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Go check it out - because you still can. And you always could.

Keep reading →

Most people thought Chicago was the favorite to land the 2016 Olympics bid. That was a fair prediction. But psychics are supposed to different. They’re not supposed to analyze real-world data and make a supported, educated guess based on all the information available to them. They’re supposed to know. Intuitively. This is their profession. And so when they get things wrong, I feel responsible for their accountability. Because if we stop holding our psychic advisers accountable, we’re no better than the apes.

Sorry guys, but this is for your own good:

But what do psychics have to say? What’s their read? Two of three contacted by the Tribune felt Chicago was the likely choice, but one laid it on the line and predicted Rio de Janeiro would wind up the host city. “I immediately knew it was Rio,” said Aria Norman, who calls herself a “psychic evolutionist.”

Two of you fail. Aria Norman, you did much better. Congrats! All three of you are still gigantic frauds, probably. Really, when we’re discussing what psychics thought about a miserably failed Olympic bid that’s not going to happen now, everyone loses, including me. Also including: the city of Chicago. Stupid big IOC jerks.

I don’t believe in curses. So what I’ll say here is that this sort of sign at Daley Plaza today is not a curse, but rather a fitting testament to the mood of the day:

There were also a few Cubs “W” signs in the crowd. Cubs suffer from early elimination the last two years, when they were expected to go farther. Chicago gets bounced in the first round of Olympic voting, when it was expected to go farther.

You know, it just fits.

Photo via the Trib.

Those hoping Chicago was going to host the 2016 Olympic Summer Games just got a rude awakening a few minute ago: Our fair city was the first one voted out today by the IOC. It’s a bit shocking, considering many considered Chicago and Rio to be the favorites. It was supposed to come down to the United States and Brazil. Instead, Chicago went first, followed by Tokyo.

So what’s the deal here? Why, when it seemed like Chicago would at least be in the final two, did we get bounced out first?

I just had SportsCenter on, and ESPN’s Bob Holtzman is reporting live from the Daley Plaza, where there’s a bunch of sad Chicagoans standing at the rally now. His take?

The way America’s been perceived around the world over the past few years, this would not have even been possible. So the fact that Barack Obama had gone there and had gotten involved … you don’t know exactly what Olympic voters are thinking, but you can bet if Chicago was the one to get the least number of votes in the first round, there almost had to have been some voters from other countries that simply were not going to vote for an American city at this point.

A humbling statement, indeed.

As previously blockquoted on this blog, Michael Jordan decided not to make the trip to Copenhagen to back Chicago’s Olympic bid. Oh well. Barack Obama will be there Friday, as will Oprah. That’s quite the duo, rivaled in persuasiveness only by Jeremy Grey and John Beckwith. (Did I just drop an out-of-date and weak “Wedding Crashers” reference? I did.)

One former star athlete that did make the trip to Copenhagen? Pele. At first glance, you would think Rio only brought Pele around to combat the one-namedness of Oprah, but this is not true. In fact, Pele just loves his country of Brazil so damn much, he told reporters this yesterday, in response to questions about Jordan not making the trip:

“It is important to participate when your country needs you,” Pele said at a Rio press conference Wednesday morning.

“If I have to die for my country, I would die for my country,” Pele said. “If I have to die for my sport, I would die for my sport. I feel very happy if I can help my country.”

SNAP. Is Pele trying to tell us Jordan doesn’t love America? Or is he simply being classy and answering the question in regards to his own self, thereby not taking a direct swipe at Jordan, as the Trib post indicates?

It’s a bit of both. Therefore, I suggest both parties settle this quarrel on the basketball court. You may say Jordan has the clear advantage, but what if I told no hands were allowed?

The adage is clear as a bell. Everyone obeys it most of the time. Sports are a politics-free zone. Leave your views at the door and just discuss the games. And so on. I hear it all the time, and while I don’t always necessarily agree — sports are politics all too frequently, and failing to discuss the important political stuff underlying the games ends up dumbing us all down even further — I hear you, loud and clear. You don’t care about my political views. Fine.

But then the Olympics come around, and every sportswriter in the world gets to throw off their binding political code of silence and just wing it. Got some stored up political knowledge you’d like to espouse? Haven’t started your own HuffPo blog yet? Have at it, hoss!

Today’s candidate is Kevin Blackistone, who, in writing about President Obama’s decision to go to Copenhagen to stump for the 2016 Chicago Olympics, manages to make two types of mistake. He makes the one almost all sportswriters make when they talk about politics (being sort of dumb about the enterprise generally, which is excusable, since it’s not his job, but then if it’s not his job why is he writing this column anyway) and the one political writers make when they write about politics (writing about the process itself, instead of the policy). No easy feat, this, but Blackistone covers all the bases:

A two-week international sports spectacle seven years from now makes about as much sense being on the president’s agenda at this moment as timeout for tiddlywinks.

Hey, I kind of agree with that! Now tell me why.

Keep reading →