Friday, August 23, 2002
U.S. bid has IOC in mind
By Vicki Michaelis
USA TODAY
They've studied every angle of every proposed Olympic venue. They've combed through cost projections and environmental-effects studies. They've considered every road, every subway line and every HOV lane.
But in the end, the people charged with evaluating the four U.S. cities vying for the 2012 Summer Olympics must turn to a marketing conundrum: deciding what the International Olympic Committee members, more than 100 of widely varying cultural and social backgrounds, really want.
“I would say this is a very imprecise thing,” evaluation team leader Charles Moore says.
Is it a no-muss, no-fuss Olympics in Houston? A compelling post-Sept. 11 story line in New York? A grand showcase in the nation's capital? The memorable vistas and cool weather of San Francisco?
U.S. IOC member Anita DeFrantz says, “It is a combination of so many intangibles that it can't be predicted.”
The 13 evaluation team members will wrap up a process that has gone from niggling over numbers to a vague notion at a Tuesday meeting in Chicago. They will declare two winners, two cities to be put to a U.S. Olympic Committee vote in November.
Insiders' best guesses have Houston out, New York in and San Francisco and Washington battling for the second spot.
“It depends on who you listen to or hear from,” Anne Cribbs, head of San Francisco's bid, says of handicapping the results. “I've heard all sorts of combinations.”
The winner of the November vote will compete against such cities as Paris, Toronto and Rome for the IOC's nod in 2005.
All four U.S. contenders have survived one cut already. All have made alterations and assurances to quiet the evaluators'concerns. As a result, all have up-to-par plans for such key technical issues as transportation and security.
“I think we probably have the four best cities, technical-bid wise, in the world,” Moore says. “But that's not the issue. The issue is what's going to get elected.”
To help pinpoint that, Moore has sought input from U.S. IOC members and various officials at the USOC. He and his team have done an analysis of such things as each city's diversity and marketability to top Olympic sponsors.
Team members also have scored each city based on three categories, assigned a value:
— 54 percent for the IOC's criteria for evaluating bid cities, which range from infrastructure to accommodations to government support.
— 31 percent for a category Moore calls “extra to win.” This includes how the cities plan to promote themselves internationally and their plan for the Paralympics.
— 15 percent for the individual city's financial stability. Team members appraised each city's ability to afford the hundreds of millions of dollars that will be spent.
Tuesday, the scores will be compiled in a way that pits the four cities against one another. Until now, the cities have been measured only against a standard.
The cities, meanwhile, have measured themselves against others the IOC already has chosen as Olympic hosts, using those comparisons to puff their appeal.
Houston, considered a long shot because it ranks relatively low on the international recognition scale, is touting a similarity to 2000 host Sydney and a difference from 2004 host Athens. Like Sydney, Houston has a compact venue plan centered onan Olympic park. Unlike Athens, Houston has few venues and roads to build.
“In 2005, the IOC is going to want a break, basically. They'll be looking for the city that they know can host it,” says Susan Bandy, president of Houston 2012.
In the last year, both San Francisco and Washington have changed their proposals to bring the venues closer together and use more existing facilities.
Dan Knise, head of the Washington bid, says that with temporary venues and an Olympic stadium that can be easily converted for use as a soccer and track and field facility, the city can avoid a mistake Sydney made: leaving white elephants behind when the Olympics pull out of town.
New York, criticized for an expansive plan that projects nearly $1 billion in Olympic-specific costs and more than $4 billion overall, is pointing to the reincarnation projects undertaken in both Athens and 2008 host Beijing.
“The IOC has clearly demonstrated a preference for cities that have transformed themselves as a result of the Olympics,” NYC2012 President Dan Doctoroff says.
Others would argue the IOC's whims are not so clear. Let the tea leaf reading begin.
Sports Stories
At training camp, competition and camaraderie forge a team
Bengals training camp by the numbers
Farmer returns, hamstring and all
Grass-roots effort working well at Paul Brown Stadium
He's the one who brings bad news
Chargers 31, Rams 10
Rams fullback fractures left foot in preseason game
Edgewood wins opener
Badin crushes Wyoming
Kentucky football preview
This week's football preview
Prep football schedule
Kentucky boys soccer preview
Kentucky girls soccer preview
Ohio girls soccer preview
Turpin seeking 3-peat in D-II
Boys golf results
Girls golf results
Girls tennis results
Soccer results
Coaches, call us
D'Backs 6, Reds 3
Reds Box, Runs
Sullivan OK, itching to pitch
It's make-or-break time for Reds
Reds at Astros series preview
Labor talks moving slowly
Fox's Goren on strike: 'A deal to be made.'
Astros 9, Cubs 1
Cardinals 5, Pirates 4
Phillies 7, Brewers 0
Astros bolster bullpen with Flash Gordon
Toledo 6, Louisville 4
DAUGHERTY: That buzz you hear is UC's QB
U.S. bid has IOC in mind
