Saturday afternoon we learned that Chicago will be the USOC nominee for the 2016 Olympics. Why did LA lose???? Let's examine the fucts facts, as reported by the media that may have lead to Chicago's win:
"...Chicago has the compact, athlete-friendly plan that might appeal to International Olympic Committee officials." LA Times
"...Chicago's strength in the campaign against Los Angeles was the novelty factor..." LA Times
"Chicago's bid calls for construction along the city's lakefront, a revitalization plan that was a key factor in the competition and the decision." LA Business Journal
"The U.S. Olympic committee said the financial guarantees were key. It really gave them comfort with Chicago's bid, and then the head of the USOC said, 'You'd have to be a blithering idiot not to make money on the Olympics . . . .'" abc7 Chicago
"The legacy projects, coupled with the guarantees they have offered, I believe gave our board a level of assurance that might have been the differentiation between the cities..." YahooNews
"Chicago, meanwhile, offered a bid that hinges on new facilities, mostly situated around the downtown lakefront and nearby parks.... The lakefront plan repeatedly was mentioned as a key factor." KNX1070
So what did we learn? Next time LA should show a little imagination and build something no matter how wasteful and unnecessary it is.
· FATTEST CITY REPRESENTS OLYMPIC IDEAL [with leather]
· CHICAGOANS SHOULD KEEP TIGHT GRIP ON THEIR WALLETS [Daily Herald]
· L.A. will not host ’16 games [Daily Bruin]
· L.A. Loses 2016 Olympics to Chicago [LABJ]