[Robo]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses I shouldn't have to point out that NYC at least made it to the 2nd round, unlike Chicago, so that right there kind of suggests that NYC was at least as strong, and arguably a stronger candidate.

We're up against different countries each time, so I'm not sure if you can say that...and even if you wanted to, we came in fourth place both times. Our rank was the same; 2016 just had fewer candidates. If 2016 had a shortlist of five candidates, I'm sure we would have beat out Doha, Qatar. Your point?

Originally Posted by BU Also, despite their 4th place ranking, I don't think anyone honestly didn't think Rio was the frontrunner here so it really doesn't matter if London/Madrid were considered frontrunners for 2012.

I thought it was between Rio and Chicago, with Rio sort of being the dark horse. I wouldn't have ever said that Rio was a clear favorite like Paris was in 2012, though. That's just crazy talk. I heard again and again that 2016 was "Chicago's games to lose." I don't think you could have found anybody saying that about NYC2012. I mean, seriously, did you work for that bid or something? You're like the only person I've ever met that honestly thought that 2012 wasn't a London-Paris rivalry.

Originally Posted by BU I'm also aware of Denver's history with the IOC. It doesn't negate its (and Colorado's) importance and rank in the world of winter sports.

And Denver's importance and rank in the world of winter sports doesn't negate its history with the IOC. Again, your point is...? I'm confused. You're aware of that history, but you're ignoring it? Bids for the Olympics can cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The USOC will not put that behind a candidate with a history like Denver's, I'm sorry. I'm not attached to Lake Placid, by any means. You could make an argument for basically everywhere else...except Denver. It's just not going to happen (especially not for the 50th anniversary of the 1976 Games ).

If you're disagreeing just to disagree, then count me out. I'm not interested.