Looks like the Boston 2024 folks are going to be swarming the Boston Marathon on Monday. They’ll be trying to create the impression that any fan of the Marathon also supports Boston 2024’s bid to host the Olympics nine years hence.
And as today’s Globe reports, Boston 2024 has some Marathon-related news that it’s hoping will jump-start their flagging campaign: the winner of last year’s men’s race thinks that it would be a swell idea for Boston to host the Olympics. Boston 2024 COO Erin Murphy gushes at the endorsement:
Meb is universally loved and respected for his achievements and we are so honored to have him be part of this,” Murphy said. The Eritrea-born runner who became a US citizen is so well known, Murphy said, “he’s like Madonna and Cher — he doesn’t even need a last name.”
For those of you who don’t want to be seen as so out of touch that you don’t know Meb’s last name, it’s Keflezighi, and here are his comments in support of Boston 2024:
You need unity of the community, unity of the city, in order to make it happen,” he said. “Somebody will be happy, somebody will be upset, and obviously it cannot satisfy everybody but hopefully we can meet halfway, with commitment and sacrifice in a common goal to make it a reality. Not just for Boston, for America.”
Meb’s hometown is San Diego, so maybe what he means by “meeting halfway” is that the 2024 Olympics will be held in Topeka.
*****
In other Olympics news, the state House of Representatives will soon be debating the budget for the coming fiscal year. In light of the IOC’s practice of requiring that all city transport, airport and billboard advertising be under their control for the duration of the games, some Representatives are concerned that this demand might harm ad revenues that go to the MBTA, Massport and other state agencies with outdoor advertising space. So they have filed an amendment to the budget requiring that Boston 2024 pay market rates for any advertising space it commandeers.
Here is more information on the amendment. There’s still time before the budget debate begins on April 27 for you to ask your State Representative to sign on as a co-sponsor.
Everyone seems to be in agreement that the Olympics will be paid for by private money, so maybe the Boston 2024 folks will also be chatting up this budget amendment when they descend on the Marathon on Monday.
(Cross-posted at hesterprynne.net.)
Meb is “universally loved,” and is so well-known that he doesn’t need a last name? If I asked a random sample of 100 people on the street “Who is Meb,” I doubt that 5 of them would have even the slightest idea. I sure didn’t. It turns out he’s some guy who was in town for a few days last year and now feels qualified to tell us from San Diego what we should be making happen. Maybe he doesn’t need a first name, either.
Their new strategy seems to be rolling out the support of athletes who don’t even live in Boston. I’ve been getting a lot of mileage out of this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUFT35S7Jb4.
I wonder if the amendment will actually get a vote.
What Boston 2024 doesn’t realize is that the Marathon is ONE DAY. The Olympics is multiple weeks–and, by that alone, are far more disruptive.
Boston2024: Hi Meb. Would you like to see the Olympics come to Boston in 2024?
Meb: Yeah, I guess so.
Boston2024: Can we count on you supporting the Olympics in 2024?
Meb: Sure, why not?
Boston2024: Can we quote you on that?
Meb: Okay.
Boston2024: Do you want to make a formal statemet? [pause] We could write one for you if you like? [pause] How about something like, “You need unity of the community, unity of the city, in order to make it happen. Somebody will be happy, somebody will be upset, and obviously it cannot satisfy everybody but hopefully we can meet halfway, with commitment and sacrifice in a common goal to make it a reality. Not just for Boston, for America.”
Meb: Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Boston2024: Great. We’ll just fax you this endorsement sheet. Return it to use when you can. Have a nice day!
Then won’t you hate the fact that the Boston Olympics will not be allowed to use the Boston marathon route?
Likewise if you love the Head of the Charles won’t you be annoyed that the Olympic rowing competitions will not be held on the Charles?
So the two existing yearly international sporting events that take place in Boston will have absolutely not connection with the Olympic version of those events.
Those actually both sound like pretty good ideas.
Just a few weeks ago, we were discussing the rowing events in Lowell. Are you really unaware of why those aren’t in Boston?
The Charles river has too many bridges, too many curves, and isn’t wide enough. Similarly, the Boston Marathon route does not meet Olympic standards. That’s the point hrs_kevin is making.
Given the fervor of your support for the Olympics, it’s surprising that you seem to know so little about what is actually being proposed. Are you similarly unaware of the changes needed for the other events? When you made your accusations of “nimbyism”, were you aware of the footprint, scale and sites being discussed for the soccer stadium or the “Olympic Village”?
Did you not even bother to consider the scale of the various proposals before deriding those of us who oppose them?
I do like the idea of spreading the wealth a bit and having some events in other places, including Lowell. I would like to do this with as little wheel reinventing as possible. I have previously cited, and went as far as to quote since people either didn’t believe me or didn’t want to find it themselves, the bid committee’s website about minimizing impact, using existing facilities, etc. Other than that I believe I’ve made no secret of the fact that my support for the Olympics pretty much is “empty boosterism”. Not being a member of the bid committee I do not feel responsible for anything beyond that. I really don’t think you had to turn a simple question into an attack on me, however.
B2024 will use your endorsement of the Olympic bid as “empty boosterism” in their next ad campaign.
Please dig back to the previous comments about Olympic rowing events in Lowell, which you participated in. Lowell is not currently an acceptable site because the Rourke Bridge has support structures in the water, an IOC no-no that caused B2024 to reject the Charles. So there is a push among many Lowell residents to get the taxpayers of the entire state to not only jump the reconstruction of the Rourke ahead of all other capital projects in the state, but to pay for a far more expensive support-free ridge that would cost far more than the estimated $84 million for a standard bridge with support pillar in the water.
So your “empty boosterism” would cost the taxpayers of Massachusetts in excess of $100 million to replace the Rourke at least ten years in advance of what is currently in state transportation plans. Talk about the tail wagging the dog, but that is what happens when empty boosterism replaces sound transportation planning.
when it was put in 30 years ago. Every 5 years or so, it needs resurfacing, which actually happens about every 10 years. In the later stages of deterioration, vehicles crossing the bridge make a loud drumming noise that’s clearly audible over a half-mile away. It is unknown how many car mirrors the upright supports in the travel lanes have claimed. I saw a couple get wiped out in the days when I had to use the thing. It’s narrow.
There is an ongoing DOT study on replacing the bridge, but I don’t know what configurations they are considering. I think building a permanent bridge that has no supports in the water, instead of a cheaper bridge that does have those supports, just to allow Olympic rowing events, would be a waste of taxpayer money.
I thought I was just told that Lowell was being considered for rowing mostly because Boston locations didn’t meet standards, so I assumed that meant Lowell did. There are plans to replace the bridge anyway I think and the state often funds such projects. As a Lowellian I’m happy to have the state prioritize our needs Olympics or not:)
The point is that NOTHING in the state meets the standards. That’s the point hrs-kevin was making upthread. Not the Charles (even though the Head of the Charles has been held there since 1965). Not the Merrimack in Lowell. Nowhere.
The publicity campaign banks on the fact that residents don’t know that. It’s therefore yet another example of, at best, spin and hand-waving. At worst, it’s downright dishonest.
Which seems to be par for the course for the Boston 2024 effort.
that there is nowhere in the state that would meet the rowing standard. Do the rowing events necessarily have to be held on a river? Can’t they just have it on a sufficiently large lake? Also, don’t forget the Connecticut River. Perhaps there is a stretch somewhere along that river that would fit the bill.
However, the fact that Boston 2024 is proposing sites that would require significant public spending is a clear indication that they have utterly no concern with doing things cheaply if they can dump the cost on the taxpayers and pretend that the work is part of already planned infrastructure projects.
But even then, I don’t think it qualifies. IIRC requirements are:
1) no current
2) no unfair wind advantage
3) 8 lanes
(3) is where Quinsigamond starts to fall down. It’s only 6 lanes (and my recollection is that a couple of the lanes are sheltered from the wind somewhat advantageously). Also, the starting line is right under the Rt290 bridge. It does, however, host the Eastern Sprints every year, so knows how to handle a crowd.
Re Lowell, the Venue Plan for Rowing (around p88) says that ” Preliminary studies on minimizing the river’s flow have shown that appropriate flow is achievable.” The next paragraph goes on to say that the venue has hosted the Masters nationals. Which is true. But, what it doesn’t say is that last year’s Nationals were held with a phenomenal tail current that caused numerous capsizes in the small boats. Personally, I covered the 1km course 30sec faster than usual.
So – if the flow can be minimized, they don’t say how. Other than, perhaps, to pray for a dry spell.
No mention is made of Rourke Bridge, other than some dashed lines.
If Wikipedia can be believed, Atlanta (1996) was the last summer Olympics that used an existing body of water (Lake Lanier, which is actually a reservoir created in 1956). All of the subsequent sites had venues built specifically for rowing. All except London were built specifically for the Olympics.
Rio de Janeiro will use an existing lagoon.
Last year’s World Championships were held in Amsterdam, in a man-made lake that was constructed in 1924, IIRC.
Of course, in Amsterdam, just put a shovel in the ground and you’ll soon hit water 🙂
would seem to have the width for 8 lanes, but I don’t know about the “no current” part. All the college crew teams in the area row on the Connecticut, maybe they race there too. I don’t know.
Or at least, that’s what I take from the proposal floated by UMass’s rowing coach.
I haven’t seen Dietz’s map, so I’m not sure precisely which long flat stretch of “undeveloped land” he’s targeting. But it’s riverfront land, and I have a nasty feeling that what he thinks is a great place for an artificial watercourse is what a whole lot of us out here think is a great place for the wetlands and agricultural uses in place right now.
That there’d be a channel cut to allow the flow around what would become, essentially, a lake.
But, I can’t find any substantiating evidence for this, and per the Venue Plan, the proposed Lowell Venue is considered Temporary – so doing anything so drastic would nix the temporariness of it.
…that all these years later Lowell could get another canal!:)
I often agree with you. I am impressed with your depth of knowledge and insight into certain areas.
I therefore have higher expectations for you when it comes to issues like Boston 2024. It isn’t that I want to attack you, it is instead that I am flabbergasted and frustrated when you fail to perform even lightweight background research before taking strong positions here.
I’m no Olympics supporter, I’m not even a sports supporter, yet I’ve found time to at least skim the Boston 2024 proposals, the standards demanded by the IOC, and that sort of thing. I therefore react with some heat when you choose to do no similar investigation and then accuse ME of NIMBYism because I HAVE done my homework.
I don’t know if call it a “responsibility”, but in my view when any of us comments here we have a community expectation that we will have done at least a little bit of homework in support of positions we take here. Particularly when we take those positions frequently and fervently.
So I ask you to please consider the tone of my response as feedback (even if ineffective) rather than as an “attack”.
I believe the Marathon is supposed to start/end in the Olympic stadium for one thing. I also believe that the route has too much change in elevation.
Not sure what is wrong with the Charles. I think it might have too many bridges and too many turns.
The HotC is a 3 mile event. Curves are OK in a Head race.
The 2k race is a straight shot sprint – the rowing equivalent of a 100m dash. No curves allowed.
The only place on the Charles that could support that would be the basin, with the Mass Ave bridge about mid-way, the finish line being just shy of the BU Boathouse (think Hyatt hotel).
Plus the required fixed starting line and finish line structures (think eminent domain to take space on Mem Drive or the Esplanade).Plus it has to support 8 lanes of racing.
Can’t see that happening….
bridge to have support structures in the water at the spacing of all Charles River bridges, also.
The Boston Marathon is downhill. Not by much, but downhill.
Olympic marathons must meet international marathon rules, which require that the start and finish be less than 13.1 miles from each other as the crow flies, and that the course can’t be downhill.
Fun fact: Boston Marathon record times are not eligible to be considered for general marathon record times for exactly this reason.
us spend tens of millions of dollars to have them elsewhere to meet their specifications, than allowing us to use these well established and internationally prestigious courses.
When I wrote in my diary that I thought we should submit a bid we could be happy with, part of what I think that should include is submitting a bid with our big international courses and telling the IOC to give us special permission to use them or we’ll say no thanks.
…among the most prestigious such races in the country if not the world? It almost seems like we should tell the IOC, “Why don’t you conform to OUR standards,” though that would mean sacrificing the idea of beginning and ending at Olympic Stadium.
..about the “most prestigious” such race in the country.
What they care about are (in equal amounts) are governmental subsidies, revenue from broadcast rights, and perks for their members including (but not limited to) dedicated traffic lanes for IOC officials.
What we’re seeing is little more than vanity politics in support of corporate welfare.
…is contingent upon which route the marathon follows.
I don’t think the IOC wants the hills, and I think they want the marathon to end in whatever spot they want it to end in… not where the marathon ends.
But IMO the host should have all the leeway in making these decisions, so long as the courses meet international standards (which, obviously, the Boston Marathon does).
Somewhere upthread somervilletom says something about doing homework.
Boston Globe article:
IAAF Rules and Regulations:
The Boston Marathon, if my sources and calculations are correct, drops 480 feet over 26.2 miles, which is .35%.
doesn’t meet the international Olympic standards for rowing events, then why have the Olympics in Boston?
It would seem that a reason for siting the Olympics in different cities around the world would be to connect the event in some way to defining aspects of those cities. In Boston’s case, two defining characteristics are its famous marathon and its Head of Charles Regatta. Since neither of those venues meets the Olympic Committee’s standards, then it’s just a case of building a bunch of standardized sports facilities that meet the requisite Olympic specs.
In that case, why not have the Olympic Committee pick one place to host the Olympics permanently, with every event and facility conforming to its standards? That would save a lot of money and the annoying and probably corrupt jostling every four years over where to site the event.
From a practical standpoint, it makes all kinds of sense to have a permanent Olympic site. I cynically expect the IOC would oppose the idea because it would eliminate the huge amounts of cash it currently receives as part of the hosting-bid process. A permanent venue would also eliminate the nationalistic competition for host status, which the Committee may believe increases interest in the Games. If the number of willing host cities continues to dwindle, it may come to pass, but it’s not likely so long as there are still volunteers.
I was just reading that the feasibility study for a potential Paris bid mentions the Champs de Mars as a possible location for beach volleyball.
So I’ve been thinking…the IOC obviously just wants backdrops with recognizable landmarks for TV, why does it matter where in the world this event actually takes place? Just find someplace permanent with nice weather to build the sports arenas to their specifications. Then get our friendly casino moguls from Las Vegas to build the scenery.
[insert city of your choice here!]
they could have the Olympics background be wherever they wanted.
Which, per the Venue plan is multiple laps (12) from Charles St out along the river to Assembly Square & then back on the Cambridge side. Crossing Longfellow Bridge and skirting thru the West and North Ends and out to Seaport district. Before turning back and doing it again.
Total vertical elevation change could be measured with a Ruler. Expect a very boring race with a mass sprint at the end.
Why not leverage the Fitchburg Stage Race course – 10 odd laps around the base of Wachusetts before a final climb to the top. Now, you get lots & lots of people camping out on the roadside to cheer on the riders doing the final climb. Now we’re talking….
But no, a boring, pancake flat venue that is about exciting as watching paint dry.
IMO, of course.
then the IOC should make a special case exemption.
Whether or not they would meet the standards for new events is irrelevant when we’re using the routes and locations for well established, currently used events.
No MLB team would be allowed to build a stadium with Fenway’s Green Monster today, but the MLB doesn’t prohibit us from continuing using it — and if we built a new Fenway, you can bet your bottom dollar that they’d give us a special exemption to rebuild the Green Monster and probably other aspects of the field that makes Fenway, Fenway.
So, I could see why, say, Atlanta or Sidney or Athens or London wouldn’t be allowed to use a course that was like the Boston Marathon or the Head of the Charles, but those races are current, well established, much beloved, internationally famous courses.
Like the exception the MLB gives Fenway, the IOC should be wise enough to do the same for the Head of the Charles course and the Boston Marathon course. They’re the kind of courses that could help sell interest in a Boston Olympics around the world, that would also be something for local fans and to help save costs (particularly in the case of rowing).
And if they aren’t willing to give us an exemption, then they can have the games at Rome or Paris or wherever. No sweat off our back.
… such as the IAAF. They just aren’t going to have an Olympics where someone breaks a world record and, well, it isn’t recognized as an official world record.
Baseball isn’t comparable because there are not fixed dimensions for a baseball stadium.
…as long as the same venue is used by everyone at a given Games, the athletes could be given notice and plan accordingly and it would still be fair. If Boston is chosen in 2017 for 2024 then for example get the word out, “Attention potential 2024 marathon runners – the course to be used in Boston is a steeper grade than you are probably used to, so you might want to start practicing running on a hill.” Such messages should start making the rounds immediately after the city is announced.
and world class athlete already knows to train in a climate and terrain that matches where the performances will be held. When the Olympics were in Mexico City (approximately 8500ft above sea level), they trained either in the city or in other high altitude locations. The same was true for World Cup games in Brazilian heat.
There are two issues here, as has been explained repeatedly: one is the IOC rules, and the second is when competitors in the same event face different physical conditions, such as the wind differences on Quinsigamond.
…is slim to none, particularly in light of the near-total absence of pre-bid research and analysis on the part of Olympics supporters.
The organizational culture of the International Olympics Committee operates on the premise that “what’s yours is mine; what’s mine’s my own”.
This is as good a metaphor for Boston 2024 as any.
…as long as cities feel they need the Olympics more than the Olympics needs a city. Somehow there needs to be a way I think for the bid cities to come together and agree among themselves that they will unite in demanding certain concessions that the IOC will have to adhere to if they want a Games to take place at all.
we could also tell them that we do not want to follow any of the other requirements that they have set forward. We could tell them we will not reserve public roads for the sole use of the Olympics. We could tell them that the government will not agree to pay for cost overruns. We could tell them that we will not turn over local billboards over to the IOC. That would surely result in Boston having absolutely no chance of winning the bid.
Boston 2024 and Marty Walsh want the Olympics for the imagined glory it will bring to Boston and to themselves personally. There will be no glory if we don’t win the bid, so you can fully expect them to continue to contort their positions to give the IOC everything they want while pretending that it really is in the best interest of the public.
As I’ve been saying since the beginning of this process. Our bid organizers haven’t done nearly as much homework as we did in Chicago, and we still lost the bid. And we lost it since our Mayor lied to the community about costs and benefits, and had to pull back nearly every promise regarding both to ensure we remained competitive with the IOC. This then started a viscious death spiral that ended with Chicago getting eliminated first. It looks like the exact same playbook, albeit with different players, has played out in Boston.
Walsh has one smart choice left-submit a Curtatone style ‘F you!’ bid to the IOC and watch it lose. At least that way he can say he lost while trying to preserve Boston’s honor. The way he is doing it now is basically whoring her out like a third daughter to a foreign merchant in the vague hope a marriage proposal arrives. What works in the Old Testament often fails to work in real life…
… You’re all experts on what the IOC wants and/or expects while simultaneously experts on how Boston couldn’t possibly meet these expectations. And, suddenly if ‘Meb’ makes a statement he’s the puppet of the bid committee… My goodness, listen to yourselves. It’s like a bizarro Fox News over here… You’re inventing and propping strawmen to knock down.
You don’t want the Olympics? Fine. Just, be honest with yourselves and the rest of us. Don’t make shit up.
Really petr, I would think you would have more sense. Boston 2024 is trying to use the marathon as part of their feeble PR effort. We are just mocking them. Don’t take this discussion too seriously. We all know that the Olympic marathon route doesn’t matter as a reason whether or not to host the Olympics.
In any case, if Boston 2024 wants to use Meb or any other sports figures in their PR, it seems fair game to question whether their endorsement actually means anything. I agree that it isn’t addressing the central questions of risk/reward that have not been answered by Boston 2024, but I don’t think it is fair to call it a straw man either.
According to this morning’s Morning Edition