Reading minds on Games bids

The leader of the task force evaluating Los Angeles’ Olympic bid sounded like a star-struck tourist.

He admired the bid committee’s passion for its cause, saying “ ... there was not a second we were here that did not remind us of that, and we like that kind of attitude.”

He commended Los Angeles for having “the best in Olympic venues and venue management,” adding: “Like no other U.S. bid city, you have substantial Olympic history and a very good track record. You have institutionalized your desire to host the Games.... You are pros at event management.”

So said Charles Moore on Aug. 26, 2001, about Los Angeles’ proposal to stage the 2012 Games.

That proposal was rejected by the U.S. Olympic Committee two months later, in its first round of cuts.

That’s why it’s foolish to read too much into the praise heaped upon L.A.’s 2016 Olympic bid last week during the visit of a new site selection team. It’s also why supporters of Chicago’s bid shouldn’t get giddy when the team completes its tour there today and its leaders offer similar plaudits.

They’ll gush over Chicago’s heartland location and can-do spirit, and rightly so. Survive a blizzard or two there and you’ll warm to Chicago’s we’re-in-this-together attitude.

They’ll probably speak favorably about images of a compact, lakefront-centered Games, and emphasize the legacy of downtown housing near an enhanced harbor.

But what they say and what they mean aren’t necessarily the same.

In assessing whether Los Angeles or Chicago will fare better against international rivals, the USOC must weigh possible opposition to a third Los Angeles bid against the profits generated in 1932 and 1984, a major feat in each era. It also must decide whether Chicago’s grand visions outweigh Los Angeles’ imperfect but tangible reality.

Whereas only 65% of Chicago’s proposed venues exist, Los Angeles would need to build only a shooting range. Chicago’s eagerness to become a first-time host is a plus, but construction costs have a way of escalating and projects have a way of defying schedules. A scramble to finish a venue could bust budgets and harm the image of the U.S. on the global stage.

Word circulated after Los Angeles’ failed 2012 bid that the USOC had fears about poor air quality and inadequate rail transportation and wanted a new athletes’ village instead of using dorms at USC and UCLA.

There also was speculation that sentiment drove the choice of New York, then a few months removed from the horrors of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, even though its $3.2-billion budget was the largest among the national candidates. In the international ring, New York finished a distant fourth to London.

David Simon, president of LA2012 and a leader of Los Angeles’ 2016 bid, said he never got an explanation for the early elimination: “The process was shrouded in mystery.”

By comparison, he said, this competition “is a fair and transparent process” whose broader criteria allowed Los Angeles to showcase strengths it couldn’t incorporate last time.

“We were able and encouraged to bring in the entire community. In 2012, that didn’t fit neatly into the cubbyholes we had to address,” he said.

If a lack of rail transit hurt Los Angeles’ 2012 bid, it can only help that the system has since expanded, “something the International Olympic Committee loves, coming from a European perspective,” said Rich Perelman, technical director of the 2012 bid and a member of the 2016 committee.

Of the 33 venues, 29 would be accessible by train. The 2012 task force didn’t test public transit, but the 2016 group got a peek by riding the Blue Line from Long Beach to the Pico stop, potentially a popular route during the Games.

Although Chicago’s transit system is far more extensive, Chicago’s overall bid can’t match two striking aspects of Los Angeles’ plan.

By tapping into Hollywood’s creative and technological talent, Los Angeles gained a dash of glamour and the ability to give a contemporary twist to Games staged in “old” venues. The power of technology to attract 18-to-34-year-old males who have recently scorned all things Olympic made a big impression on the selection team last week.

Also novel is that with most venues in place, foreign athletes can train here and keep the Games in the public consciousness long before the first discus is tossed.

Perelman said Frenchman Pierre de Coubertin, credited with reviving the Olympics, talked of a four-year quadrennial of sports, “and no one will put on a four-year buildup like we can. We’re uniquely positioned to support the athletes.

“For us, it’s athletes over architecture. Competition, not construction.”

In summing up the selection team’s visit last week, Bob Ctvrtlik, a USOC vice president, said a bid should be “about the Olympic Games and athletes, not about bricks and mortar.” For once, maybe what he said is what he -- and the USOC -- really meant.

If it is, Los Angeles should prevail.

*

helene.elliott@latimes.com