Cheerleaders should not judge Olympic bid
Most of us have done it. Halfway through a movie or concert, we’ve concluded it’s total pap and we should never have bothered.
Yet how many of us walk out of the theatre? Not many, because we tell ourselves so much time and money is already invested, we might as well see the darn thing through.
Cognitive psychologists might call it loss aversion: the all-too-human tendency to prefer avoiding losses than acquiring equivalent gains.
Us simpler folk would understand it as a reluctance to admit you were wrong, which is why I’m hanging onto those $10 shares now trading for pennies in a vain hope of being proven right.
Which makes nonsensical the argument Calgary must move ahead toward a bid for the 2026 Winter Olympics because we’ve already spent about $6 million, along with oodles of time.
What’s gone is gone. That money and those hours of past discussion are not coming back. They are irrelevant to any current decision on whether we should spend money and time from this point onward pursuing a bid.
Yet not surprisingly — our city council being made up of humans, despite what some might believe — last week’s vote on whether to continue on the Olympic trail ended with a majority wanting to proceed.
That’s not to say the decision was intrinsically wrong, but to invoke the flawed logic, as some did — that we’ve gone this far so we should continue — is daft.
Continue with that reasoning and there’s no stopping this Olympic-bid bus whatever its actual merits. After all, soon enough we’ll have spent $30 million checking out a potential bid. So why would we end it there?
What a bid committee needs are a few cynics and skeptics.
By that same reasoning, we have to proceed, otherwise we’ve wasted $30 million. And maybe, down the road, if awarded the 2026 Games and the cost doubles from an initial $4.6 billion then, by golly, we can’t stop now, can we?
Similar illogical thinking in this “should we bid” process comes from those who merrily claim we’ll be getting money from the feds and province if we proceed. Could any of these folk be among those who habitually whine that Ottawa sends too many of our tax dollars to Quebec under the equalization formula, or that the Notley government is threatening our future with its drunken-sailor spending ?
Yes, it’s tax time, and if you look at those seemingly endless forms, eventually you’ll notice what you paid or owe is actually not going to the City of Calgary. It’s going to Ottawa and Edmonton. So getting money from those two outfits toward the cost of hosting the Olympics isn’t akin to winning the lottery on a ticket you didn’t even buy. It’s still a big chunk of our money at stake.
Avoiding this herd-like thinking is vital if those sitting on the latest bid subcommittee are going to make a reasoned decision. That won’t be easy, because the pressure will be intense to recommend giving a Games go-ahead. If you’re looking for this promised neutrality, then consider Geneva for a summer vacation.
All presentations and reports will undoubtedly portray the Games positively, not because the process is fixed, but because, when we look ahead, we always do so with a best-case scenario in mind. Anyone budgeting for major home renovations knows how that ends up.
Will anyone actually reel off a depressing list comparing what the last few Olympics and the ones now on deck cost compared to what was first mooted?
Will anyone seriously question the International Olympic Committee’s announcement that the aging Saddledome will be perfectly good for hockey and figure skating by 2026?
And can anyone, other than a reincarnated Nostradamus, have the remotest idea about future security costs in a world getting crazier by the day?
We’ll err on the side of optimism and plan for perfection. Yet what any bid committee needs are a few cynics and skeptics — maybe we should invite those rare Calgarians who actually do walk out when presented with rubbish.