Chicago received a first-round knock out on Friday courtesy of the International Olympic Committee, which voted against Chicago’s bid for hosting the 2016 Olympics.

From the Chicago Tribune:

Rio de Janeiro and Madrid are now left seeking approval to host the 2016 Summer Games. The host city is to be announced around noon Chicago time.

To some observers, it appeared that Chicago’s bid had been fast gathering momentum in the last week. Daley and others began to show their confidence as one piece after another fell into place. From First Lady Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey’s early commitments to travel with them to Copenhagen, to President Barack Obama’s late decision to go, to bad news trickling out about the Rio’s bid, indicators looked to be going Chicago’s way.

But members of the International Olympic Committee are known for being unpredictable, even impulsive, when they gather to pick a host city.

And in 2016, it won’t be Chicago.

The 2016 Summer Games were to be Mayor Richard Daley’s legacy. Now the mayor comes home to face recession-driven budget woes and concerns about violence that plague Chicago, without the ability to change the public dialogue to Olympics talk.

Daley and his Olympic bid team will now have to decide whether to regroup and try again for the 2020 Games. Conventional wisdom in Chicago cuts against extending the effort, partly because the bid has been so closely tied to Daley. At 67, the mayor’s political plans may not include remaining in office long enough to see through another run at the Games.

I live in Chicago and most of the talk on sports radio leading up to today was about how the city was the favorite to win the 2016 Olympics. To be knocked out in the first round is no doubt a stunning blow to the city, as well as those who thought Chicago had a choke hold on the games.

At the very least, people figured that Chicago would make it to the second round, especially with President Obama and Oprah (I thought it was illegal to say no to Oprah?) making the trip to Copenhagen. But apparently not.

Oh, well.

With the NBA Finals quite possibly ending in a few hours, I thought I’d better stick with a basketball theme tonight. There’s been a bit of hubbub over Derrick Rose, the Bulls’ star point guard and Chicago native, after a college party photo surfaced of him flashing a gang sign, prompting Rose to issue a public apology. Tommy Craggs and Deadspin has this to say:

Did anyone out there actually think Derrick Rose was or is in a gang? Or that he’s some sort of Gangster Disciples emissary because he once threw their sign in front of a camera and because he’s from … the South Side? That he’s endorsing a lifestyle? With a white player, it should go without saying, this would all be chalked up to nothing more sinister than youthful indiscretion.

While I’m no longer a part of the MTV demographic these days, I’ve been to enough parties and bars and sporting events and grocery stores to know that flashing a gang sign outside of the general context of a turf-war isn’t exactly cause for fear. My little sister showed me how to make like I was a Blood. I guess I should make a public apology if anyone ever finds out I might have been starting a new chapter in Okemos, Michigan.

I share Craggs’ annoyance at the situation here. If you hadn’t noticed by now. Anyway, I suppose to try and see the other side of this would be to make an argument that these kinds of pictures give youngsters (Jeez, I’m only 26 and I said “youngsters”) carte blanche on their own behavior. “If my hero Derrick Rose likes gangs, maybe I should join one too.” So there’s that. But come on, really? In that case, I’d like to request a public apology from Chris Andersen for letting kids think that showing up to a basketball game looking like this is OK.