That was to GET the Olympics, not put them on afterwards. (FYI, Salt Lake was following what had been standard operating procedure for past bids. Other cities had better accountants than we did and were able to hide it better, but subsquent inquiries have uncovered some evidence of it elsewhere.)

Here are some reasons why the SLC games were the best:
- There were several millions left over (ie, it didn't leave a large debt, as most modern Olympics do).
- The city is large enough to host several hundred thousand vistors.
- The venues were some of the best ever built. For example, many speed skating records were set here. All the venues were close. The furthest away was 60 miles, but most were within 30 or less.
- Transportation was never an issue.
- All the athletes stayed in one village that allowed more interaction than they had ever had.
- The medals plaza, used for the first time here, was so successful, that the IOC wants all host cities to do it in the future.
- There were so many people volunteering, that many had to be turned away. That rarely happens.
- SLC is a very friendly city. Visitors were warmly welcomed by residents. I've heard several reports that this is not the case in Torino.
- Near the end of the games, one IOC member was quoted in the media that this was the best Winter games ever and if he had his way, Salt Lake would always be the host.

I hope you take advantage of hosting the games in four years. Go to events, volunteer, have fun and enjoy it!

>
>In what why was in the most successful? One aspect against it is that there was a bribery scandal and since then the bid process has been reformed. So it was the last of the crooked bids, one might say :-)