Okay, now that these Games are winding to a successful close why not open a new discussion topic. With all the hoopla regarding whether Athens would pull it off, I guess we have to give the Greeks credit for a very enjoyable Games.

In July 2005 the IOC will award the 2012 Games to one of five cities bidding. Currently Paris, London, Madrid, NYC and Moscow are in the running. Who do you think will win the right to host 2012?

I don't think it will be New York. And it shouldn't be New York what will the US airport screening paranoia. Moscow has already hosted it, haven't they? It will go to Madrid.

I would love to see New York get the games in 2012, but from everything I've read Paris seems to be the frontrunner.

Off post, but where are the 2006 Olympics? Is it Shanghai?

Off post, but where are the 2008 Summer Olympics? Is it Shanghai?

Nope, Beijing, I believe.

That said, If it isn't NY, Madrid would be my pick. Barcelona was one of the most visually stunning games I've seen shy of Sydney.

The last thing I want to see is American atheletes put through the type of reception the French are likely to greet them with.

I agree with Barcelona being one of the most memorable games. Madrid has an edge in that several of the venues are ready for competition. Right now Paris appears to be the odds on favorite with Madrid following. A lot can happen in a year and the IOC selection committee has shocked us before.

Regarding Americans in France, that would be eight years from now so I don't think you can apply current sentiment to 2012.

BTW 2006 is in Torino, Italy .... as for 2012. very star studded, even though Moscow had the 80 Olympics, I don't think that's an eliminator for 2012, if anything the Moscow committee could try and play the "this time, everyone's coming" angle.

As for Madrid, with Barcelona holding the Olympics in '92, I think that could be a detrement to it's 2012 candidacy. I'm guessing that London will get it.

[ August 26, 2004, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: DeepRivers ]

I just went to Paris in April so I'm rooting for them. I also think London should be given consideration if Paris isn't picked. I agree with everyone that Barcelona was beautiful so Madrid is definately a contender. Moscow had it in 1980 which we didn't attend. And as for New York, I know this may not be a popular statement so forgive me, but I think they were only given consideration for sentimental reasons. I doubt they'll be a real contender. Go Paris!!!!

As the 2004 Olympics are in Greece, and 2008 will be in Bejing, it will come back to the West for 2012. It is a better bet that NYC will get the summer games.
What might work against them is 2010 in Vancouver, as the IOC likes to have the games spread out.

I beleive the better bet for 2012 will be London or Paris. Given the French reaction to the Americans, there will be a lot of US and US corporate sponsor pressure not to go to Paris.

So, after that ramble, I would say #1 pick is London, #2 pick is NYC.

I'd like London or Paris. The U.S. has had a lot of Olympics recently (1980-Lake Placid, 1984-Los Angeles, 1996-Atlanta, 2002-Salt Lake City). The last Olympics in London was 1948. The last Olympics in Paris was 1924 (Although France hosted the Winter Olympics in Albertville in 1992.)

I totally disagree. Europeans are much more mature and knowledgeable that individual Americans are not responsible for the foreign policy offenses of this administration. The Greeks, who were generally even less pro-US foreign policy than the French, have been nothing but gracious and welcoming hosts to US athletes this year. If any anti-Americanism was going to happen, it would have been this year in Athens. Push things out eight years from now, barring even greater calamities to our relationship with Europe, I can easily see US athletes being welcomed in Paris like brothers. The French still like Americans as individuals, still like American products and services, it's just Bush policies they despise. (What would have been truly disastrous is if the '04 Summer games were in the US, particularly in a more provincial/less international US host city - the French would have been resoundingly booed by every "Toby Keith" in the stadium.)

But back to the topic, I think Paris will be the host city. It's got the infrastructure, the sports legacy, France is a leader in the Olympic movement, Paris has the reputation as a global city, France has a lot of international support, and France has not hosted a summer games since 1924. (The '92 winter games in Albertville were masterfully hosted.)

My runner up is London. It can make all the same arguments as Paris, but the English-speaking world has dominated as host cities in the past 30 years (Montreal [bi-lingual], Los Angeles, Calgary, Atlanta, Sydney, Salt Lake, and Vancouver) and that is to London's detriment.

My dark horse candidate is Madrid. It has some selling points, but I think Spain is not big enough an Olympic powerhouse to warrant hosting two summer games within 20 years, and, aesthetically speaking, Madrid is markedly less attractive a city than Barcelona.

In terms of odds, I'd put NYC fourth. I think it only ranks as high as it does because of post-9/11 sympathy (which will be even weaker in coming years). After the Atlanta debacle, I don't see a US city hosting a summer games before 2016. Vancouver's hosting in 2010 is a detriment to NYC's chances.

Moscow comes in last for me. It seems its strongest selling points are the sports legacy of Russia and an attempt to rectify the 1980 boycott. Russia's relative political and economic instability (when compared to Britain, France, Spain and the US), make Moscow the riskiest choice, in my opinion.

First off, Madrid is NO Barcelona. And I don't think they'd go back to Spain when GB/France haven't hosted in decades.

New York was a very stupid pick by the USOC. This may sound a little harsh, but NY was chosen because the whole "I love NY" craze was in full swing after what happened in 2001. San Francisco had a better bid and would have had a much better shot at landing the 2012 games in the U.S. Hopefully the U.S. puts forth a better bid for 2016.....I would like to see Chicago go for it and hopefully San Fran will resubmit.

Moscow will have a hard time. It's a pain in the ass to travel to Russia.

As for London/Paris, Paris has a great layout already and has many of the necessary facilities.

As for politics, the IOC is a very non-American organization. They probably don't give a crap what the Americans want. And if you ask me, the French would get treated much worse in the U.S. than the Americans in France. But once again, this will be 8 years from now, so hopefully things will be better by then. The Americans have been booed in Athens.......you just don't hear about it/see it on TV.

I was pissed off at first when New York edged out San Francisco as a U.S. representative. But now that I come to think of it, I don't think it's a good idea that the City by the Bay host it. Traffic here is extremely difficult, even in the summer. Ilini, I agree that Frisco had the facilities but in all fairness I think the other cities(Paris, Madrid, London) would probably do a better job. The only real good I see Frisco holding the games would be the Castro of course. Can you imagine all those hot gymnasts walking around that neighborhood? People would think the Castro Street fair started up early![grin]

well between 92-94 (Albertville, Barcelona, and Lillehammer) then again with Athens and Torino in '06, I think the whole proximity thing can be thrown to the wayside, but as previously posted, I'll take London.

Some very interesting thoughts on where 2012 will be hosted. I agree with some of the sentiments regarding the NYC pick. I believe it was a sentimental selection and has proven so in the fact that NYC is having to refactor their bid based on IOC feedback from the last round. They are touting it as the "subway Olympics". The biggest infrastructure to be built will be a stadium for athletics.

If you really want to see what factors into a bid and also view the actual bid proposals go to GamesBids.com where they actually track all Olympic bids. The latest news article in their archives talks about how the Bush political ad may actually hurt NYC's chances for their bid.

WHile I do not necessarily disagree with you, Aquaman, do not be so sure that the Euros will behave more maturely and polite than the Americans: remember the "mature" Europeans who spat at Lance Armstrong as he raced in the Tour?

As a NYer, I don't think we need the Olympics and I would rather our funds be used for more urgent matters. Historically, the Olympics have helped to put cities on the map by giving them need exposure or by helping developing nations show off their new-found economic muscle. But I did read that at the 2012 city candidate presentations that took place in Athens that NYC had the best presentation. I also read that Paris is still the frontrunner.

Latest betting says

Paris 1.62
London 5.1
Madrid 6.8
New York 9
Moscow 23

Funny to read some of the above comments because on this side of the Atlantic its often said that American TV decides who will get to host the games.

Well Lance Armstrong must not have felt it because he consistently talks about how great he finds them to be.

Personally, I'd like to see the 2012 games come to NYC since I live only about an hour and some change away. I'd like to actually check out an Olympics Games in my country. But even if we don't get it, I'm sure NYC will have another shot in the future.

Geez, let's not be selfish! wink


The UK hasn't had an Olympics was in 1948.

The last summer games in France was 1924. They had the winter Olympics in 92.

The last summer games in the US were in 1996. And the winter Olympics in 2002.


Some other people have waited 80 years to see a summer games in their countries.......and we just had one 8 years ago!

I've read that although NYC is not the favorite for 2012, Bush's use of the Olympic games in his campaign ad basically put the nail in the coffin for NYC.

Well, Im only 21. In '96 I was only 13 and wasn't as interested in the Games as I am now. I was a senior in high school during the '02 winter games, so that was a no go. I had a week of vacation during the Olympics, but I was busy with college related stuff in that time (I literally sent all my applications a week before deaDlines ).

I'm just saying that it'd be great to see the Games in my country. I wouldn't have to spend any money on air fare, hotels, etc. since I live closeby. Besides, by 2012 I'll be 29, and I have plans move into NYC anyway, so it would work out beautifully. But if the games go to Paris, or London, I'm fine with waiting until 2016, or 2020, or whenever NYC can get the games. I just want that experience of being there, you know?

[ August 28, 2004, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Jugend ]

I'm totally against the olympics being in NYC. It will make the city a mess to get around, new stadiums and facilities will be built which will mean less housing. It will be a boon for builders and construction trade unions, but it will be hell for the rest of us and the taxpayers will be stuck with a huge bill. I hope the 2012 games will go anywhere but New York.

As an australian who went to the Sydney games, they are fantastic to attend and if you get the chance do it!!!

Unfortunatley i don't think you guys will get them again for some time particulary after the debacle at Alanta, also you had Los Angeles not long ago, the IOC will be spreading them out more evenly now.

Your television rights used to have a greater pull in determining who got the games but that is no longer the case with the new IOC president, personally its about time London had them.

I would have thought your commitee would have a put a better bid city forward as the times i've been to N.Y for holidays and the U.S open it is a nightmare of a place.

Go leyton at the open by the way he is finally getting some form back a good outside chance.

A lot of Londoners dont want the Olympics cos of all the disruption, etc. The British used to put forward other cities with less congestion like Manchester but the IOC members have made it clear they (and their spouses) dont want to stay for two weeks in a provincial, industrial city and would only ever vote for London. Samaranch had a bit of a thing about the British media (which kept on writing about his Fascist past) so in theory London has more chance now hes retired but the campaign has already shot itself in the foot several times by offending various people.

I expect it will go to Paris (they are definitely due it) but that would mean breaking the established sequece of going round the time-zones so maybe New York could sneak through as the only candidate from the western hemisphere left.

rod123, welcome by the way. What do you mean by debacle in Atlanta? Atlanta did a tremendous job hosting the Olympics, even better than Los Angeles. The Games also had fantastic ratings for NBC but I imagine that's also because the Olympics were hosted in August rather than in Sept like Sydney and Seoul. If you're referring to the bombing at Olympic Park, I agree it was a horrible incident but that doesn't mean the Atlanta Games were any failure. The 1996 Games were by far my favorite, next to Los Angeles.

It was drunk German fans of contender Jan Ullrich who spat at Lance, and they spat at other riders too, not just Americans. Tour de France crowds have always been rowdy on those mountain stages.

Have any of you guys who worry about how Americans would be treated in Paris actually been there? I've never had a problem as an American traveling in France at all. In fact, I love it there. The Olympics in Paris would be undoubtedly very stylish and a class act.

I just returned from Paris, and the Parisians couldn't be nicer. It's been my experience that the same people who hated Paris, also have similar feelings about NYC. I don't think they are comfortable in a sophisticated. urban setting.

The days of the French being rude to Americans are way exagerated. I love Paris and found the French to be nicer than the English and the Germans, I vote Paris for 2012

Terry, I'm amazed to hear you say that about Atlanta. I wasnt there so I have no first-hand experience but over here they were portrayed at the time as a complete shambles - I mean really far and away the worst-organised of modern times!
The successful Sydney Games were said to have restored Olympic pride after Atlanta.

Various articles dissing Atlanta Games

Article on foreign press coverage of Atlanta

No offence intended if youre from Georgia! Dont shoot the messenger.

Start practicing your 'Francais' ...it's in the bag for Paris.

Back in 1991, the year that the 1996 Games were awarded, the thinking was the 96 Games would go to Athens, the 2000 Games to Beijing and the 2004 Games to Paris. This theoretical timeline was used, along with the 98 World Cup, in justifying the building of the Stade de France. But Atlanta's upset win threw those plans into disarray.

I haven't kept up with London's bid - I assume the new Wembley Stadium would serve as the Olympic Stadium?

NYC's bid seems to be an excuse to get a West Side of Manhattan stadium built for the Jets (and the plan to build the swimming venue in some remote corner of Queens is a disaster).

And as for years beyond, no one has mentioned the fact that the continents of Africa and South America have yet to serve as host to the Games. FIFA is a trendsetter in this regard, and has awarded the 2010 WC to South Africa and has promised the 2014 WC to a South American nation. With '00, '04, '08 and probably '12 having taken place in the Eastern Hemisphere, don't count out Buenos Aires or Rio for the '16 Games (especially if Brazil agrees to replace or rebuild the huge but aging Maracana Stadium).

[ August 28, 2004, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: LGator ]

The soccer chiefs wouldnt accept a running-track at the new Wembley. So it would be a new stadium in East London.

jamesw, no offense taken! I'm not from Georgia! Ha! Ha! Seriously, I know what happened during the first few days of the Games in regards to transportation and stuff. What I'm saying is that I think the Atlanta Games were extremely succesful because of the ratings NBC got. I remember an article back in 96 talking about how the Olympic games were ruining some movie openings because many people were at home watching. There was article about how the movie Independence Day dropped in ticket sales during the games because many people were opting to stay home. I've never been to Atlanta myself but I've known a couple of co-workers who've been to several Olympic Games and they said at the time they thought Atlanta did a great job. I also think it might have been a bit of a culture shock for many of the foreign reporters and the South, itself, perhaps has an underserved reputation as being backward. Besides, my favorite Olympic moments in Atlanta were the womens gymnastic teams, Mia Hamm and the womens soccer team, Jean Galfione of France(MY GOD HE DEFINED THE ENTIRE GAMES WHEN WE SAW HIM ON TELEVISION!!!) My female co-workers and my gay male co-workers talked about him for days when we saw him win the pole vault! Now don't get me wrong, I loved Sydney as well. I've been there twice and it is a beautiful city. But my point is that the ratings for Sydney were not as good as Atlanta's. I think it's because the fact the games were held in Sept rather than August when everyone is still on vacation. That and the fact that I think Americans in general tend to watch the games more often when we're hosting them such as the Salt Lake City games. I personally believe that Sydney did a tremendous job but didn't get the recognition it deserved in the ratings. That's just my opinion.

Of course the American television ratings for Sydney were not as high as Atlanta, this was due primarily to the different time zones.The results of events were known before the tapes were run the next day, not counting for ,of course the keen Olympic followers who just didn't sleep.

I was at Atlanta and thought the Games were so well run and the only shambles, in my view, was the transportation. Due I suppose to the size of the city.

Insofar as 2012 is concerned, my preferences would be either London or Paris, places I have visited just recently. Both cities have excellent facilities already in place plus good transport systems. A choice I suppose between the flair and style of the French and the civility and superb organisational abilities of the British.

Difficult decision for the IOC.

[ August 28, 2004, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: xanthos ]

Xanthos- The only thing that I hated about the Sydney Olympics was the time difference. Everything was so beautiful about those Olympics. Loved the triathlon in the Sydney Harbour(or?)- the idea of the scuba divers fending off sharks was great drama.

I have a total love of Aussies in general- I met a few at an international conference in Arizona- what a great bunch of spirits you all are- oi oi oi.

Also- you could just tell of the total embrace of amateur sports the Aussies have in general. Kathy Freeman walking through the water was a wonderful scene.

We Americans tend to look too much at the numbers and commercialism and it really dooms us at times- I think we host an excellent games- and Salt Lake City- despite the whole guilty as hell bribery- were marvelously run and organized.

I am rooting for London- simply because the French have had the Olympics more recently with Albertville. Madrid would be my second choice- because then I would have a reason to go over and visit and practice some of my lingual skills.

I am guessing that Johannesburg might get a solid bid together and possibly earn a games by 2020.

I think Middle America should really be the next choice to host a Summer Games...maybe a re-trip to St. Louis... would Chicago ever be a possibility?

That's probably the worst part of the Atlanta games. I have a friend who worked for the Games in the MPC. She told me about several horror stories just trying to navigate the botched transportation plan of Atlanta.

Athens is a city of 4 million people. So far we have heard no stories of bad transportation. A friend of mine who is working in Athens for the Games has said that there has been no problem getting around. If you've ever been to Athens you know they don't have the best street system around. Apparently they seemed to figure out how to do a transportation system. From what I've seen of NYC's bid it seems to be apparent Americans (and I'm one of them) can't seem to figure out how to do a transportation plan for the Games. NYC will be a fiasco for transportation. Paris even tested their plan a month ago during the busiest time of day and proved it would take no more than 10 minutes to get from venue to venue.

I had some fellow Australian athletes who competed at Atlanta they thought the commercialisation was a bit over the top and the effeciancy in the the running of them a bit lacking also the athletes village a bit disappointing.
I think you would find that the ratings achieved by the Alanta games was in fact due to hardly any time zone problems.
Thats one of the reasons that Australia had been unsuccessful with 2 previous bids(Brisbane92,Melbourne96) because unfortunately the American network (think NBC) used to have a big say as the IOC rely on the money from them.

Australia's problem is/has always been the time difference so that's why when Sydney got them (1 vote) to beat China it was a huge surprise which apparently didnt please the American network, so the ratings were always gonna be flat.

I would think Britain would be odds on as they have bid a couple of previous times just as Australia had done also and this usually helps a country win out in the end.

Im sure NYC would put on a great games but as you guys have had 2 most recently i think it would be wise to hold back till later.

New York would treat France just as kindly as France would New York. It's myth that Americans are poor hosts who consider politics in the way we treat people. Not to be so patriotic, but we are some of the most welcoming people of any nation.

As for London, I don't know what's up with them. It's an honor to host the Olympics. London seems to be going through this bizzare mid-life crisis. It's become such a self-loathing city that always prepares itself for dissapointment.

Also I think Atlanta didnt pay enough attention to wooing the journalists. Journalism as a profession has a lot more prestige in many European countries than in the UK (US too?). So if they dont get the same red-carpet treatment they are used to back home it turns them against you from the start. If Spanish journalists for example want a live radio interview at 1 a.m. with the President of Real Madrid or the head of the Olympic Committee for their late show they expect him to jump to it - too bad if hes already in bed. They were disgruntled at Euro96 in England for similar reasons.

PS - thank you for your kind comments on "superb British organisational skills" but really I dont know where you got the idea from. Our national trait is "muddling through" (improvising). Were you thinking of the Germans?!

[ August 29, 2004, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: jamesw ]

Maybe Detroit could eventually put in a bid for the Games. LOL

We were a host site for World Cup and have many stadiums for use (Ford Field, Joe Louis Arena, Cobo Arena, Comerica Park, Pontiac Silverdome, Palace of Auburn Hills)

I could see the Detroit River being used for some events, see some sailing on Lake Huron (about 45 minutes from the City along Port Huron).

I know it sounds like an extreme long-shot, but if Atlanta could host- why not Detroit?

P.S. I am not responsible for the above message. Under control of severe medication. wink

[ August 29, 2004, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: kick ]

If Philadelphia could host the Outsports Convention in 2004, why not the Olympics in 2024? If there's a controversy the booing would make the Athens gymnastics booing look like a tea party. wink

Mayor Bloomberg now says New York may not be able to host the 2012 Games unless it gets the finacing for the proposed new stadium. How classy: a threat aimed at getting additional federal funding for a municipal stadium.

~Adam

During a presidential election campaign, no less.

I was in Montreal for the '76 games, and it was incredible. Of course the Stade Olympique wasn't done, and is now an incredibley large white elephant, but the games were a great time.
The velodrome was amazing, and I remember watching the bicycle races and drooling over the men.

I also met a few atheletes in the baths, but never connected with any of them. They were more interested in the other atheletes.

But if you ever havg a chance to go to the Olympics, I completely reccomend it. You tend not only to cheer for your own country, but also other countries who are perfoming exceptionally well.

As for the Triathalon in Sydney, the Gold Medal was won by a Canadian (a wee bit of Trivia).

An while Aussies might be great, to me, NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING will ever compare to 1975.

I was going to university in rural Nova Scotia, and the NATO fleet came to Halifax for a 2 week visit.

All I will say is that

1 Germans are powerhouses, and not tiny.

2 Italians very sensual. All the hand gestures and tongue wagging comes in VERY handy

3 Americans from Iowa and North Dakota are highly reccomended. Especially when taken together.

From the Associated Press:

"Most New Yorkers want the city to host the 2012 Olympics but don't believe a $1.4-billion stadium is needed to win the bid, according to a poll.

The Quinnipiac University poll found 64% of respondents supported the city's Olympics ambitions while 30% were opposed. Only 39% said the city must build a new stadium o the West Side to secure the games compared with 47% who disagreed.

New York faces four European rivals for the Games--Paris, London, Moscow, and Madrid. The IOC will select the host city in July."

So there's still time to get those bribes in.

~Adam