It should have been Paris
The sight of three cities in obvious disappointment is similar to a swimming or athletics race where only one will end up winning the first place -- even if the clock registers two identical finishes.
But there's a little disappointment in me too.
Among the four competing bigtime countries battle out in PR and reputation (more competitive than the 2008 whose Beijing rivals include Toronto, Osaka, Istanbul and yes, Paris), London deserves a win but I would say Paris would have won in a thin-hair fashion. London both hosted the event twice before: Paris in 1900 and 1924 and London in 1908 and 1948.
I'd rule out Madrid because another Spanish city hosted the Olympics in 1992. Same for New York where another American city hosted in 1996 and had it won the bid, the security of the Olympics would have been unimaginable.
In the dogfight between to cross channel rivals, Paris last hosted the Games 81 years ago, London 57 years ago. And while it's impossible to have it hosted to Africa -- or perhaps Latin America -- at the moment, equality in chances must rule in terms of "whose turn is it next". France has been bidding since 1992 and had been fruitless in its efforts thus far, with this last debacle almost ending on a winning note.
I am sure there are other factors counted in. Budget, security, accessibility are a few of them. Who would want to have a repeat of the Athens construction fiasco? So this time, everyone had to make sure the winning bid won't make a repeat.
But even if any of the four cities is at least 3000 miles away from me and chances of watching live the Olympics is no better than witnessing it in Beijing, to me it should have been Paris winning the 2012 Olympic bid.
But there's a little disappointment in me too.
Among the four competing bigtime countries battle out in PR and reputation (more competitive than the 2008 whose Beijing rivals include Toronto, Osaka, Istanbul and yes, Paris), London deserves a win but I would say Paris would have won in a thin-hair fashion. London both hosted the event twice before: Paris in 1900 and 1924 and London in 1908 and 1948.
I'd rule out Madrid because another Spanish city hosted the Olympics in 1992. Same for New York where another American city hosted in 1996 and had it won the bid, the security of the Olympics would have been unimaginable.
In the dogfight between to cross channel rivals, Paris last hosted the Games 81 years ago, London 57 years ago. And while it's impossible to have it hosted to Africa -- or perhaps Latin America -- at the moment, equality in chances must rule in terms of "whose turn is it next". France has been bidding since 1992 and had been fruitless in its efforts thus far, with this last debacle almost ending on a winning note.
I am sure there are other factors counted in. Budget, security, accessibility are a few of them. Who would want to have a repeat of the Athens construction fiasco? So this time, everyone had to make sure the winning bid won't make a repeat.
But even if any of the four cities is at least 3000 miles away from me and chances of watching live the Olympics is no better than witnessing it in Beijing, to me it should have been Paris winning the 2012 Olympic bid.
posted by Unknown at
8:34 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home