The altius, citius, fortius bid

[Rei]

For all those that in any case try to defame or worse to ignore Paris only why are the favorite and therefore they are deceived to exorcise the defeat of the own cities.

Please..

Look the truth..   and whichever mind polishes will understand that beyond whichever agreement or preferences the Parisien candidacy is the strongest in order to let itself steal the games that must to be assigned for right to it..

Do you want the greatest games? well Paris is more than ever ready!

. . don't forgett that if the modern Olympic Games exist we have to thanks a French baron.

[Robert Henson]

Look to the truth...any of the five cities could put on a strong games, not everyone agrees Paris is the strongest candidate despite its "favourite" status, and nobody knows what will happen because everyone in the know has claimed this is too close to call.

Do you want the greatest games? IMHO Come to London!

And don't forget the modern Olympic movement exists because of the influence of a small English town who held their own Olympics and inspired a French Baron.

[jeux]

This is your view Robert.

The official view is only this one(others are b..l s...t):best bid coming from the evaluation report is Paris.According to the official IOC history(citius,altius,fortius,....and blablablabla),the official founder is a french baron.

The official best bid is not London and the official founder is not a british.

These considerations said,and taken into account that only Paris has bidded twice before this bid;I do not confirm that Paris will win ,I am not entitled to do that.

But it will be very,very,very difficult for IOC to explain officially why Paris has failed vs London.

It is not arrogant,these are facts.The burden of Paris defeat will be on the shoulder of IOC (as a whole) even if this defeat could be explained by secret and individual vote. IMO only !!!

[its a bid of magic]

All I know is I think Paris will rue the day London entered the bidding race, and put their name forward for 2012 candidacy.  I bet they thought they had the race wrapped up, before that annoucement.

[Robert Henson]

But it will be very,very,very difficult for IOC to explain officially why Paris has failed vs London.

I don't think they'll have that much difficulty. If they decided to pick London over Paris, for example they can use these "explanations" or "excuses" (or whatever you want to call them). Off the top of my head:

1) The Olympic park concept is one which the IOC like very much. The idea of athletes walking to the village rather than being shuttled around in buses is a good one.

2) The UK has bid 4 times and the UK has not hosted any kind of Olympics since 1948. We can't give the UK the WOGs as a consolation prize.

3) London has stepped in twice when the Olympics were in real trouble.

4) The British were outnumbered only by the Greeks in Athens

5) Despite the city having only bidded once it has managed to put together a bid which is nearly as good, if not as good as a third time bidder.

6) London's legacy plans are the most ambitious and it'd be good for the Olympics to leave their mark on a city rather than just passing through

7) They might prefer a shiny new stadium designed specifically for athletics with no restricted views. This might be a factor.

8) They might like the idea (as I do) of tennis being hosted at Wimbledon and football being played at the great Wembley stadium.

9) Many will remember the poor 2008 presentation by Paris and may still not want a Paris games.

10) They magaged get David Beckham's autograph which they wouldn't have done had London not bid. j/k

There's plenty going for London just as there is for Paris. NYC, Madrid and Moscow supporters could write similar lists. There are a number of reasons that any IOC member could choose any city -  and if asked they won't have any trouble explaining their decision. Most importantly, they should not have to justify not picking Paris if they don't.

The burden of Paris defeat will be on the shoulder of IOC (as a whole) even if this defeat could be explained by secret and individual vote. IMO only !!!

The burden of a Paris defeat! Why will that necessarily be a burden? Are France going to nuke Singapore if Paris loses? You do speak as though Paris are entitled to these games.

[Rei]

according to what Pescante recently said for an italian newspaper about the parisien candidacy:

"..there's not much to say. it's there where the modern olympic is reborned, it should means something, not? It makes prize for this candidacy also the enthusiasm of people.."

I think it's clear that Pescante will definitely approve the Paris2012 adressing the rest of the italian votes to this..

[Guest ryan04]

Rei go to Paris' forum to gloat about being the favorite, you know this is going to end up being and 15 page thread of nothing but conflicts

[SOlympiadsW]

well I am glad to see Rei isn't biased towards Paris at all....

[jeux]

Thank you for your replies.

To respond to Robert:

Point 1.the concept of olympic park is in the London bid book,it is inherent to the technical matters included in the bid book.In this extent,it is not an "intangible asset "factor.This concept has been already judged by the IOC evaluation report.Then Paris continues to lead..

Point 2.The UK has bid 4 times ant the UK has not hosted any kind of olympics since 1948.France has bid 4 times too within the last 20 years(Lille one but Paris three) and Paris last time was in 1924 !!.Considering this topic, Paris increases its lead because London has bid only once and got the games 24 years after Paris!

Unfortunately for Paris or UK,there is no moutain in UK.

This fact is totally true,I keep it!

Point 3.May be,1920 and 1948 have to be granted,I keep it again !

Point 4.Absolutely true!

Point 5.OK but it is again technical matter.In this extent again,whatever the number of preceeding bids,Paris remains tho top of rankings in the official IOC evaluation report.

Points 6(legacy),7( venues),8(venues and monuments) are all included in the respective bid book again appraised and evaluated twice (May 2004 and June 2005).Again,Paris in this area shines more officialy than London.Besides and additionnally,Paris has not to suffer comparing its venues using own monuments with London(ig Volley ball under Eiffel tower).But ,it is not the point,the true one is Paris get a better official marks than London(and twice).

Point 9.I understand it, but it is individual matter like the US representatives dislike or hate Paris etc...

Point 10.I am not sure to understand the influence of Mr.Beckham on this business.

To conclude,we can say that we can not give the UK the Wog as compensation prize, the british were outnumbered in Athens.London have to be granted to save games after WWI and WWII.

For this last point,we can say that Paris could compensate this by the fact that Pierre de Coubertin( a french baron) is officially the founder of the modern games.

Then,the true points you putted the stress are the "british passion for sport " and the impossible "WOG consolation prize".

Paris received twice better marks than London,only Paris has bid twice within the last 20 years comparing with London(zero time),Paris get the SOG in 1924(24 years before London).These are true Paris advantages on London.

The explanation given by the IOC(as a whole) of the Paris defeat against London could be the british passion for sport and that UK has no mountains !!

Good ???

[Guest ryan04]

Yea London and Paris fighting not NYC and Madrid

[jeux]

You have just ,you,forgotten Moscow!

[jeux]

Oh Robert,I have forgotten a huge,huge,huge Paris advantage on London:Today,the sun shines in Paris we could play tennis !

[Rei]

Rei go to Paris' forum to gloat about being the favorite, you know this is going to end up being and 15 page thread of nothing but conflicts

ryan _I want to "gloat" here as many of you are boicotting the Paris Forum.. only because you don't tolerate one which could defat your cities..

you couldn't ignore it so long.. especially after the 6 juillet

[svenskatiger]

Oh Robert,I have forgotten a huge,huge,huge Paris advantage on London:Today,the sun shines in Paris we could play tennis !

I remember the Rolland Garros tournament had several rain interruptions. God does not bless any city with sunshine all of the time.

What a stupid comment you made.

[SOlympiadsW]

I actually hope that for the mental health of the Paris supporters that they do in fact get 2012....it will be sickening (yet very entertaining) to see you suffer if you lose...but hopefully if you do get the Games you will all straighten out and drop your arrogant attitudes....but I still am not convinced at all that Paris will be bringing home the games in six days anyway...so we'll just ahve to see...

[adriane17]

Thank you for your replies.

To respond to Robert:

Point 1.the concept of olympic park is in the London bid book,it is inherent to the technical matters included in the bid book.In this extent,it is not an "intangible asset "factor.This concept has been already judged by the IOC evaluation report.Then Paris continues to lead..

Point 2.The UK has bid 4 times ant the UK has not hosted any kind of olympics since 1948.France has bid 4 times too within the last 20 years(Lille one but Paris three) and Paris last time was in 1924 !!.Considering this topic, Paris increases its lead because London has bid only once and got the games 24 years after Paris!

Unfortunately for Paris or UK,there is no moutain in UK.

This fact is totally true,I keep it!

Point 3.May be,1920 and 1948 have to be granted,I keep it again !

Point 4.Absolutely true!

Point 5.OK but it is again technical matter.In this extent again,whatever the number of preceeding bids,Paris remains tho top of rankings in the official IOC evaluation report.

Points 6(legacy),7( venues),8(venues and monuments) are all included in the respective bid book again appraised and evaluated twice (May 2004 and June 2005).Again,Paris in this area shines more officialy than London.Besides and additionnally,Paris has not to suffer comparing its venues using own monuments with London(ig Volley ball under Eiffel tower).But ,it is not the point,the true one is Paris get a better official marks than London(and twice).

Point 9.I understand it, but it is individual matter like the US representatives dislike or hate Paris etc...

Point 10.I am not sure to understand the influence of Mr.Beckham on this business.

To conclude,we can say that we can not give the UK the Wog as compensation prize, the british were outnumbered in Athens.London have to be granted to save games after WWI and WWII.

For this last point,we can say that Paris could compensate this by the fact that Pierre de Coubertin( a french baron) is officially the founder of the modern games.

Then,the true points you putted the stress are the "british passion for sport " and the impossible "WOG consolation prize".

Paris received twice better marks than London,only Paris has bid twice within the last 20 years comparing with London(zero time),Paris get the SOG in 1924(24 years before London).These are true Paris advantages on London.

The explanation given by the IOC(as a whole) of the Paris defeat against London could be the british passion for sport and that UK has no mountains !!

Good ???

OK Baron Pierre etc etc etc - the fact remains that the IOC owes Paris (and any of the other bidding cities) nothing.

London has a better bid than Paris face facts! also face facts that the evealuation report is a little biased (look at other threads on this topic) in Paris's favour!

the IOC top brass are doing everything to get the games to Paris but will the members listen? DON'T COUNT YOR CHICKENS as we say in England.

[SOlympiadsW]

Thank you for your replies.

To respond to Robert:

Point 1.the concept of olympic park is in the London bid book,it is inherent to the technical matters included in the bid book.In this extent,it is not an "intangible asset "factor.This concept has been already judged by the IOC evaluation report.Then Paris continues to lead..

Point 2.The UK has bid 4 times ant the UK has not hosted any kind of olympics since 1948.France has bid 4 times too within the last 20 years(Lille one but Paris three) and Paris last time was in 1924 !!.Considering this topic, Paris increases its lead because London has bid only once and got the games 24 years after Paris!

Unfortunately for Paris or UK,there is no moutain in UK.

This fact is totally true,I keep it!

Point 3.May be,1920 and 1948 have to be granted,I keep it again !

Point 4.Absolutely true!

Point 5.OK but it is again technical matter.In this extent again,whatever the number of preceeding bids,Paris remains tho top of rankings in the official IOC evaluation report.

Points 6(legacy),7( venues),8(venues and monuments) are all included in the respective bid book again appraised and evaluated twice (May 2004 and June 2005).Again,Paris in this area shines more officialy than London.Besides and additionnally,Paris has not to suffer comparing its venues using own monuments with London(ig Volley ball under Eiffel tower).But ,it is not the point,the true one is Paris get a better official marks than London(and twice).

Point 9.I understand it, but it is individual matter like the US representatives dislike or hate Paris etc...

Point 10.I am not sure to understand the influence of Mr.Beckham on this business.

To conclude,we can say that we can not give the UK the Wog as compensation prize, the british were outnumbered in Athens.London have to be granted to save games after WWI and WWII.

For this last point,we can say that Paris could compensate this by the fact that Pierre de Coubertin( a french baron) is officially the founder of the modern games.

Then,the true points you putted the stress are the "british passion for sport " and the impossible "WOG consolation prize".

Paris received twice better marks than London,only Paris has bid twice within the last 20 years comparing with London(zero time),Paris get the SOG in 1924(24 years before London).These are true Paris advantages on London.

The explanation given by the IOC(as a whole) of the Paris defeat against London could be the british passion for sport and that UK has no mountains !!

Good ???

OK Baron Pierre etc etc etc - the fact remains that the IOC owes Paris (and any of the other bidding cities) nothing.

London has a better bid than Paris face facts! also face facts that the evealuation report is a little biased (look at other threads on this topic) in Paris's favour!

the IOC top brass are doing everything to get the games to Paris but will the members listen? DON'T COUNT YOR CHICKENS as we say in England.

I coldn't agree more...

[mexico1968]

OMG..we have had this fights before..please stop, in 6 days everything will be ending.!

[jeux]

Svenskatiger,

RG was in May,Winbledon is in end of June.SOG are planned in August.

If it rains in Paris in May,it always rains in London!

It is well-known that the London wheather is better than the Paris one ...for...frogs...froggies!

[SOlympiadsW]

OMG..we have had this fights before..please stop, in 6 days everything will be ending.!

thank goodness...

[Aly]

Just when you start to think that maybe the Olympics in Paris may not be so bad, up they pop to remind you just how rude and arrogant they are.

They were rude to me and my wife when we went to the IAAF Championships in 2003 (because we had the audacity to cheer for British athletes). They were rude at Roland Garros in the Nadal match and they are guaranteed to be rude in 2012!!!!!!

[Robert Henson]

Thank you for your replies.

To respond to Robert:

Point 1.the concept of olympic park is in the London bid book,it is inherent to the technical matters included in the bid book.In this extent,it is not an "intangible asset "factor.This concept has been already judged by the IOC evaluation report.Then Paris continues to lead..

Point 2.The UK has bid 4 times ant the UK has not hosted any kind of olympics since 1948.France has bid 4 times too within the last 20 years(Lille one but Paris three) and Paris last time was in 1924 !!.Considering this topic, Paris increases its lead because London has bid only once and got the games 24 years after Paris!

Unfortunately for Paris or UK,there is no moutain in UK.

This fact is totally true,I keep it!

Point 3.May be,1920 and 1948 have to be granted,I keep it again !

Point 4.Absolutely true!

Point 5.OK but it is again technical matter.In this extent again,whatever the number of preceeding bids,Paris remains tho top of rankings in the official IOC evaluation report.

Points 6(legacy),7( venues),8(venues and monuments) are all included in the respective bid book again appraised and evaluated twice (May 2004 and June 2005).Again,Paris in this area shines more officialy than London.Besides and additionnally,Paris has not to suffer comparing its venues using own monuments with London(ig Volley ball under Eiffel tower).But ,it is not the point,the true one is Paris get a better official marks than London(and twice).

Point 9.I understand it, but it is individual matter like the US representatives dislike or hate Paris etc...

Point 10.I am not sure to understand the influence of Mr.Beckham on this business.

To conclude,we can say that we can not give the UK the Wog as compensation prize, the british were outnumbered in Athens.London have to be granted to save games after WWI and WWII.

For this last point,we can say that Paris could compensate this by the fact that Pierre de Coubertin( a french baron) is officially the founder of the modern games.

Then,the true points you putted the stress are the "british passion for sport " and the impossible "WOG consolation prize".

Paris received twice better marks than London,only Paris has bid twice within the last 20 years comparing with London(zero time),Paris get the SOG in 1924(24 years before London).These are true Paris advantages on London.

The explanation given by the IOC(as a whole) of the Paris defeat against London could be the british passion for sport and that UK has no mountains !!

Good ???

You missed my point. You said it would be very difficult for the IOC to justify giving the games to anyone but Paris. I've given you a list of reasons why London could also be a justified choice i.e. I'm not comparing London to Paris, but merely showing you there is justification for another city being chosen.

[Rei]

I actually hope that for the mental health of the Paris supporters that they do in fact get 2012....it will be sickening (yet very entertaining) to see you suffer if you lose...but hopefully if you do get the Games you will all straighten out and drop your arrogant attitudes....but I still am not convinced at all that Paris will be bringing home the games in six days anyway...so we'll just ahve to see...

I'm not french.. so it won't be a tragedy for me if Paris lose..

no arrogance and no biased..

[svenskatiger]

Svenskatiger,

RG was in May,Winbledon is in end of June.SOG are planned in August.

If it rains in Paris in May,it always rains in London!

It is well-known that the London wheather is better than the Paris one ...for...frogs...froggies!

I don`t think IOC will sit down and discuss the weather for giving it to Paris. Paris and London are not so far away. In summer in London, they have cloudy skies with some sunshine and general temperature of 22 or 23C - according to yahoo weather. Paris is similar, maybe a bit hotter.

Are you saying In july and august paris doesn`t get any rain at all?

[jeux]

I am joking,it is raining now in Paris.

But,it seems that the Paris weather is more appropriate to be outside.

Look at the temp.chart.Independant not these reported on each bid book(London vs. Paris).

But,Madrid remains the top on this matter !!