TORONTO 2016

[Expect the World]

I know this issue probably been brought up many times before, but I simply don’t care! Since 1998, I’ve been eavesdropping on discussions regarding Toronto’s Olympic chances and when the next will come. Many of the redundant issues I’ve heard constantly before. Let me say this firmly clear, when it comes to Toronto hosting the next Olympics for 2016, the time is now!  Toronto has already bid twice for 1996, and 2008, and ended up 3rd and 2nd respectively. Who knows if Toronto will end up 1st for 2016!

Like me put it this way. If David Miller continues to proceed with the World’s Fair bid for 2015, it would be as if the city was putting it in reverse. When? Tell me when was the last time a World’s Fair became high profile?  Hannover? Seville? Please! This coming fall Toronto will be back to the polls for the next municipal election. And what has David Miller done? Increased the crime rate? Increased fare hikes in the TTC? Not building the bridge to the Island Airport? If Miller doesn’t get elected, then Toronto has a chance for greatness!

Another thing is that the USOC thinks they have the audacity and the authority to say that USOC needs the IOC more than the IOC needs them! Forget the fact that Vancouver already has the games! It is a monopoly for a country like the US to extravagantly host 4 games (2 – winter, 2 summer) in the past 3 decades? Let me say this clear, the US is not the only country in North America let alone the Western Hemisphere to have the right to host the games! Now unless other countries like Mexico or Brazil bids for Olympics, which I don’t think it will happen due to the economics, Canada is in the right spot to host!

There are many critics out there that question Toronto as to why they should even try! Why they should accept the cynicism of defeat and live the rest of our lives of not living up our dreams. Well I’ll you why!

Thomas Edison tried and failed to make the filament for the incandescent light bulb. He found 1000 ways not to make a light bulb. But he only needed to find one way to make it work.

The Royal Air Force had an old saying during the Second World War, “those who risk, win.”

[nykfan845]

Too soon after Vancouver, IMO.

I mean the 2009 IOC Session will occur less than a year before the Vancouver Games most likely, and that would hurt a Toronto bid, plus the idea that Canada would get 2 Olympiads within six years.

It has happened with the US (ATL & SLC), but it's the United States. A United States Games= $$$ to the IOC. And we all know what happened behind the scenes before the Salt Lake City win.

IMO, Torontonians (I think that's what they're called) should wait for a better time to bid.

[Expect the World]

Too soon after Vancouver, IMO.

I mean the 2009 IOC Session will occur less than a year before the Vancouver Games most likely, and that would hurt a Toronto bid, plus the idea that Canada would get 2 Olympiads within six years.

It has happened with the US (ATL & SLC), but it's the United States. A United States Games= $$$ to the IOC. And we all know what happened behind the scenes before the Salt Lake City win.

IMO, Torontonians (I think that's what they're called) should wait for a better time to bid.

Let me be the first to tell you that Winter Olympiad is SEPARATE from Summer Olympiad! Even though it is under the IOC banner. 2 games can not continental rotate as one. They continental rotate SEPARATELY!

Secondly, you said a US bid means money for the IOC. But Canada's bid ALSO means money for the IOC. And if that was the case, then why is it that USOC are scratching their heads on the New York's loss for 2012? The U.S. curse has been broken! Anything is possible! No one can deny the vulnerability of a US bid anymore! Hence anything other than a U.S. bid, any country's bid other than the United States would counterbalance the corruption and bribery from 1996 and 2002!

[Stu]

Okay, is this where I start my campaign for Edinburgh 2016? - Scotland hasn't held an Olympics before but has the wealth and infrastructure to cope.  London 2012 is all of 48 months before so I believe it will be the UK's turn again around the year 2016.  I thought Edinburgh Castle could be used for the beach volleyball and the main stadium and Olympic Park at Murrayfield!

Any thoughts  

PS. I do actually think that the IOC take into consideration both the Summer Olympics and Winter Games when awarding to a host city.

[SOlympiadsW]

Too soon after Vancouver, IMO.

I mean the 2009 IOC Session will occur less than a year before the Vancouver Games most likely, and that would hurt a Toronto bid, plus the idea that Canada would get 2 Olympiads within six years.

It has happened with the US (ATL & SLC), but it's the United States. A United States Games= $$$ to the IOC. And we all know what happened behind the scenes before the Salt Lake City win.

IMO, Torontonians (I think that's what they're called) should wait for a better time to bid.

Let me be the first to tell you that Winter Olympiad is SEPARATE from Summer Olympiad! Even though it is under the IOC banner. 2 games can not continental rotate as one. They continental rotate SEPARATELY!

Secondly, you said a US bid means money for the IOC. But Canada's bid ALSO means money for the IOC. And if that was the case, then why is it that USOC are scratching their heads on the New York's loss for 2012? The U.S. curse has been broken! Anything is possible! No one can deny the vulnerability of a US bid anymore! Hence anything other than a U.S. bid, any country's bid other than the United States would counterbalance the corruption and bribery from 1996 and 2002!

woah calm down there lol....

as much as it shouldn't be the WOG and SOG bid-wise are CONNECTED and impact eachother...this was EXTREMELY EVIDENT in the 2010 race with the early dismissal of Salzburg to "set up" Europe for a 2012 victory, as well as the main reason why PC almost pulled off a win in the first round.....no matter how you slice it or dice it Vancouver hosting jsut one year after the session will be a huge issue for a Toronto 2016 bid, and would be very difficult for it to overcome....if Vancouver was an issue for NYC in 2012 what in the world makes you think it won't be one for a Toronto 2016 bid?

as for the USA, you can't say they have been "broken"...they have lost bids before 2012 and then came back to win them the next time around overwhelmingly...2012 geopolitically (due to Vancouver) and Europe being "predestined" for 2012 were the two factors that killed the USA bid for 2012...but they will be none issues in 2016....I don't mean to sound arrogant here but the IOC needs the USA and are very unlikely to dismiss them again.....or at least put them out of commission for a long time with a Toronto 2016 win

I don't think it would be wise for Toronto to bid for 2016, they should rather mproceed with their other plans and see how 2016 plays out....if the USA loses then they should act....bidding for 2016 may just put them on that list with Istanbul....

[Expect the World]

Too soon after Vancouver, IMO.

I mean the 2009 IOC Session will occur less than a year before the Vancouver Games most likely, and that would hurt a Toronto bid, plus the idea that Canada would get 2 Olympiads within six years.

It has happened with the US (ATL & SLC), but it's the United States. A United States Games= $$$ to the IOC. And we all know what happened behind the scenes before the Salt Lake City win.

IMO, Torontonians (I think that's what they're called) should wait for a better time to bid.

Let me be the first to tell you that Winter Olympiad is SEPARATE from Summer Olympiad! Even though it is under the IOC banner. 2 games can not continental rotate as one. They continental rotate SEPARATELY!

Secondly, you said a US bid means money for the IOC. But Canada's bid ALSO means money for the IOC. And if that was the case, then why is it that USOC are scratching their heads on the New York's loss for 2012? The U.S. curse has been broken! Anything is possible! No one can deny the vulnerability of a US bid anymore! Hence anything other than a U.S. bid, any country's bid other than the United States would counterbalance the corruption and bribery from 1996 and 2002!

woah calm down there lol....

as much as it shouldn't be the WOG and SOG bid-wise are CONNECTED and impact eachother...this was EXTREMELY EVIDENT in the 2010 race with the early dismissal of Salzburg to "set up" Europe for a 2012 victory, as well as the main reason why PC almost pulled off a win in the first round.....no matter how you slice it or dice it Vancouver hosting jsut one year after the session will be a huge issue for a Toronto 2016 bid, and would be very difficult for it to overcome....if Vancouver was an issue for NYC in 2012 what in the world makes you think it won't be one for a Toronto 2016 bid?

as for the USA, you can't say they have been "broken"...they have lost bids before 2012 and then came back to win them the next time around overwhelmingly...2012 geopolitically (due to Vancouver) and Europe being "predestined" for 2012 were the two factors that killed the USA bid for 2012...but they will be none issues in 2016....I don't mean to sound arrogant here but the IOC needs the USA and are very unlikely to dismiss them again.....or at least put them out of commission for a long time with a Toronto 2016 win

I don't think it would be wise for Toronto to bid for 2016, they should rather mproceed with their other plans and see how 2016 plays out....if the USA loses then they should act....bidding for 2016 may just put them on that list with Istanbul....

First of all, like I said before, WOG is SEPARATE from SOG. If that was the case, then Torino wouldn't have won after Athens.

What makes me think Vancouver won't be a huge issue for Toronto's 2016 bid? Because Toronto unlike any other Canadian cites plays a different drum. Just Atlanta is to Salt Lake City. You can not judge a country by visiting just one location on the map. Canada is a big @$$ country. It is the wide open space! No two points are the same! If Vancouver is just the only place to go, then you're missing out on the rest of the country.

Lastly, although the IOC needs the U.S. and the companies for sponsorship, the IOC does not need the U.S. to become the masters of the universe! It is appauling that this bribery, corruption, scandal, whatever you can call it coming from the USOC has plagued the IOC for many years, and has already tainted their trust and respect between the two parties! Mr. Rogge has been struggling to reform the IOC from years corruption. And a bid, other than the US would change that.

[dave199]

I would like Toronto to bid for 2016. I'd be estatic to hear of a bid in the near future. But I'm being realistic due to the current situation the city is in. Toronto is bidding for the World Expo for 2015, a year before 2016 SOG. If Toronto wins its Expo bid, do you really think they'll be able to win and host the 2016 SOG?

I personally would rather see the city bid for the 2016 Olympics but my opinion won't mean much if the rest of my fellow Torontonians want an Expo instead. Actually, I'm not even sure what the support rate is for the Expo compared to an Olympic games.

I agree that the SOG and WOG hosts shouldn't be intertwined during an Olympic city vote but I'm sure it does affect voters opinions once they make their choice of host city.

I also have to bring up the point about how the IOC needs the U.S. to bring in vasts amount of money by having the U.S. host. If for some reason, IOC members still do not wish to have another Olympic games in the U.S. for 2016 but still wants to capitalize on the U.S. market, the closest and most viable country is Canada. Just look at how much money Vancouver will bring the IOC. Toronto is directly in the Eastern timezone. Perfect time to broadcast things live to the Canadian, American, Mexican and South American countries which account for a large portion of television viewership. I'm sure the IOC won't make as much money if it was hosted in the U.S. instead but Canada is a strong viable replacement with much of the same benefits that an American city would bring to the table.

Vancouver will be an obstacle for Toronto. But Toronto has nothing to lose because 2016 looks to come back to the Americas. What other cities are actually viable winners? There's not that many. I don't think 2016 will be the time to venture into new territories. Cape Town may bid, may get shortlisted again, but I don't think it can handle the hosting responsiblities since their resources will be stretched and limited around that time after hosting the 2010 World Cup. Rio de Janeiro has bid 2 times and still has yet to be shortlisted. They will be hosting next years Pan Ams and if they pull it off successfully they most likely will be shortlisted if they bid for 2016 but I doubt a win. Any European city is basically out of the running for 2016 after London 2012. One European city might be shortlisted (Rome) but that's all I see from Europe. I think its too soon to go back to Asia after Beijing 2008. I see 2016 as the Americans to lose.

Just to sum things up, if Toronto pulls out of their Expo bid and decide to go for the Olympics instead, highly unlikely, it would be between Toronto and the U.S. candidate.

[Kenadian]

But Vancouver 2010 will have a geopolitical impact on a Toronto 2016 bid.  Canada is a nation of 32 million people, the Americans have 300 million.  I don't think the USA is a total slam dunk for 2016, but they have a much better chance than Toronto.

Toronto may not be as highly rated in the IOC as Torontonians think.  In both bids (1996 and 2008) they were way off pace of winning and only got a maximum of 22 votes.

But the biggest problem is lining up corporate sponsors.  Most Canadian businesses are busy investing in Vancouver 2010, and if not directly as sponsors, they are looking for other ways to benefit or take part in these Games.  They will want to let that pan out before investing in a much larger summer games bid.  And most of the big name sponsors of Vancouver 2010 are Toronto-based national companies (RBC, HBC, & Bell).  If Vancouver 2010 proves a success for the city and the sponsors, you can be sure that Toronto 202? will find a lot of support.  But that won't be know until 2011.

It just isn't Toronto's time.  In fact, 2016 is probably the worst time for Toronto.  They can try, but I'd be willing to bet that they wouldn't even score the 22 votes they did the last two times because the IOC isn't going to want to burden a small country like Canada (yes, it is wealthy, but it is still small) with two gigantic Olympic Games so close together.

Sometimes it isn't about trying until you win (like Istanbul).  It is trying when the conditions are right to win (like Sydney).

[dave199]

But Vancouver 2010 will have a geopolitical impact on a Toronto 2016 bid.  Canada is a nation of 32 million people, the Americans have 300 million.  I don't think the USA is a total slam dunk for 2016, but they have a much better chance than Toronto.

Toronto may not be as highly rated in the IOC as Torontonians think.  In both bids (1996 and 2008) they were way off pace of winning and only got a maximum of 22 votes.

But the biggest problem is lining up corporate sponsors.  Most Canadian businesses are busy investing in Vancouver 2010, and if not directly as sponsors, they are looking for other ways to benefit or take part in these Games.  They will want to let that pan out before investing in a much larger summer games bid.  And most of the big name sponsors of Vancouver 2010 are Toronto-based national companies (RBC, HBC, & Bell).  If Vancouver 2010 proves a success for the city and the sponsors, you can be sure that Toronto 202? will find a lot of support.  But that won't be know until 2011.

It just isn't Toronto's time.  In fact, 2016 is probably the worst time for Toronto.  They can try, but I'd be willing to bet that they wouldn't even score the 22 votes they did the last two times because the IOC isn't going to want to burden a small country like Canada (yes, it is wealthy, but it is still small) with two gigantic Olympic Games so close together.

Sometimes it isn't about trying until you win (like Istanbul).  It is trying when the conditions are right to win (like Sydney).

But Vancouver 2010 will have a geopolitical impact on a Toronto 2016 bid.  Canada is a nation of 32 million people, the Americans have 300 million.  I don't think the USA is a total slam dunk for 2016, but they have a much better chance than Toronto

Who would you rate higher than the American city? Which city looks very viable and likely to host 2016 besides an American city?

Toronto may not be as highly rated in the IOC as Torontonians think.  In both bids (1996 and 2008) they were way off pace of winning and only got a maximum of 22 votes.

I think the city is very highly rate in the eyes of the IOC, but I do agree with you that Toronto has bid at times where it wasn't just right for them. That's why I'm a little iffy on a 2016 bid but still I would like to see them bid.

But the biggest problem is lining up corporate sponsors.  Most Canadian businesses are busy investing in Vancouver 2010, and if not directly as sponsors, they are looking for other ways to benefit or take part in these Games.  They will want to let that pan out before investing in a much larger summer games bid.  And most of the big name sponsors of Vancouver 2010 are Toronto-based national companies (RBC, HBC, & Bell).  If Vancouver 2010 proves a success for the city and the sponsors, you can be sure that Toronto 202? will find a lot of support.  But that won't be know until 2011.

You've got to be kidding me? If anyone thinks that Toronto wouldn't get as much sponsors if they won 2016 must be a little high. Toronto is the financial capital of this country. Trust me, it will get all the sponsors that it needs and more. All the major Canadian financial institutions are headquartered in downtown Toronto. It will have the corporate sponsors.

It just isn't Toronto's time.  In fact, 2016 is probably the worst time for Toronto.  They can try, but I'd be willing to bet that they wouldn't even score the 22 votes they did the last two times because the IOC isn't going to want to burden a small country like Canada (yes, it is wealthy, but it is still small) with two gigantic Olympic Games so close together.

Not necessarily, 2016 isn't the best or worst time for Toronto to pull off a win. Canada is quite capable of handling the hosting duties of both games in that time span. The country is sitting on a huge pile of spending money waiting to be used for something big like this. The Olympic games would leave a lasting legacy to Toronto's waterfront and the Olympics as being catalysts for waterfront development has a limited time period since the waterfront land would be developed for other projects if a 2016 bid isn't put in.

I'm not saying Toronto will win 2016, all I'm saying is that they would have a good chance to upset the Americans. Like I've said many times, its the USA's to lose.

[Kenadian]

The USOC hasn't made any firm decisions on 2016, but if they go for it, they will probably be the front runner.  We also have Tokyo and South American cities to consider.

Seriously, do you think every company in Canada is looking to throw money into the Olympic Games?  Companies don't give money to events like this out of the goodness of their heart, they do it to meet a business objective.  HBC wants to rebuild its brand across Canada.  Bell wants to expand into Western Canada.  RBC wants to promote itself internationally.  These three companies have given VANOC and the COC nearly $500 million.  They will want return on that investment and that will mean that the COC will have to guarantee all Olympic attention in Canada goes into Vancouver 2010.  And with that, COC will probably not approve a Toronto bid for 2016.

Sorry Toronto...while someday you will make an excellent host of the Next Canadian Olympics, the deck is seriously stacked against you for 2016.

[dave199]

The USOC hasn't made any firm decisions on 2016, but if they go for it, they will probably be the front runner.  We also have Tokyo and South American cities to consider.

Seriously, do you think every company in Canada is looking to throw money into the Olympic Games?  Companies don't give money to events like this out of the goodness of their heart, they do it to meet a business objective.  HBC wants to rebuild its brand across Canada.  Bell wants to expand into Western Canada.  RBC wants to promote itself internationally.  These three companies have given VANOC and the COC nearly $500 million.  They will want return on that investment and that will mean that the COC will have to guarantee all Olympic attention in Canada goes into Vancouver 2010.  And with that, COC will probably not approve a Toronto bid for 2016.

Sorry Toronto...while someday you will make an excellent host of the Next Canadian Olympics, the deck is seriously stacked against you for 2016.

Dude, I don't know what Business school you graduated from but 6 years is a big gap in between for corporate investments like this.

[SOlympiadsW]

Too soon after Vancouver, IMO.

I mean the 2009 IOC Session will occur less than a year before the Vancouver Games most likely, and that would hurt a Toronto bid, plus the idea that Canada would get 2 Olympiads within six years.

It has happened with the US (ATL & SLC), but it's the United States. A United States Games= $$$ to the IOC. And we all know what happened behind the scenes before the Salt Lake City win.

IMO, Torontonians (I think that's what they're called) should wait for a better time to bid.

Let me be the first to tell you that Winter Olympiad is SEPARATE from Summer Olympiad! Even though it is under the IOC banner. 2 games can not continental rotate as one. They continental rotate SEPARATELY!

Secondly, you said a US bid means money for the IOC. But Canada's bid ALSO means money for the IOC. And if that was the case, then why is it that USOC are scratching their heads on the New York's loss for 2012? The U.S. curse has been broken! Anything is possible! No one can deny the vulnerability of a US bid anymore! Hence anything other than a U.S. bid, any country's bid other than the United States would counterbalance the corruption and bribery from 1996 and 2002!

woah calm down there lol....

as much as it shouldn't be the WOG and SOG bid-wise are CONNECTED and impact eachother...this was EXTREMELY EVIDENT in the 2010 race with the early dismissal of Salzburg to "set up" Europe for a 2012 victory, as well as the main reason why PC almost pulled off a win in the first round.....no matter how you slice it or dice it Vancouver hosting jsut one year after the session will be a huge issue for a Toronto 2016 bid, and would be very difficult for it to overcome....if Vancouver was an issue for NYC in 2012 what in the world makes you think it won't be one for a Toronto 2016 bid?

as for the USA, you can't say they have been "broken"...they have lost bids before 2012 and then came back to win them the next time around overwhelmingly...2012 geopolitically (due to Vancouver) and Europe being "predestined" for 2012 were the two factors that killed the USA bid for 2012...but they will be none issues in 2016....I don't mean to sound arrogant here but the IOC needs the USA and are very unlikely to dismiss them again.....or at least put them out of commission for a long time with a Toronto 2016 win

I don't think it would be wise for Toronto to bid for 2016, they should rather mproceed with their other plans and see how 2016 plays out....if the USA loses then they should act....bidding for 2016 may just put them on that list with Istanbul....

First of all, like I said before, WOG is SEPARATE from SOG. If that was the case, then Torino wouldn't have won after Athens.

What makes me think Vancouver won't be a huge issue for Toronto's 2016 bid? Because Toronto unlike any other Canadian cites plays a different drum. Just Atlanta is to Salt Lake City. You can not judge a country by visiting just one location on the map. Canada is a big @$$ country. It is the wide open space! No two points are the same! If Vancouver is just the only place to go, then you're missing out on the rest of the country.

Lastly, although the IOC needs the U.S. and the companies for sponsorship, the IOC does not need the U.S. to become the masters of the universe! It is appauling that this bribery, corruption, scandal, whatever you can call it coming from the USOC has plagued the IOC for many years, and has already tainted their trust and respect between the two parties! Mr. Rogge has been struggling to reform the IOC from years corruption. And a bid, other than the US would change that.

sorry no matter how you try to slant things, as has been pointed out Toronto 2016 is very unlikely on many levels....

you can hardly compare Athens and Torino to Vancouver and Toronto....two completely different countries...things are a bit different for Europe...

and I am sorry but your whole "the USA is corrupt" thing isn't holding up....it is a known fact that the USA puts on an excellent Games that both the USA and IOC greatly benfit from (even Atlanta)....the IOC is going to be looking to go back there for 2016...and the USOC is greatly reformed and actually quite dignified now and is definately in the right direction....

many of your points are not valid and no matter how you try to slant it the IOC won't see it that way come 2009 with Vancouver just a year away.....as I said before Toronto should wait it out to see what happens in 2016 and then bid later....if not they may just join that growing list with the likes of Istanbul and Paris

[Techno Dragon]

like it or not, the Cards by the end of this year could line up perfectly for a 2016 bid. We have a Conservative Government desperatly trying to get seats in Toronto, and a new mayoral election. The rumblings in Torontos inner circles right now is that Miller is on his way out. All that is needed is a pro-olympic mayor. The provincial Liberals are deep trouble right now, and are looking on the way out in 2007 if something doesnt turn around, so by denoucing a 2016 bid would be shooting themselves in the collective foot.  And the same way we have Eastern Companies buying into Vancouver 2010 to get into the west, the same thing could potentially happen out east, with the Western Companies buying up the sponsherships to get exposure out east. All that is needed is for the COC to endorse the bid, and that could be tough with Vancouver, but stranger things have happened. Also, there have been very little details about Toronto 2015 WF. So, on November 14, 2006 we'll know if a Toronto 2016 bid will happen or not (the 14th is the day after the muncipal elections). For those wondering, Provincial Elections are set on October 4th, 2007. And for those wondering, I consider myself Neutral on a Toronto 2016 bid - I hate it for some reasons and love it for others.

[dave199]

I wonder if David Miller will be re-elected. I voted for him in the last election. I plan on voting for another candidate come this fall. I personally don't think he's left an outstanding impression on this city.

I agree somewhat with SOlympiadsW, we can't always use the "Corrupt" issue when dealing with a future American bid. That was the past and new reforms have been put in place to rid the bidding process of these type of scandals. But that isn't to say that there is a "anti-american" settiment with some IOC members.

You also can't compare the time differences between Athens and Torino since they are two completely different countries.

I have to also agree with Expect the World about comparing Vancouver and Toronto. These are two different cities on way opposite ends of this very large country. You can't assume since Vancouver is hosting and representing Canada, that THIS IS JUST CANADA and by giving them a consolation prize (WOG), that Toronto should be ignored for an extended long period. Vancouver capitalized on the hard work and dedication that Toronto put in from the beginings of its 1996 bid to its loss to Beijing where Toronto was regarded in high standards despite its loss. It's like Toronto did all the dirty work but didn't get recognized at the end. Someone else just swept in to take the recognition. Not taking anything away from Vancouver's bid, it was great and I'm confident they'll put on a good games. But you got to admit that Toronto did all your dirty work.

Another note:

It will be 20 years after Atlanta hosted the last Summer Olympics, and it would be 40 years since Montreal hosted them.

[Expect the World]

and I am sorry but your whole "the USA is corrupt" thing isn't holding up....it is a known fact that the USA puts on an excellent Games that both the USA and IOC greatly benfit from (even Atlanta)....the IOC is going to be looking to go back there for 2016...and the USOC is greatly reformed and actually quite dignified now and is definately in the right direction....

No it doesn't put on an excellent Games. In fact Atlanta put on the most horrible games ever! The fact that the city could not faciliate hundreds of thousands of athletes and spectators with their inadequate transportation, and the fact that they couldn't keep up with security due to a bombing in between the Olympics celebration just proves that the US is in it just for the almighty dollar. When Toronto went against Atlanta for 1996, we never had a chance. And it was because of this backdoor dealings by Atlanta's lobbyists. They pulled every trick in the book just to intice IOC members while Toronto played it fair. So don't tell me Atlanta put on an excellent games because Atlanta went against IOC rules and regulations and you know that!

[dave199]

ETW, do you know exactly what happened behind closed doors? I remembered hearing something about Coca Cola since they were the major sponsors for the Atlanta games.

[Expect the World]

I was kind of young when the Atlanta scandal happened so I'm not sure what was behind closed doors. I know for a fact that the story was right in front of the cover of Time Magazine. The Chairman of the Atlanta's bid committee in front of the Olympic flag all proud and arrogant. What I heard regarding sponsors was that Coca-Cola and I believe Time-Warner and some other companies were involved.

[Expect the World]

Atlanta torched by Olympic scandal

By STEVE BUFFREY -- Toronto Sun

 The foul stench of bribes and payoffs in the Olympic bid process has spread from Salt Lake City to Nagano to Toronto and now to Atlanta -- the city that beat out Toronto for the 1996 Summer Games.

In a revelation reported by Mike Fish of the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, that city's former mayor, Andrew Young, claims to have convinced Congo IOC member Jean-Claude Ganga to withdraw his support of the Toronto bid and throw it behind Atlanta just weeks before the 1996 bid city vote was held, in 1990.

One month before the IOC voted to give the Games to Atlanta, Young made a last-minute trip to Ganga's homeland with "boxes full of shorts and shirts, soccer balls and basketballs."

Young's offering of "humanitarian aid" may have swayed other African delegates to vote for Atlanta over Toronto, given Ganga's status as president of the Association of National Olympic Committees of Africa.

ANOCA later was given permission by the Atlanta Olympic committee to market its own merchandise at the 1996 Games and, in 1991, after Ganga requested equipment, "printers, computers and other office supplies were shipped to the Congo" from Atlanta.

The Atlanta committee, largely through the work of Young, also set up a training centre for African athletes in LaGrange, Ga.

Ganga is one of the 13 IOC members under investigation for alleged improprieties in the bid process. It has been reported that he made $60,000 in a Utah land deal arranged by a Salt Lake committee member.

Despite Young's claim, the Toronto 1996 committee wrote off Ganga as a possible ally.

"We knew we weren't going to get his vote," Toronto '96 vice-president Norm Seagram said. "We didn't speak the same language, put it that way."

It was the language, Seagram said, of payola.

Seagram reacted with shock yesterday to the news Toronto '96 bid boss Paul Henderson arranged for TOOC to pay the rent for Finnish IOC member Pirjo Haggman in 1989 and 1990.

Canadian Olympic Association president Bill Warren expressed his "disappointment" over the Haggman deal, although he did offer Henderson some support.

"The prize was awfully great," Warren said. "Having worked on the Calgary Games, knowing that it was a particularly tight race, if somebody came to you with a request which of itself did not seem to be compromising to the project but was something that was done out of friendship more than anything else, you would do it."

"I would have done the same thing, I guess."

[baron-pierreIV]

Atlanta torched by Olympic scandal

By STEVE BUFFREY -- Toronto Sun

 The foul stench of bribes and payoffs in the Olympic bid process has spread from Salt Lake City to Nagano to Toronto and now to Atlanta -- the city that beat out Toronto for the 1996 Summer Games.

In a revelation reported by Mike Fish of the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, that city's former mayor, Andrew Young, claims to have convinced Congo IOC member Jean-Claude Ganga to withdraw his support of the Toronto bid and throw it behind Atlanta just weeks before the 1996 bid city vote was held, in 1990.

One month before the IOC voted to give the Games to Atlanta, Young made a last-minute trip to Ganga's homeland with "boxes full of shorts and shirts, soccer balls and basketballs."

Young's offering of "humanitarian aid" may have swayed other African delegates to vote for Atlanta over Toronto, given Ganga's status as president of the Association of National Olympic Committees of Africa.

ANOCA later was given permission by the Atlanta Olympic committee to market its own merchandise at the 1996 Games and, in 1991, after Ganga requested equipment, "printers, computers and other office supplies were shipped to the Congo" from Atlanta.

The Atlanta committee, largely through the work of Young, also set up a training centre for African athletes in LaGrange, Ga.

Ganga is one of the 13 IOC members under investigation for alleged improprieties in the bid process. It has been reported that he made $60,000 in a Utah land deal arranged by a Salt Lake committee member.

Despite Young's claim, the Toronto 1996 committee wrote off Ganga as a possible ally.

"We knew we weren't going to get his vote," Toronto '96 vice-president Norm Seagram said. "We didn't speak the same language, put it that way."

It was the language, Seagram said, of payola.

Seagram reacted with shock yesterday to the news Toronto '96 bid boss Paul Henderson arranged for TOOC to pay the rent for Finnish IOC member Pirjo Haggman in 1989 and 1990.

Canadian Olympic Association president Bill Warren expressed his "disappointment" over the Haggman deal, although he did offer Henderson some support.

"The prize was awfully great," Warren said. "Having worked on the Calgary Games, knowing that it was a particularly tight race, if somebody came to you with a request which of itself did not seem to be compromising to the project but was something that was done out of friendship more than anything else, you would do it."

"I would have done the same thing, I guess."

So what's your point?  Even the IOC is no longer interested in the so-called improprieties of past bids, like the Nagano bid.  So, r u going to rewrite history?  ETW, all been discussed here before.  Been there; done it.  Move on.  I think you're beating a dead horse.

[Expect the World]

So what's your point?  Even the IOC is no longer interested in the so-called improprieties of past bids, like the Nagano bid.  So, r u going to rewrite history?  ETW, all been discussed here before.  Been there; done it.  Move on.  I think you're beating a dead horse.

They have an old saying, "Fame has a 15 minute half-life. Infamy lasts a little longer!" baron, I'm not trying to re-write history. It has already been written! I'm trying to continue where it left off! And so far, there still a lot questions that hasn't been answered. Because it's all covered up. It's been forgotten. This issue is simply not dead!

[LA84]

So what's your point?  Even the IOC is no longer interested in the so-called improprieties of past bids, like the Nagano bid.  So, r u going to rewrite history?  ETW, all been discussed here before.  Been there; done it.  Move on.  I think you're beating a dead horse.

They have an old saying, "Fame has a 15 minute half-life. Infamy lasts a little longer!" baron, I'm not trying to re-write history. It has already been written! I'm trying to continue where it left off! And so far, there still a lot questions that hasn't been answered. Because it's all covered up. It's been forgotten. This issue is simply not dead!

Ironic.  People are so quick to jump up and down about any alleged or real past corruption that the USOC may have been involved in.  Yet nobody wants to talk about the fact that part of the reason New York placed so low for the 2012 bid is because they weren't making backroom deals with the IOC, as other cities were, to give them (the IOC) a greater share of the sponsorship pie.  

Kind of makes one wonder how Vancouver ended up with 2010. :hmm:

[Expect the World]

I really don't know technically about Vancouver's bid. I think Mr. X might know more about that. But I can tell you from what I see it Vancouver's bid was totally clean.

[Stu]

I really think any benefit Toronto may think it had due to previous bids has been lost with the success of the Vancouver bid - the Canadian NOC had a choice whether to pursue a Summer Games with Toronto or a Winter Games with Vancouver, they made their choice.  Toronto doesn't have to wait, but it is unlikely to be successful - recent contests (and most likely 2016 too) for the Summer Games have shown shortlists of cities all capable of a very successful Olympics, the IOC will therefore be searching for excuses to discount individual candidates - a Winter Games just a few months after the election would be just such an opportunity to discount Toronto.

[Stu]

Ironic.  People are so quick to jump up and down about any alleged or real past corruption that the USOC may have been involved in.  Yet nobody wants to talk about the fact that part of the reason New York placed so low for the 2012 bid is because they weren't making backroom deals with the IOC, as other cities were, to give them (the IOC) a greater share of the sponsorship pie.  

Kind of makes one wonder how Vancouver ended up with 2010. :hmm:

I'm sure any backroom meetings involving the New York team and the IOC would have been far more drawn out.  Moscow, Madrid, Paris and London all agreed to IOC quotas on sponsorship revenue.  Perhaps during the 2016 campaign the USOC will also agree rather than haggling with those about to choose whether the American candidate suceeds or fails - as with Toronto the IOC will be searching for reasons to discount cities and 2016 is probably the US's best chance for selection since 1984 - they shouldn't squander it.

[Apple]

Although I would love to see Toronto bid for the 2016 Olympics as it would benefit my city but I just have to be realistic. 2016 has too much aganist Toronto.