2016: If Not The Usa, Then Who?

[Sir Rols]

Okay, it does seem to be a general attitude here that the USA will be the frontrunner for the 2016 hosting. Most of us say it's the Western Hemiphere's turn and point to Beijing 2008 and London 2012 as drawbacks to either Asia or Europe getting it.

But ...

C'mon, most of us also sensibly admit that nothing's certain, there's no such thing as a certain bid, and of course, whoever the USOC bids with, ultimately there's no such thing as an unbeatable bid. And anything could happen _ funding could fall flat, a plebiscite could reject a candidacy, disaster could strike, they could just be plain out-campaigned, etc etc. IF the USA bid does fall at the final hurdle, who is, in everyone's opinion, the most likely challenger to pick up the baton. Could Europe sneak through to gain a rare back-to-back Euro hosting cycle? Could Japan show that Asia is no longer just an occasional host? Could elsewhere in the Western Hemiphere (Rio, Monterrey) break through? Could the unfancied outsiders (Baku, New Delhi) spring a surprise?

What's your thoughts?

[FYI]

If the U.S. loses out for 2016, then I hope it's at least by a new-frontier city, i.e. Rio, Cape Town, Istanbul.

[Sir Rols]

I voted Rio too. It would certainly be my preferred option if the USA misses out (actually, I'd probably prefer it full stop). Realistically, though, I suppose if the USA flunks out, I'd guess Tokyo could get through.

I really think London 2012 is too big a hindrance for the Euro bids, no matter how good they are. That said, I've always assumed that the main purpose of the Rome and Madrid bids will be to position themselves for a full-bore tilt at 2020 and give them a bit of an advantage against other likely Euro challengers like Paris and Berlin.

[Stu]

My head says that Tokyo would be the main challenger to the US bid.

I think a Rio Olympics would be spectacular but have some doubts as to whether they could win/stage an Olympics at this point - it would be great if they could prove me wrong.

I would prefer the US to host with New York or even Chicago in 2020 anyway - as this avoids back-to-back Anglo-Saxon Olympics - that's basically the only reason I don't want the US to win - variety is the spice of life!

[Faster]

I think the only bid that could give the USA a run is one from Toronto.

[baron-pierreIV]

I picked Rio -- only cause I think Rio would make a nice setting. But they have to have an Opening Ceremony Carnavale to END ALL Carnavales (unless they reserve that for Closing. As it is, I think we will be getting a preview of that with the PanAms Opening.) That would be my only stipulation for awarding the Games to Rio.

[Sir Rols]

I picked Rio -- only cause I think Rio would make a nice setting. But they have to have an Opening Ceremony Carnavale to END ALL Carnavales (unless they reserve that for Closing. As it is, I think we will be getting a preview of that with the PanAms Opening.) That would be my only stipulation for awarding the Games to Rio.

Not to mention it's the next best time zone (well, actually the same time zone) for you American Olympic viewers.

[FYI]

Actually, Rio is 2 hours ahead of New York.

[Sir Rols]

Actually, Rio is 2 hours ahead of New York.

If NBC were able to solve the Beijing prime time problem, Rio would be a cinch! These latins like late nights anyway

[FYI]

Yeah, really. I've read that the nightlife in Buenos Aires doesn't get started until about Midnight.

[dave199]

I think the only bid that could give the USA a run is one from Toronto.

I sort of agree but I think Toronto has their minds set on a 2020 bid and are hoping the American 2016 bid falters. Right now I see the USA winning 2016 but I wouldn't write it in stone just yet. I can possibly see Tokyo winning 2016. Just because it's in Asia isn't a big hindrance. This is Tokyo were taking about. One of the top tier Asian cities.

[Filipe_Golias]

Tokyo and Rio seem to me the best alternatives to any US bid. But while the official applicant cities aren't known there could be a surprise bid to change all this setting. But from Tokyo and Rio, I would support Rio for three reasons: 1) the cultural and historical affinity ties with my country, 2) the fact that by 2016, 9 years have passed since the PanAm Games and Rio would have all the basic infrastructure (just some renovation needed), and 3) would be the first Olympics in South America, and even though in late July/August/early September it's Winter there, it would be sufficient "Summer" for a Summer Games

[baron-pierreIV]

as this avoids back-to-back Anglo-Saxon Olympics -

R u channeling Cordelia?

[Lord David]

Where's Doha, Qatar? In talk of countries and cities going for broke hosting the Olympics, why not give it to Doha then? Sure, Qatar hasn't done too well when it comes to medals, but they are improving, not to mention the fact that most of the facilities are already available, whilst infrastructure developments will be well completed by 2016. All that would be needed is an upgrade of the main stadium from 50,000 to possibly 70,000 or more, so basically put, if you want a city that is willing to go for broke in preparation of a SOG, the Doha is your city!

[Sir Rols]

Where's Doha, Qatar? In talk of countries and cities going for broke hosting the Olympics, why not give it to Doha then? Sure, Qatar hasn't done too well when it comes to medals, but they are improving, not to mention the fact that most of the facilities are already available, whilst infrastructure developments will be well completed by 2016. All that would be needed is an upgrade of the main stadium from 50,000 to possibly 70,000 or more, so basically put, if you want a city that is willing to go for broke in preparation of a SOG, the Doha is your city!

D'oh!

I was wondering if I'd forgotten any of the confirmed bidders on the list.

Honestly, though, I don't give it any chance. Money, yes, which couyld get them through to the short list, but untilately in the wrong place (the most politically unstable corner of the world) and virtually no sporting tradition.

[Lord David]

D'oh!

I was wondering if I'd forgotten any of the confirmed bidders on the list.

Honestly, though, I don't give it any chance. Money, yes, which couyld get them through to the short list, but untilately in the wrong place (the most politically unstable corner of the world) and virtually no sporting tradition.

Don't you mean D'oh-a?

Though seriously, they are improving and if they do prove their worthiness in Beijing and London, then they will have a very good chance of at the very least, making the shortlist. As for politically unstable yes, but this is Qatar we're talking about, not Iraq nor Iran for that matter, who would want to harm Qatar's chances of hosting the Olympics, plus it does have the support of the current Asian Olympic Committee President...

[SOlympiadsW]

I would have said Tokyo, however given the whole support issue and Beijing 2008 (not to mention PC 2014 if it does in fact win in July), I just don't see them winning 2016...probably 2020

So I would say South America (with Rio) or Africa (with Cape Town) stand a great chance at getting 2016 if they put formidable bids, especially if the IOC is not willing to return to the US...or I would go with Europe (Rome, Madrid, or even Istanbul-maybe 2016 is there time)....the rest can pretty much forget about it ....there are plenty of alternatives to the obvious frontrunner (the US) but if the IOC is willing to come back here in 2016, I am pretty sure they will this time, but maybe they will want something new, and I see 2016 as a great oppurtunity for this as well...but we'll just have to see, either way the results will be awesome

[Rei]

uhmm.. Rio would attract me much.. but there's someone else in that list that could also count on another beautiful bay a apart from the candidate city.. guess you what.

[Mainad]

Ideally,I would love to see the Games go to Rio although I fear it may be too much to pull off while bidding for the 2014 World Cup at the same time!

If Rio cannot manage it for 2016,I guess I would like to see them go to Roma (an incomparable setting for an Olympics) or,failing that,Tokyo (both cities have not hosted in more than 40 years and are ripe for a second opportunity).

[FYI]

I don't see Doha at all. If the IOC is interested in going to the Middle East, I'd say they'd go with Istanbul. The most stable out of all the cities in the region (as far as Muslim cities go), & they're working on all their facilities already & have their Olympic stadium already in place. Not to mention of all their Olympic bids they have already placed, so Istanbul is very much on the IOC's radar by now.

[Gangwon]

Agreed. I don't see Doha winning the Olympics ahead of Istanbul. I don't think Istanbul is *that* far off from hosting an Olympics, in that I could see them getting it in the first half of this century (before 2048). This is certainly a compliment, as there are only a handful of cities that will do so.

[Filipe_Golias]

Istanbul will eventually win by tiring the IOC

[Sir Rols]

I don't see Doha at all. If the IOC is interested in going to the Middle East, I'd say they'd go with Istanbul. The most stable out of all the cities in the region (as far as Muslim cities go), & they're working on all their facilities already & have their Olympic stadium already in place. Not to mention of all their Olympic bids they have already placed, so Istanbul is very much on the IOC's radar by now.

So is Turkey's "Olympic law" that commits them to bid until they win kicking in this time? I haven't heard anything about them officially throwing their hat in the ring.

[Guardian]

I have to admit that these choices are fraught with potential weaknesses in varying degrees. If I would really had to choose, my head says Rio. But, I wouldn't be surprised, if "tradition" favors the Europeans here. What I mean by that is how the next host city of the Olympic Games after a London one seem to go to another European city.

[Mainad]

I have to admit that these choices are fraught with potential weaknesses in varying degrees. If I would really had to choose, my head says Rio. But, I wouldn't be surprised, if "tradition" favors the Europeans here. What I mean by that is how the next host city of the Olympic Games after a London one seem to go to another European city.

Completely different eras.When London previously hosted in 1908 and 1948,only 2 non-European cities had ever been awarded the Summer Olympics ie. St.Louis in 1904 and Los Angeles in 1932.London 1948 and Helsinki 1952 were the last ever back to back European Summer Olympics to date.Since then,they have always alternated between continents.This doesn't necessarily rule out another European city following London 2012,it just means that what occurred after the last two hostings can no longer be taken as any kind of meaningful example for what might happen for 2016.