Monday, Jul 11, 2005
Monday, Jul 11, 2005 |
| Opinion | ||||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Opinion
-
Editorials
Even before the celebrations on winning the 2012 Olympics bid had died down, London was jolted by the bomb blasts. Since the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre, security had been a prime area of concern to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and host cities. That aspect has now been brought to the fore, as never before. It is not the cost alone that matters when it comes to protecting the Olympic family, but the sheer magnitude of mounting an unobtrusive security umbrella as the Greeks found out last summer. Athens spent about $ 1.2 billion, nearly four times what Australia did for the Sydney Games, to knit together a security network. London's overall projected budget of $ 4 billion, apart from the $ 15 billion earmarked for infrastructure, is bound to go up when the security concerns are fully met in time for the 2012 Games. The IOC has been quick to reassure the British that there could be no question marks over London's right to host what would be its third Olympics. It had won it after an agonising battle with Paris that went right up to the wire, just as those fought by Sebastian Coe before winning his two Olympic gold medals in the metric mile in 1980 and 1984. As chairman of the Olympic bid committee, Coe had confidently and tactfully steered London against odds and amidst controversies. Lord Coe deserves all the praise he drew from every quarter following London's 54-50 victory in the IOC session in Singapore even as the country was mourning its dead in the serial blasts. The French have made the charge that the Britons did not "play by the rules" while winning the bid in a straight contest after Moscow, New York and Madrid were eliminated in the round by round voting. Last year, just before the Athens Games, when everything looked to be going along well for London, the BBC had aired an expose on IOC votes being available for a price. And then came the news about the `freebies' that London proposed in its bid only to withdraw them when faced with an IOC Ethics Commission enquiry. Coe, a former member of British Parliament, who took over as bid committee chairman only in May last year, overcame both these setbacks with the poise of a champion. Paris had led throughout the campaign; more so after the IOC Evaluation Commission, in its final report, found practically no flaw in its bid. President Chirac might have spoilt it a bit by trashing the quality of British cuisine, but the French were still odds-on favourites with every bookmaker in London. Until of course the pro-Spanish IOC votes swung in favour of London in the final round. London was a late starter in this race for hosting the 2012 Games. It can lose no time now, especially on the security front, and a debate is bound to begin about the costs involved. Not all Britons are convinced that the spin-offs from the Games will more than compensate for the money that the country will sink into this task. It will nevertheless be a momentous event for London and for Britain as a whole.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |
Copyright © 2005, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
