This is a short reading to give you practice identifying particular important details in a text.
Before reading, discuss these questions with your partner / group:
- Which city held the last summer Olympic games? And the last winter Olympics?
- Big cities compete with each other to host the Games. Why do you think that is?
- What disadvantages could there be in holding large sporting events in a city?
- How could the host city benefit once the Games are over?
Quickly skim through the article. As you read try to work out the answer to this question:
London claimed that holding the Olympics in the city would benefit which group?
Before reading, check that you understand the meaning of these words:
| Word | Part of speech | Word | Part of speech |
|---|---|---|---|
| pledge | verb | composure | noun |
| bid | noun | excruciating | adjective |
| rival | noun | groundwork | noun |
| kitsch | adjective | lobbying | verb |
| maul | verb | run-off | noun |
London wins Olympics
2012 event will be secure, pledges capital's mayor
By Paul Kelso
1. When he arrived in Singapore to give his speech for London's bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games last week Sebastian Coe brought with him a secret weapon: 30 children. Where rival bids filled their 100 allotted seats in the Raffles hotel auditorium with suits, London presented the International Olympic Committee (IOC) with a grinning multiracial example of the city's potential.
2. It was to prove inspired, although Lord Coe and his team had to wait six hours before they knew it. London's victory was announced only after a presentation ceremony that scaled new heights of kitsch. Two Singaporean sopranos and a tenor subjected the Olympic anthem, a tune whose primary virtue is to be heard only once every four years, to a fearful mauling.
3. Eventually the IOC president, Jacques Rogge, recovered his composure and requested the envelope bearing the name of the winning city. It was brought to him on a silk pillow by a 15-year-old sailor cadet in the Singaporean navy. An excruciating preamble ensued, followed by one sweet word: "London". Coe and Co had secured 54 votes to 50 for the favourite, Paris, in the final run-off.
4. At the G8 summit in Gleneagles, Tony Blair found the build-up unbearable. He was attempting to calm his nerves with a walk in the hotel grounds when the announcement was made. Downing Street broke the news to him on his mobile. "We have won! We have won!" the official screamed. According to his own account, the prime minister punched the air, did a jig and embraced his startled chief of staff, Jonathan Powell.
5. Mr Blair, who had helped to lay the groundwork for victory during three days of intense one-to-one lobbying of IOC members, said hard work had paid off: "We had the right message that we wanted, a strong message for the Olympic mood." Where Madrid, Moscow, New York and Paris had sought to reassure and flatter the IOC with presidential promises and high-budget tourism videos, Lord Coe set out a challenge to a movement sometimes more concerned with its internal politics than its mission. "Some might say your decision today is between five similar bids. That would be to undervalue the opportunity before you," he said. "In the past you have made bold decisions. This is a decision about which city will help us show a new generation why sport matters. On behalf of the youth of today, the athletes of tomorrow and the Olympians of the future, we humbly submit the bid of London 2012." London's mayor Ken Livingstone and the Metropolitan Police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, insisted that the London 2012 Olympics would be secure despite last week's terrorist attacks. "We have reassured the IOC that we have the security to handle the games," said Mr Livingstone, adding that the Metropolitan Police had been involved in the advisory group for the Athens games. "The IOC know, through the experience of the 1972 Munich Olympics, that there is nowhere that can ever be completely safe but there is nowhere that will be safer than London," he said.
First published in The Guardian Weekly 15/7/2005, page 13