[Beijing Faces Post-olympic Dilemmas]

The Solution is very apparent stop the building of Venues by picking bid cities with much on the ground at the time of the Bid. That would favor a Rio for 2016 .

Jim Jones

Are you insane?

What would happen to all those juicy building contracts and backhanders?

Over the IOC's dead body, my good man!!

As an aside, it would be great if some courageous investigative journalist (not Andrew Jennings, he's thrown in the towel) did some research on the relations between IOC members and the construction industry (nod-nod, wink-wink)

[Beijing Faces Post-olympic Dilemmas]

The sad thing about all this is that the IOC knows the solution.

Here are some highlights from the Olympic Games Study Commission report (not surprisingly chaired by Dick Pound). Legacy, deviation from the Games Template, real role for the Evaluation Commission: it says it all.

(snip)

The IOC Executive Board should develop an IOC communications strategy to make

clear the mandate of the Evaluation Commissions, including a specific component

directed to the costs of organizing the Games. Such a communication strategy must also

be designed to inform the public of the IOC’s intentions regarding the cost, size and

complexities of the organization of the Games and additional costs resulting from the

plans of potential host cities. It should address the objective of creating the best

possible legacy of the Games (which does not mean the "biggest" facilities) and the

cooperative management of the preparations for and operations of the Games under the

guidance of the IOC.

All very wise and proper Jeremie, and I couldn't agree more with what you're saying.

Unfortunately it's wishful thinking.

Why?

Henry Kissinger clearly stated the reasons in September 2005 when asked how he explained Paris' failure to win the 2012 games:

"Les Français n'ont pas compris ce qu'est le CIO. Beaucoup de ses membres viennent de pays pauvres."

All is said in that one sentence.

Differences between winners and losers in the bidding wars are minute.

(Beijing lost by 2 votes to Sydney in 1993, PyeongChang 3 votes to Vancouver, Paris 4 votes to London)

It's quite clear that IOC members from Third World countries couldn't care two hoots about facilities, legacy et al...

They see the games as a rich/white man's event from which they are excluded.

Coherent analysis is not for them.

They are only interested by what they can gain for themselves and nothing else.

As long as the IOC have Third World members in its midst, sadly, nothing will change.....

[Beijing Faces Post-olympic Dilemmas]

As Baron says, If the IOC wants us to take its "we want to reduce the scale of the Games" story seriously, then it should appear to be serious about it.

Cutting the scale of the Games is not cutting out a baseball and softball venue. Its about making an executive board decision about which city offers the type of Games that would not inspire other cities to be extravagant.

Its about taking bold steps and shoving the diplomacy aside in evaluation reports by clearly stating, "and wtf do you think you will do with this 90,000 seater after the games?"

By allowing IOC Members to vote Sochi and London you're not sending the right message

I couldn't have put it better myself.

(without running the risk of being accused of paranoia and sour grapes, that is!)

One wonders whatever happened to all those wonderful decision taken in Prague in 2003?