Jump to content

And Shortlisted Are...


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Even if Rio will be weaker than Tokyo, Chicago and Madrid in many parts of the evaluation, I think that it will get a lot of support among the IOC. Whether it's enough to win I'm not sure, but I think it's unlikely to be eliminated in one of the earlier rounds. I think if Rio manages to survive the first few rounds of voting it could win - if Rio is in the final round against Chicago or Tokyo, it would be difficult to vote against it and deny South America their first opportunity.

Will the Rio campaign have similar support in the IOC to that of Beijing in 2001?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's very possible that the IOC would support Rio (if they make the cut, & signs show that they very well could) like they did Beijing. The IOC still has the desire to spread the Olympic movement around the world & South America is still uncharted territory for them. And again, as long as Rio presents at least a very decent bid, I think they could win. Even though they're my second choice, I would be extremely happy if they were to win, simply because of the fact that South America needs to finally host an Olympic Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, one of the factors that played a role is the personal intervention of the late Sinan Erdem before the IOC Executive Board. He was fearing that, should Istanbul not be included among the candidate cities, the Olympic Law could be cancelled. He pleaded that the Olympic Law being a key element in developing sports among the Turkish youth and therefore Istanbul bid should be encouraged. There was a debate among the EB and a vote to include Istanbul among the candidate cities.

Well, yeah, I'm sure that played a role, too, but still one of the other factors that was highly talked about on these boards back in late 2000/early 2001, was that Beijing was also a factor of Istanbul's inclusion. The fact that the IOC didn't include them for 2012 tends to lead to the conclusion that Istanbul was simply used for Beijing's benefit. Why wasn't the Olympic Law considered then as well? The IOC had to somehow justify Beijing's choice when there were clearly 3 other bids much better than Beijing's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, yeah, I'm sure that played a role, too, but still one of the other factors that was highly talked about on these boards back in late 2000/early 2001, was that Beijing was also a factor of Istanbul's inclusion. The fact that the IOC didn't include them for 2012 tends to lead to the conclusion that Istanbul was simply used for Beijing's benefit. Why wasn't the Olympic Law considered then as well? The IOC had to somehow justify Beijing's choice when there were clearly 3 other bids much better than Beijing's.

I am still not convinced that some money changed hands in Beijing's dealings to get the games.

In 2012 you had London, Paris, Madrid, New York, Moscow, Leipzig, Rio and Istanbul. Leopzig did make the technically cut-offs but the IOC was not comfortable with more than 5. A lot of people were surprised that Moscow was included over Rio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, & I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread that the reason Rio was probably out for 2012 was because there were already 5 major global cities in the competition. But people keep throwing that fact against Rio for this time around (which you yourself have done before as well), which is a totally different race with fewer cities competing. If the Turkish Olympic Law was what kept Istanbul in for 2008, why wasn't it important enough for 2012 then. Either Istanbul or Rio was expected to make it on the 2012 SL, but we had unexpected Moscow on it instead. Which still leads that Istanbul was more than likely a pawn in '01 for '08.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, & I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread that the reason Rio was probably out for 2012 was because there were already 5 major global cities in the competition. But people keep throwing that fact against Rio for this time around (which you yourself have done before as well), which is a totally different race with fewer cities competing. If the Turkish Olympic Law was what kept Istanbul in for 2008, why wasn't it important enough for 2012 then. Either Istanbul or Rio was expected to make it on the 2012 SL, but we had unexpected Moscow on it instead. Which still leads that Istanbul was more than likely a pawn in '01 for '08.

I don't disagree with you that Istanbul was included for reasons other then their bid.

I have said, as has others, that Rio's bid is not significantly different from their bid that did not meet technically requirements. Also if I remember correctly, most thought it was between Leipzig and Moscow for the final spot, Rio was a sentimental favourite, but the truth is Buenos Aires' bid in 2004 was better. The score for 2012 was;

Paris - 8.5

Madrid - 8.3

London - 7.6

New York City 7.5

Moscow - 6.5

Leipzig - 6.0

Rio De Janeiro - 5.1

Istanbul - 4.8

Havana - 3.7

Rio was over a full point behind Moscow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The final spot actually was generally viewed between Rio & Istanbul. GB's even had a summary posted right before the 2012 SL was announced, & it was virtually right on target, expect for Moscow. The only people that thought Leipzig had any sort of chance were some few German nationals on here back then. Leipzig from the beginning was viewed as too small & no match for the glamour cities of New York, London & Paris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The final spot actually was generally viewed between Rio & Istanbul. GB's even had a summary posted right before the 2012 SL was announced, & it was virtually right on target, expect for Moscow. The only people that thought Leipzig had any sort of chance were some few German nationals on here back then. Leipzig from the beginning was viewed as too small & no match for the glamour cities of New York, London & Paris.

How much of that was sentiment though from Gbers? Its the same right now with Doha and Rio, a lot of sentiment with bids that don't have a chance. I also remember Moscow's information was not the most available at the time, there bid was decent and did not have as many holes as Rio's and Instanbul's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't a summary done by the forumers, but by the GB moderator. And I agree about Moscow, their bid appeared to be decent. But again it probably wasn't viewed as most likely since, as you said, Rio & Istanbul were the sentimental favorites. Not to mention, one big thing Moscow had going against it too, was that out of all the 2012 bidding cities, they were the most recent host. As recent as 1980 & in Olympic years, that's not very long ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I haven't changed my opinion, I still think it's dicey if Rio makes the cut-off or not, but the IOC might be thinking that they put Rio over to give it some confidence and than encourage Rio to bid for 2020 along with Cape Town. When the IOC would have information on how the World Cup went in South Africa and how the preparations are going for the World Cup in Brazil and get some FIFA feedback. I think a Cape Town, Rio de Janerio, Paris, Madrid and either Tokyo/Rome/Berlin would be highly attractive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enough about Rio and it's feasible chances - here is the black and white 2012 evaluatrion - prove to me these issues have been fixed -

The physical and geographical situation of Rio creates challenges in terms of urban

transport networks, with transport facilities constricted to the area between the ocean

and the nearby mountains. Alternatively, transport facilities have to go around the

vast Tijuca Forest. The current traffic situation is problematic as almost all public and

private transport systems are superimposed and have to use the overcrowded road

system. The Rio metro subway system is limited to two short lines which serve a

small proportion of Rio’s urban areas. The suburban rail system, which has been and

still is undergoing major upgrades (electrification, track renewal, etc.), serves only

Rio’s northern and north-western suburbs, but very little of the proposed Olympic

areas.

Motorway and major rail infrastructures which are planned to connect the eastern

(Rio Central Business District to Copacabana), northern (Maracanã and Deodoro) and

western (Barra) areas of Rio pass through geographical bottlenecks and/or very

densely urbanised areas and are, therefore, challenging and costly to build.

If all transport infrastructure elements (motorway and high performance rail)

proposed for 2012 are in place, the transport concept is sound in principle but will be

challenged to meet the transport capacity needed to cope with Rio’s basic traffic

demands (without the Olympic Games) given the very heavy concentration of flows.

In addition, given Rio’s history of difficulties in the field of heavy rail and urban

motorway development, and the very high cost of these infrastructures, the

probability of having a full dual system (motorway + high performance rail) in place in

seven years time appears to be optimistic.

So have there been huge transport infrastructure upgrades? Wasn't one of the rail lines scrapped?

Rio has a low number (12) of existing venues (39%). However, importantly, through

preparing for the 2007 Pan-American Games, ten (32%) sports venues are currently

under construction or their construction will commence shortly. All of the permanent

venues will be completed by 2007.

Nine (29%) additional venues will be required for the Olympic Games, of which three

will be permanent. This gives a total of 31 venues.

The Rio sports concept covers four regions of the city in venue clusters, with Barra

Olympic Park (18 sports including the Olympic Stadium) as a focal point, just 3km

from the Olympic Village.

This high-density cluster of venues in Barra, together with the Olympic Village, MPC,

IBC and Media Villages, may present significant operational challenges.

With the exception of road cycling and sailing (39km), volleyball and water polo

(35km), all venues are in close proximity to the Olympic Village.

The venues under construction and those planned for the Olympic Games will provide

Rio with a very positive sports legacy.

Well in this instance there is hope - Rio does NOW have some world class venues.

Olympic development projects will take place in locations designated for urban

renewal and improvement. Environmentally sustainable design principles will be

implemented in all projects. Traffic- and industry -related air pollution is a challenge.

New suburban rail links are expected to take some of the pressure off the roads.

About one third of the population in Rio suffers from inadequate access to clean

water and proper sanitation. Sewage treatment projects and an extension of sanitary

facilities are expected to improve conditions in the city. It is anticipated that the

Olympic Games would act as a catalyst for improvement projects.

Did the PanAms help with this issue? Has there been any forward momentum in regards with basic sanitation upgrades in the past 4 years?

The number of existing hotel rooms (19,100) is well below the benchmark. The

number of planned hotel rooms (4,000), the two media villages with a total of 17,152

rooms and five cruise ships with 3,500 rooms would increase Rio’s accommodation

capacity to meet the benchmark, but may present a challenge.

How many new hotels have opened? According to the 2016 application file Rio can offer "Rio de Janeiro’s Games Accommodation Plan, delivering 49,570 rooms to meet IOC specifications, satisfies the varied

requirements of all client groups. The Plan leverages the city’s diverse accommodation offerings from hostels to cruise

ships and 5 star beachfront hotels."

That is a huge increase... Is that legit? How many cruise ships are needed to make up that many rooms?

Continuing on -

Distances and travel times -

Although a very large number of competition and non-competition venues are located

in the proposed new Olympic Barra district, the proportion and number of stand

alone venues in other areas is rather high. The average distance between Olympic

competition and non-competition venues is similar to other Applicant Cities.

However, the assumed average bus travel speeds of 63km/h appear unrealistic.

Transport organisation and traffic management at Games-time

The Olympic operational transport concept seems good for Barra, although the sheer

number and size of the venues may generate increased transport congestion and

overload. The concept presents considerable challenges for the rest of the Olympic

system due to heavy potential congestion both on urban motorways and major

arterial roads, as well as on rail or major bus routes on the proposed Olympic Ring,

connecting Barra to other parts of the Rio metropolitan area.

Again I do not see huge transport infrastructure upgrades underway - maybe I am wrong??

The security Forces will be under the control of the Federal Government. Many venues

in Rio are widespread and the requirement for security could stretch the resources

available. The heavy concentration of some key venues in the Barra area may require

a complex security solution. The technology and infrastructure to support the

security operation will have to be developed. It is considered that the time needed to

re-equip, train and implement new systems might not be sufficient.

As news even this week shows security is a huge issue in Rio. And will continue to be.

Rio has some experience in international events, including one world championship

(beach volleyball in 2003), a world club championship (football in 2000) and the

South American Games (in 2002), as well as various world cups and some continental

events. It was also noted that Rio has been awarded the 2007 Pan American Games.

The PanAms have helped - but the World Cup is still years off. One event does not a sporting culture make.

The City, State and Federal governments (in some cases in conjunction with the

private sector) will invest more than USD 400 million in new sports venues, USD 360

million in housing for villages, USD 3.7 billion in road and rail infrastructure and

more than USD 300 million in environmental initiatives.

A commitment is given by the President of Brazil to undertake all necessary

infrastructural developments, to provide services and competition and noncompetition

venues to the OCOG free of charge and to cover any potential OCOG

shortfall.

Big bucks to throw around - especially after the huge cost of the 2014 World Cup... I'd expect even a more advanced economy like Australia or even say Germany would be hard pressed to justify spending ion that scale for an Olympics 2 years after a World Cup.

Rio came rightfully dead last with Havana for 2012 in this category.

Frankly I do expect to see Rio on the shortlist - but for the wrong reasons. The IOC (especially with the Beijing issues) will want to do everything to be seen in a positive light. They dont want anymore "Olympics too big for South America' or 'IOC snubs Brazil' stories. They want to show the Olympics are accessible and can be staged in a les developed economy. Of course you and I know that this is not the case.

Rio is not ready. Maybe come 2020 or 2024 sure - show us how well you do with the World Cup and make us believe! Until then a Rio candidate approval is simple pandering by the IOC. And frankly I wouldn't want to be 'humoured' or put forward not based on merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it really any different from Doha being included. Even if Rio were to make it, who says they're going to win. Like some have speculated, if anything it can serve as encouragement. Besides, the IOC Evaluation Board also seems to have a habit of writing those reports however they see fit. Osaka's 2008 bid comes to mind in that regard. How does a city go from # 2 in the preliminary rankings, to 'hardly ready' to stage the Games in the Final 2008 Evaluation Report. Every city has their challenges & Rio certainly has theirs. Just like Beijing, like Istanbul, & like Prague, etc, etc. I don't think anyone here is disputing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difference - weknow what the IOC has highlighted as issues with Rio and I question if enough work has been done to really make that candidacy surpass the IOC's benchmarks. I would say no. Doha is a very different deal - small compact city, massive cash reserves behind it and very little reason to not be at least put forward to the next stage. Personally I'd rather the Olympics go to Buenos Aires or Dubai - however the requirements are very black and white - and Rio was a ways off last time. I think everyone is getting caught up in the whole new frontiers thing. The IOC has been there and done that with Sochi. It is not the right time for Rio. It is probably not the right time for Doha. At the end of the day the IOC will go with a safe candidate - all roads lead to Chicago or Tokyo, with Madrid a long shot - but a feasible option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that the IOC didn't include them for 2012 tends to lead to the conclusion that Istanbul was simply used for Beijing's benefit. Why wasn't the Olympic Law considered then as well? The IOC had to somehow justify Beijing's choice when there were clearly 3 other bids much better than Beijing's.

How do you know the Olympic Law was not considered (which I mentioned as ONE of the factors only)?

You seem to ignore several facts:

  1. Erdem had unfortunately passed away by 2004; he was a very popular figure among his IOC colleagues and his passing away clearly was a blow for Istanbul
  2. Istanbul technical evaluation was much lower for 2012 than for 2008
  3. Rogge was president then who is clearly not as good as Samaranch at influencing the Executvie Board (which is actually a good thing)

Final thing, Beijing was above the threshold so the IOC didn't have to justify the choice of including Beijing among the candidate cities...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, & I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread that the reason Rio was probably out for 2012 was because there were already 5 major global cities in the competition. But people keep throwing that fact against Rio for this time around (which you yourself have done before as well), which is a totally different race with fewer cities competing. If the Turkish Olympic Law was what kept Istanbul in for 2008, why wasn't it important enough for 2012 then. Either Istanbul or Rio was expected to make it on the 2012 SL, but we had unexpected Moscow on it instead. Which still leads that Istanbul was more than likely a pawn in '01 for '08.

Unexpected Moscow... Anyone who knew the Olympic Movement knew that Moscow would most likely be shortlisted even if it had no chance to win eventually. Russia is not Turkey nor Brazil. The Russian IOC members are, together with the Italians, among the King Makers within the IOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So have there been huge transport infrastructure upgrades? Wasn't one of the rail lines scrapped?

If you read the report, you will see that one of the main issues about Rio 2012 was the feasibility of building rail lines within a 7-year time frame.

The fact the rail lines were scrapped from Rio 2016 is actually a positive factor as highway with dedicated Olympic lanes is more realistic. So I except Rio to score higher in transportation than they did for 2012 (don't know how much higher though).

Accommodation is probably the other major issue. WC 2014 should help but how much so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Final thing, Beijing was above the threshold so the IOC didn't have to justify the choice of including Beijing among the candidate cities...

I didn't mean on the short-list, but rather not have any questions of why was the 'least' prepared bid (if Istanbul wasn't there) elected the winner when the other 3 candidates were much better suited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unexpected Moscow... Anyone who knew the Olympic Movement knew that Moscow would most likely be shortlisted even if it had no chance to win eventually. Russia is not Turkey nor Brazil. The Russian IOC members are, together with the Italians, among the King Makers within the IOC.

Again, the GB moderator (which I'm sure he has his sources as well) had a summary post of which bids were likely to make the 2012 cut & Moscow was not one of them. The fact that Moscow was included, was simply to appease & not to offend the Russians in any way. Kinda like the baby who throws a tantrum at the store. Sometimes you give them what they want so they can be happy, even if it's just for a little while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, the GB moderator (which I'm sure he has his sources as well) had a summary post of which bids were likely to make the 2012 cut & Moscow was not one of them.

Well Rob gets it wrong sometimes.

(so do I, I was convinced that Rio would be included for 2012)

The fact that Moscow was included, was simply to appease & not to offend the Russians in any way. Kinda like the baby who throws a tantrum at the store. Sometimes you give them what they want so they can be happy, even if it's just for a little while.

Gee, that's exactly what I said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...