Paris - Evaluation Report Whitewash

[Aly]

Today's Sunday Telegraph feaatures an article that replicates many of the points made here previously.  Namely, why was there no critism of any aspect of the PParis bid in the Evauation Report.

I've copied a fair aamount of the report here as itmakes aa number of important points.

Sugar-coated Paris is too clean for words

By Simon Hart

(Filed: 12/06/2005)

When Paris's Olympic credentials were last put under the microscope during the city's ultimately unsuccessful bid to host the 2008 Games, the International Olympic Committee's evaluation report included a warning that "Paris experiences brief periods of excessive air pollution, primarily due to certain combinations of transport emission levels and weather conditions".

Now a fresh wind is blowing down the Champs Elysées. Last week saw the publication of an evaluation report of the 2012 candidate cities so glowing in its praise of the French capital that even the pollution has apparently disappeared. Either Paris has cleaned up its act or, as some are beginning to suspect, the soap has been applied by the IOC hierarchy.

The report was the work of the 13-person evaluation commission, a mixture of IOC members and independent experts who inspected the five candidate cities in February and March. However, though they all agreed the content of the report during a four-day debrief in Lausanne, the precise wording was left to IOC administrators, headed by the Swiss Olympic Games executive director, Gilbert Felli.

While both London and Madrid can take heart from evaluations that rate them as "very high quality" and "high quality" respectively, Paris's report is adulatory, containing not a single criticism or caveat.

But the tone reveals a marked shift from the more lukewarm appraisal it received four years ago - even allowing for the undoubted improvements the Paris 2012 team have made to the quality of their bid.

In 2001, the IOC inspectors noted the high prices of hotels in Paris, the congestion of the roads, the security hazard of having a land-locked, urban athletes' village and the risks posed by trade union strikes. All of these observations are just as relevant today, yet none finds its way into the latest report.

Hotel prices remain high, the roads are still clogged - as a French government transport report openly conceded last week - and although the athletes' village is now located in a different part of the city, it is equally land-locked and overlooked by tall buildings. As for strikes, the IOC inspectors had first-hand experience of industrial unrest during their four-day stay in the city in March when a national strike paralysed the Parisian transport system. Oddly, it does not merit a single mention in a report that is supposed to provide a detailed risk analysis.

Although the report does not rank the candidate cities, the IOC members who will cast their votes for the 2012 host city in Singapore next month will not have to read between the lines too closely to work out which is the preferred choice. Few would deny that Paris has a powerful case for securing the 2012 Games, though some of the report's conclusions are puzzling to say the least.

For example, while Paris escapes with a "generally satisfactory" verdict for its pollution levels, the report says of London that "increasing levels of ozone pollution are, however, a concern". What the report does not say is that ozone is a cross-border problem and that, statistically, there is no difference between levels in Paris and London. Paris's own official air quality website states that "the levels of atmospheric pollution measured in London and in Paris are very close cousins".

While London offered binding guarantees that room prices for Olympic officials in deluxe hotels would be kept to $290 (£160) a night, Paris provided letters of intent that prices would range from a hefty $480 to $516. The verdict, nevertheless, is that London has a "well-developed accommodation plan", whereas Paris, whose offer was palpably less generous, is praised for its "excellent accommodation proposal".

Full Report

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport....rt.html

[zoltan]

I have a question: do u really think that this kind of article is going to convince IOC members to switch their vote in favor of London?

[Surferdude]

I have a question: do u really think that this kind of article is going to convince IOC members to switch their vote in favor of London?

That wasn't the point. The whole thing was about whether large parts of Paris' previously identified weaknesses have been glossed over by the IOC administrators who wrote the evaluation report.

[bigdavejb]

I have a question: do u really think that this kind of article is going to convince IOC members to switch their vote in favor of London?

Lets hope so then it depends how much under the table dealing the French have been doing.

[zoltan]

as far I know, incitives dont take part of Paris project

[zoltan]

I have a question: do u really think that this kind of article is going to convince IOC members to switch their vote in favor of London?

That wasn't the point. The whole thing was about whether large parts of Paris' previously identified weaknesses have been glossed over by the IOC administrators who wrote the evaluation report.

I understand the point.

what I dont understand is why British media focus so much on paris bid.

I v read a lot of articles in french press and i dont have seen this kind of articles. I dont think that they are particulary interested in challenging what the commission have said about London

It seems that UK has exactly the same attitude then France had about Beijing for 2008. and we all know what happened next

[bigdavejb]

as far I know, incitives dont take part of Paris project

I said under the table dealing NOT INCENTIVES! There is nothing wrong with incentives when they are aimed at the sports men and women and not the IOC hierarchy as London’s were.

That’s probably the real reason the IOC caused a fuss not enough freebies going their way.

As far as I can see there is definatly no incentive to vote Paris.

[Borine]

Paris has the best technical project,that'sall.... there were independant expert..in all criteria Paris dominates,what is the hell with the hotels prices?If people have money to pay them..Moreover the cost of life in London is higher than is Paris..the food principally is very expansive in London, it explains why our british friends comes live in France,housing prices are lower here...

[islondon2012]

Paris has the best technical project,that'sall.... there were independant expert..in all criteria Paris dominates,what is the hell with the hotels prices?If people have money to pay them..Moreover the cost of life in London is higher than is Paris..the food principally is very expansive in London, it explains why our british friends comes live in France,housing prices are lower here...

I doubt food prices in London are dearer than Paris, don't forget France farmers benefit hugely from C.A.P. Also house prices are cheaper in those parts of France that are less accessible, but this is irrelevant as people coming for the olympics will not be buying houses, they will be renting or staying in hotels.

[Robert Henson]

In 2001, the IOC inspectors noted the high prices of hotels in Paris, the congestion of the roads, the security hazard of having a land-locked, urban athletes' village and the risks posed by trade union strikes. All of these observations are just as relevant today, yet none finds its way into the latest report.

Hotel prices remain high, the roads are still clogged - as a French government transport report openly conceded last week - and although the athletes' village is now located in a different part of the city, it is equally land-locked and overlooked by tall buildings. As for strikes, the IOC inspectors had first-hand experience of industrial unrest during their four-day stay in the city in March when a national strike paralysed the Parisian transport system. Oddly, it does not merit a single mention in a report that is supposed to provide a detailed risk analysis.

This is paticularly important. What has changed in four years?

[FYI]

Simple answer: Beijing was bidding last time against Paris. Did everyone forget already.

The IOC is all about politics. They wanted the 2008 Games in Beijing 4 years ago & now they want the 2012 Games in Paris, it's that simple.

[thatsnotmypuppy]

Exactly FYI - I didnt post that as I thought it was stating the obvious - but obviously its needed.

Osaka and Paris were slated by the IOC Evaluation report back in 2001 for different reasons.  Osaka was savaged so there was no "strong Asian competition" against Beijing.  Paris may have had a lot of emotional pull, but the IOC's desire for big Chinese bucks was all powerful - thus every bad point about Paris had to be brought up and magnified.  

Toronto got a lighter dose of this - while the Istanbul section of the report is quite good - but they didnt expect the Turks had a hope in he!! so no effort was needed to underscore that bid.

This time around, while NYC seems to be the bigger market for the Games, it will be Europe's turn - and out of the 4, Paris is the one the IOC wants, or so it seems.  London and Madrid's great report scores show the IOC arent overly picky which European city gets it (even Moscow had a great write up, all things considered), but they want to make Paris an easy pick for the swinging voters.

[GorbyGorba]

I have a question: do u really think that this kind of article is going to convince IOC members to switch their vote in favor of London?

That wasn't the point. The whole thing was about whether large parts of Paris' previously identified weaknesses have been glossed over by the IOC administrators who wrote the evaluation report.

I understand the point.

what I dont understand is why British media focus so much on paris bid.

I v read a lot of articles in french press and i dont have seen this kind of articles. I dont think that they are particulary interested in challenging what the commission have said about London

It seems that UK has exactly the same attitude then France had about Beijing for 2008. and we all know what happened next

So now you know the issue!

french medias don't wrote on the brits, they ares too boring and paper is expansive, lol, the brit medias lackeys ares obsessed by the grandeur of france, each day they have something to say, and it's biased, racist, narow minded, anyway, i don't think that a tiny racist conservative propaganda wave in london will make tsunami in asia oceans!

Paris have already won, and dreamers have right to dream!

[Robert Henson]

I have a question: do u really think that this kind of article is going to convince IOC members to switch their vote in favor of London?

That wasn't the point. The whole thing was about whether large parts of Paris' previously identified weaknesses have been glossed over by the IOC administrators who wrote the evaluation report.

I understand the point.

what I dont understand is why British media focus so much on paris bid.

I v read a lot of articles in french press and i dont have seen this kind of articles. I dont think that they are particulary interested in challenging what the commission have said about London

It seems that UK has exactly the same attitude then France had about Beijing for 2008. and we all know what happened next

So now you know the issue!

french medias don't wrote on the brits, they ares too boring and paper is expansive, lol, the brit medias lackeys ares obsessed by the grandeur of france, each day they have something to say, and it's biased, racist, narow minded, anyway, i don't think that a tiny racist conservative propaganda wave in london will make tsunami in asia oceans!

Paris have already won, and dreamers have right to dream!

Befre you go on another silly rant about racism and narrow-mindedness look at yourself.

In case you missed the implication I'll spell it out for you:

Gorbygorba, you are a narrow-minded racist.

[arwebb]

Maybe someone could explain how any city can win before a vote has been cast.