Jump to content

"Front Runner"- a label no city will want


Recommended Posts

Following London's suprise victory yesterday, over favourite/ front runner Paris, I think that in future bid processes, no city will want to be regarded as front runner/ favourite/ the bid to beat etc.....

Infact, I think cities will do their best to not be awarded such labels. With regards to summer olympic competitions, the front running city does not seem to win (except for Beijing 2008 and Barcelona 1992).

With attention now turning to 2016, lots of people (including myself) have repeatedly talked about New York being the front runner.

But after yesterday, I think this a label NYC will not want, and will do it's best to avoid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Sometimes being a front-runner may be a curse, but sometimes it does work out. With the IOC, it is usually the "flavor of the day" that wins out in my POV.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem with the appellation 'front runner' is that usually it's applied by a combination of media types unaware of the IOC's byzantine processes when it comes to bids, the PR types from the bids themselves, betting agencies and even average folk who may or may not post here.

I agree that the popular 'front runners' of the last 13 years have had a mixed result...whilst Beijing was nominally the most favoured bid for 2000 it lost, whilst in 2008 in a similar position it won. Sion lost to Turin, Vancouver barely defeated Pyeong Chang.  Nagano beat Salt Lake when all though SLC was a better bid, but SLC won from a favoured position for 2002.

Being a front runner in the popular opinion re Olympic bids is certainly no guarantee of bid success, but it may not necessarily be a jinx because after all concepts of luck and being a front runner are totally divorced from the reality of the IOC's decision-making process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think being the frontrunner can be both good and bad....there is a good way about going about it (like Beijing) which will win it for you....and bad ways (like Paris) which will ultimately be your cities fate....

I think if NYC or any other USA city is the "frontrunner" for 2016, they will address it the right way....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "frontrunner" tag only really becomes a problem when it leads to complacency and a sense of entitlement, as seems to have happened (if you read bid histories) with the likes of Athens 1996, Beijing 2000 and (though probably to a lesser extent) Paris 2012. If nothing else, it certainly leavees you as the main target for every other bid of that year to concentrate on taking you out.

Point also taken, though, that the tag is often as much media or popular opinion driven than rooted in reality. Athens 1996 probably fits this case _ it was seen as THE favourite by a lot of the less informed commentators aroundd the world, but in a lot of comments by insiders etc, it would appear it wwas never the cert that popular opnion had it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dick Pound once described it as a piece of chewing gum.  You kind of chew on one for a while and then when decision time comes and you've sucked most of the flavour out of it, you spit it out and try another piece.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Paris was a victim of its own fears.  Fearing it would once again be termed 'arrogant' rather than aggressive, it took a meek, low-key road hoping that its early lead and low profile would win the day.  It needed to push in the final few days, and with a Chirac who apparently was not the Chirac of 1986, Paris played it too safely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Paris was a victim of its own fears.  Fearing it would once again be termed 'arrogant' rather than aggressive, it took a meek, low-key road hoping that its early lead and low profile would win the day.  It needed to push in the final few days, and with a Chirac who apparently was not the Chirac of 1986, Paris played it too safely.

Paris's 2012 bid was a bit lit the Opposition party that believes it doesn't have to do much more than keep quiet and let a governing party take all the heat in an election. Problem is, a low accent on policy and a high accent on 'steady as she goes' doesn't create enough excitement and can undo any self-possessed 'favourite'...both in politics and the Olympics.

Oh...just realised...they're one and the same aren't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it was the favourites tag, but how Paris 2012 reacted to the favourites tag, that lost them the games.

I think the same kind of thing happed with Athens 1996. It was felt that Paris deserved the games - it was their turn. I don't think the IOC likes to feel endebted to anyone.

That said, a lot is to do with the media as well, who don't understand the complicated manoeuvrings of the IOC. The way the media reported it was "Paris are the hot favourites, so therefore they will win the games," without regard to previous bid history. The bookmakers were the same.  I don't think either really understood how complicated, partisan, and open to (legitimate) manipulation the voting system actually is (I think it was only the BBC who really commented on how it could leave favourites floundering and 'boost up' the underdogs.)

Interestingly, I wondered whether there had been an attempt by several IOC members to get Moscow through to the second round in place of (probably) NYC and Madrid. 15 votes was quite high for a first round elimination. It was obvious in the second round that they were trying to get NYC out by voting for Madrid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was obvious in the second round that they were trying to get NYC out by voting for Madrid.

I understand your line of thinking.

The only thing is that I think IOC members are no longer told how many votes the cities got in the last round. I'm not sure about this, I could be wrong.

They are simply told, Moscow is out, without being told how many votes each city got.

If this is true, then there's no way that IOC members would have known that New York was lying in 4th place, hence them trying to vote the city out next round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was obvious in the second round that they were trying to get NYC out by voting for Madrid.

I understand your line of thinking.

The only thing is that I think IOC members are no longer told how many votes the cities got in the last round. I'm not sure about this, I could be wrong.

They are simply told, Moscow is out, without being told how many votes each city got.

If this is true, then there's no way that IOC members would have known that New York was lying in 4th place, hence them trying to vote the city out next round.

You are right, they do not know which way the votes are going: but I wonder whether they just had a general impression or feeling that NYC was vunerable: perhaps also through a process of elimination. Think about it - they've been wined and dined in Singapore - they'll be milling around, sipping the champagne, discussing the Olympics... perhaps they discussed their views on the cities, or who they were going to vote for? Who knows.

The IOC is quite astute. Members will have known:

- Paris has a lot of support

- The momentum is with London

So there's little chance of them receiving few votes in the first round. Which means it's between NYC and Madrid.

That's all I was thinking. It would just make sense to me that if the IOC wanted 2012 in Europe, or didn't like the NYC bid, or both, that it would be wise to vote in the second round for the city they presume is lying in 4th or 3rd place, so that they can get rid of NYC.

Just a thought - nothing more. But the IOC vote is very interesting and I love studying the numbers. It just amuses me how after the first round (in which they came 3rd) Madrid's vote count shoots up dramatically, then falls in the third round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right, they do not know which way the votes are going: but I wonder whether they just had a general impression or feeling that NYC was vunerable: perhaps also through a process of elimination. Think about it - they've been wined and dined in Singapore - they'll be milling around, sipping the champagne, discussing the Olympics... perhaps they discussed their views on the cities, or who they were going to vote for? Who knows.

The IOC is quite astute. Members will have known:

- Paris has a lot of support

- The momentum is with London

So there's little chance of them receiving few votes in the first round. Which means it's between NYC and Madrid.

That's all I was thinking. It would just make sense to me that if the IOC wanted 2012 in Europe, or didn't like the NYC bid, or both, that it would be wise to vote in the second round for the city they presume is lying in 4th or 3rd place, so that they can get rid of NYC.

Just a thought - nothing more. But the IOC vote is very interesting and I love studying the numbers. It just amuses me how after the first round (in which they came 3rd) Madrid's vote count shoots up dramatically, then falls in the third round.

I think it's more a case of IOC members have already decided which cities they are going to vote for before they enter the voting room, after listening to all the presentations.

So if the majority of Moscow's vote went to Madrid in the 2nd ballot (which could well explain why Madrid surged into 1st place with 32 votes), those IOC members had probably already decided in advance that "if Moscow drops out, we'll vote Madrid," regardless of what position NYC is lying in.

Similarly, the NYC supporters (assuming most of their votes went to London in the 3rd ballot, which could well explain why London surged into 1st place with 39 votes) probably made that decision before entering the voting room.

I think the idea of "lets knock a city out by voting for another one" probably existed in the days of IOC voting, when the IOC members were told how many votes each city had recieved at the end of every ballot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...