baron-pierreIV Posted July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 I hope the IOC members read this: How can the IOC vote for a site they were NOT supposed to have visited? This is the height of hypocrisy. (Not that IOC members did not visit London or Paris before); but the rule is absolutely misguided. And then we learn that some of them DON't Even bother with the Evaluation report and therefore vote strictly on personal preference or other contacts? Therefore the costs and efforts of the Evaluation Committee are worthless. And the Evaluation Committee visits SUMMER cities in the middle of winter? And I suppose the EC for the Winter Cities visits those candidate cities in the Summer? Insane. Is this the way to pick an Olympic host city? As I stated elsewhere before -- if there is the temptation that IOC members will be subjected to bribes when visiting the candidate cities -- so, like they will not be tempted at the other IOC and regional confabs where the candidate cities swoop down and court them? Like by not visiting the candidate cites will stop the banking wires from transferring electronic funds from one account to another? If they are caught, THEN they do not belong to the IOC; and they should be dismissed. Will all their funds, the IOC can afford to pay to have the 100 or so active members PERSONALLY visit the candidate cities and HAVE them see the actual lay of the land for themselves AND THEN submit an expense account. That will make them accountable and remind them that they belong to a body that will audit them. Forget the superfluous Evaluation Committee. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hektor Posted July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 Personnally, my main issue with the current process, is the short list and the evaluation committee. This very formalized process prevent anything but technically excellent and sleek bids to access to the vote But 1) Istanbul gets good votes for 2008, but isn't even shortlisted for 2012, where is the logic. What would have happened this week if Istanbul (or Rio) had been shortlisted instead of say, Moscow? 2) IOC does not vote for the best evaluation commission marks... (Otherwise, we would go next year to Sion :shocked: ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
its a bid of magic Posted July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 I wonder how many IOC members voted on the evidence shown to them from the IOC Evaluation Committee Reports. Sure, I think it showed weaknesses in bids like Moscow, but for Cities that were praised with Very Good or Excellent technical bids, then maybe the IOC members had other way of making their minds up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.x Posted July 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 IMO, every IOC delegate should go with the IOC Evaluation Panel to the host cities. They will be monitored and that way, there's less probability of bribery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuigiVercotti Posted July 9, 2005 Report Share Posted July 9, 2005 The whole IOC membership should never be allowed to go to any bid city until (a) they become personally accountable for all expenses they incur ( can be indicted under the law of the city/country they visit if accused of soliciting bribes © they agree to study the technical reports and report their own findings alongside the evaluation committee, so it's not just another junket and (d) every delegate visits every bid. The old system was so flawed it could never be fair, and every IOC member who took up the option of travelling to bid cities could pick and choose who he saw, what he wanted to see, and what he got from the bid committee (from a free bus ride and accommodation to jewels, cash, scholarships for kids, dental care etc etc). The current system isn't perfect, but it is far better. The broader IOC membership may not visit the cities, but they get all the information about technical capability from the reports generated by the evaluation committee, they also have the bid committees reporting to them, giving information etc, as well as the IF's and their delegates on the relative merits of the bids. If you go back to the old system, or even amend it, you are going to open up old wounds and create a logistical and ethical nightmare for all bid committees and the IOC. It has to be closer along the lines of the selection process now. And as for the evaluation committee and the executive board narrowing down candidacies, I agree with the format if not the decisions. I don't think anyone with a view to the initial technical reports would disagree that Leipzig and not Moscow should have gone to Singapore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thatsnotmypuppy Posted July 9, 2005 Report Share Posted July 9, 2005 The whole IOC membership should never be allowed to go to any bid city until (a) they become personally accountable for all expenses they incur ( can be indicted under the law of the city/country they visit if accused of soliciting bribes © they agree to study the technical reports and report their own findings alongside the evaluation committee, so it's not just another junket and (d) every delegate visits every bid.The old system was so flawed it could never be fair, and every IOC member who took up the option of travelling to bid cities could pick and choose who he saw, what he wanted to see, and what he got from the bid committee (from a free bus ride and accommodation to jewels, cash, scholarships for kids, dental care etc etc). The current system isn't perfect, but it is far better. The broader IOC membership may not visit the cities, but they get all the information about technical capability from the reports generated by the evaluation committee, they also have the bid committees reporting to them, giving information etc, as well as the IF's and their delegates on the relative merits of the bids. If you go back to the old system, or even amend it, you are going to open up old wounds and create a logistical and ethical nightmare for all bid committees and the IOC. It has to be closer along the lines of the selection process now. And as for the evaluation committee and the executive board narrowing down candidacies, I agree with the format if not the decisions. I don't think anyone with a view to the initial technical reports would disagree that Leipzig and not Moscow should have gone to Singapore. I agree with most of your points here - as usual... however I think visits should be reinstated with the assistance of bid cities. The bid city can arrange the hotel - obviously the IOC will pay for it - but the logistics may be too much. I cant see Rogge hopping on the Hilton website and blockbooking 100 rooms... Basically, the IOC can go - "OK members, the trip to Paris is June 9 to 12 - if you cant make those dates, you dont go." Or set up a three week tour of all the cities in one go... Its not that hard to do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuigiVercotti Posted July 9, 2005 Report Share Posted July 9, 2005 Pup...I agree with you agreeing with me However I would add the proviso on your comment about the bloc visit and the bid host organising the hotel will mean that (a) not all IOC members will visit all cities, thus rendering the point of the programme pointless and ( the bid committees will still be put under pressure to offer inducements even if it is just the standard of hotel the members stay at. I'm sure you remember how all of Australia's bids from 86 to 93 spoke about 'how many IOC members came to inspect', and the bid committees had to spend time and effort not just on convincing their city was capable of hosting a games, but also convincing the members that they should come in the first place to make an inspection. If voluntary funded IOC membership visits were revived then each candidate will never get the full assessment that compulsory calls would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thatsnotmypuppy Posted July 9, 2005 Report Share Posted July 9, 2005 I get what you are saying - but not having every IOC member visit isnt a huge issue - Sydney only got 62-64 from the 89 voters to come down under. Atlanta got 67 visits (some multiple) from the 87 voters... While the members are in the city thay can do the same crap the evaluation team does... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted July 9, 2005 Report Share Posted July 9, 2005 I completely agree! First off, in a race such as this one, how do you stop IOC members from visiting cities like Paris, New York and London? My God, those are three of the most visited cities in the world! Second, those less scrupulous members of the IOC will take a bribe in a restaurant in Lausanne or a Singapore massage parlour just easy as they would backstage following performance of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir or a restroom at a Chateau Frontenac reception. Third, you need to see the product before you buy it. Let's time warp two years ago. How many of those 53 IOC members casting votes for PyeongChang really knew what they were voting for? I've done tonnes of research on the village that almost won the Olympics and I still don't know what they were voting for. I think the visits benefit the Winter cities more than the Summer cities, mostly because the Winter Games go to second and third tier communities. But for emerging cities that are not a Paris, a London or a New York...it is a harder sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted July 9, 2005 Report Share Posted July 9, 2005 They can always rent my time-shares in Tijuana and Basra!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt44 Posted July 9, 2005 Report Share Posted July 9, 2005 Maybe a minor tweaking could be done: eg: the representatives can still visit the bidding cities, but at their own time, and individual visit should be done, not in groups of people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted July 9, 2005 Report Share Posted July 9, 2005 I think it was the individual visits that caused the problems in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memorabilia Posted July 10, 2005 Report Share Posted July 10, 2005 I think the global process should be renewed ! - Cities which are bidding send to the IOC their Mini Bid Book - IOC analyses it, as now, and make a ranking - IOC session votes to decide how many cities will be shortlisted (between 3 or 5) - In the same session, IOC members vote to choose which members will be part of the Evalutation Commision (2 members for each continent + 2 Athletes + 2 NOC representatives + 2 IF representatives) and 5 experts (IT, Transport, Environement, Security & Paralympics) This evaluation commission will visit all the cities shortlisted. They will produce a report with a ranking... First city will host the games !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted July 10, 2005 Report Share Posted July 10, 2005 I think the global process should be renewed !- Cities which are bidding send to the IOC their Mini Bid Book - IOC analyses it, as now, and make a ranking - IOC session votes to decide how many cities will be shortlisted (between 3 or 5) - In the same session, IOC members vote to choose which members will be part of the Evalutation Commision (2 members for each continent + 2 Athletes + 2 NOC representatives + 2 IF representatives) and 5 experts (IT, Transport, Environement, Security & Paralympics) This evaluation commission will visit all the cities shortlisted. They will produce a report with a ranking... First city will host the games !!!! memorabilia, is it a coincidence that your method would have resulted in a Paris win for 2012? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surferdude Posted July 10, 2005 Report Share Posted July 10, 2005 I think the global process should be renewed !- Cities which are bidding send to the IOC their Mini Bid Book - IOC analyses it, as now, and make a ranking - IOC session votes to decide how many cities will be shortlisted (between 3 or 5) - In the same session, IOC members vote to choose which members will be part of the Evalutation Commision (2 members for each continent + 2 Athletes + 2 NOC representatives + 2 IF representatives) and 5 experts (IT, Transport, Environement, Security & Paralympics) This evaluation commission will visit all the cities shortlisted. They will produce a report with a ranking... First city will host the games !!!! memorabilia, is it a coincidence that your method would have resulted in a Paris win for 2012? :laugh: It was visits by IOC members to bidding cities that was the cause of the bribery and corruption. If IOC cannot behave without being able to resist inducements and incentives, then such rules need to be in place. The IOC members brought it upon themselves. Neither should there be a formula for selecting cities as suggested above. It completely removes the ability of an IOC member to cast his vote in which ever direction he chooses and furthermore concentrates power in too few hands with a much higher possibility of corruption. Yes, Paris would have won by this daft method, but this was only a technical evaluation, and spoke nothing of the cultural or sporting legacy never mind the passion or enthusiasm. The present methos isn't perfect but it is a long way forward from where it was with Salt Lake City. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted July 10, 2005 Report Share Posted July 10, 2005 Most of you have missed the crux of my argument: - how can you vote for an event that is very lay-of-the-land/geography-specific if you haven't actually visited the site with your own eyes...in the right season? - They ban visits; then have some so-called 'expert' committee draw up a report...but which the members ignore anyway? Hello? So, it's a very self-delusory process. - About the bribes, temptations, etc. Then the only conlusion I can draw is that the IOC recognizes that its members are so weak and craven that they cannot be trusted to make purposeful visits as responsible, ethical adults for a major world decision the involves billions of dollars, a dream of millions, thousands of jobs, and national pride ramifications?? - That also makes the hierarchy so dumb to think that funds cannot be transferred incognito to "shell" accounts AND that banning visits will forestall this? Yeah, I can be King of Spain tomorrow. - Might as well go with an international phone-in election process if it's just left up to the 100-odd bozos and bozinas who comprise the early 21st century IOC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memorabilia Posted July 10, 2005 Report Share Posted July 10, 2005 I think the global process should be renewed !- Cities which are bidding send to the IOC their Mini Bid Book - IOC analyses it, as now, and make a ranking - IOC session votes to decide how many cities will be shortlisted (between 3 or 5) - In the same session, IOC members vote to choose which members will be part of the Evalutation Commision (2 members for each continent + 2 Athletes + 2 NOC representatives + 2 IF representatives) and 5 experts (IT, Transport, Environement, Security & Paralympics) This evaluation commission will visit all the cities shortlisted. They will produce a report with a ranking... First city will host the games !!!! memorabilia, is it a coincidence that your method would have resulted in a Paris win for 2012? :laugh: I will have wrote the same if Paris won last wenesday ! In the Evalutation Commission Report, London was very close (or even egal) to Paris with a nice concept (exept the costs !) But, i have this in mind for years... I would love that the Evaluation Commission made a real report and not only saying "Every bid are nice, Every bead are great" ! A real details report. And taking part of the emotional side, cultural side. The report should not only technical. IOC members are also members of this Evaluation Commission and could rate it with their heart. Their report and ranking should be a mix of everything. !!! When the IOC asked to reduce the cost of the games... it is strange that IOC members selected the bid with the highest infrastructure budget ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surferdude Posted July 10, 2005 Report Share Posted July 10, 2005 I think the global process should be renewed !- Cities which are bidding send to the IOC their Mini Bid Book - IOC analyses it, as now, and make a ranking - IOC session votes to decide how many cities will be shortlisted (between 3 or 5) - In the same session, IOC members vote to choose which members will be part of the Evalutation Commision (2 members for each continent + 2 Athletes + 2 NOC representatives + 2 IF representatives) and 5 experts (IT, Transport, Environement, Security & Paralympics) This evaluation commission will visit all the cities shortlisted. They will produce a report with a ranking... First city will host the games !!!! memorabilia, is it a coincidence that your method would have resulted in a Paris win for 2012? :laugh: I will have wrote the same if Paris won last wenesday ! In the Evalutation Commission Report, London was very close (or even egal) to Paris with a nice concept (exept the costs !) But, i have this in mind for years... I would love that the Evaluation Commission made a real report and not only saying "Every bid are nice, Every bead are great" ! A real details report. And taking part of the emotional side, cultural side. The report should not only technical. IOC members are also members of this Evaluation Commission and could rate it with their heart. Their report and ranking should be a mix of everything. !!! When the IOC asked to reduce the cost of the games... it is strange that IOC members selected the bid with the highest infrastructure budget ! Some bidding cities have to spend a lot more in order to leave a legacy, that's what a legacy is all about! If you have everything already built, you have less to spend, but you leave little legacy. London needed the infrastructure regardles of the Olympics, the east end is prime for redevelopment -the Olympics makes this more possible and makes the whole process much quicker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted July 10, 2005 Report Share Posted July 10, 2005 The cost difference between London and Paris was actually very small. The extra £10bn or so which is for infrastrcuture, public transport etc. is being spent regardless of the Olympics. I this is taken away the costs for both are about 3bn and the only difference really is the £250m we are spending on a brand-spanking-new-stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memorabilia Posted July 10, 2005 Report Share Posted July 10, 2005 As i said, i think that London file was a great one, especially for legacy. But at which costs... I hope that it will not have impact on British taxes. I am not agree that to compare to Paris you should exclude the infrastructure cost. Because you can do the same for every bid (If i go in the same way the only infrastructure for Paris should have been the Superdome). But this is not the debate of this forum. We are dealing about the process. And i think that the selection should be based on fact, and not only to the vote of people which not visited the towns (and that's great, because it is the first and good solution about past corruption) and which has mainly not read the Evaluation report or even the bid books (Look at the poor and few questions during the final presenations). Excuse me, if i am not always very clear, but i am rather fluent in english but not totaly bilingual. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuigiVercotti Posted July 11, 2005 Report Share Posted July 11, 2005 Most of you have missed the crux of my argument:- how can you vote for an event that is very lay-of-the-land/geography-specific if you haven't actually visited the site with your own eyes...in the right season? - They ban visits; then have some so-called 'expert' committee draw up a report...but which the members ignore anyway? Hello? So, it's a very self-delusory process. - About the bribes, temptations, etc. Then the only conlusion I can draw is that the IOC recognizes that its members are so weak and craven that they cannot be trusted to make purposeful visits as responsible, ethical adults for a major world decision the involves billions of dollars, a dream of millions, thousands of jobs, and national pride ramifications?? - That also makes the hierarchy so dumb to think that funds cannot be transferred incognito to "shell" accounts AND that banning visits will forestall this? Yeah, I can be King of Spain tomorrow. - Might as well go with an international phone-in election process if it's just left up to the 100-odd bozos and bozinas who comprise the early 21st century IOC. Actually Baron, I think you points are quite legit, but unlike others who want to see the vote and visiting reopened so that it can all be made more 'honest', in that the constituency (i.e. the IOC members wil be more informed), I would actaully argue this is an argument to narrow down the decision, and in effect take away the voting rights of the general IOC membership. If you follow the logic of your points, which I can agree with, then essentially the IOC membership is unable or unwilling to fully form an unbiased or informed decision re who to vote for when a bid is submitted. Can it be therefore logically assumed that by giving the IOC members every facilitated means to go to the bidding cities will improve their information and remove potential for bias? Of course not. When an IOC member has visited any bid city in the past, even the most scrupulously ethical member with a wealth of knowledge would have been courted and feted by the host bid committee, and this would be contextualised within their own personal and political biases. The perfect way to resolve this issue would be for the technical evaluation committee to present its report to the IOC executive. This body could be reformed to include a President, Treasurer, Technology Secretary, Financial Secretary, 5 reps from the continental NOC bodies, and a rep from the Summer IFs for a SOG and a Winter IF rep for winter games. This board would then make the decision as top who they think should host, and this will be presented to the general membership for their rubber stamp. I guess the model would represent that of a corporation, or going to the other end of the political spectrum, a politburo. The membership's prime role could then shift from being that of an ill-informed or biased voting constituency to that of an assembly which can form the wellspring where executive board members are drawn. Considering that the current executive board has to sign off on all major aspects of the IOC's operation, and of course has been charged with and takes the responsibility for the work done by the technical evaluation committee, it is the ideal body to implement the recommendations made by the tech inspectors re Olympic bids. Reopening up the bid process to the members so they can go anywhere and everywhere invites not just the same ethical problems of previous years, it reinforces the bid process as one where personal bias and influence peddling flourishes. Taking the decision out of the broader hands of the IOC membership will mean that unlike in previous years when piss-poor bids have flourished, and technically sound bids suffered, in an exec board run future these scenarios wont occur. And for those who say its undemocratic or unfair on the membership, anyone care to argue how fair and democratic the IOC membership is now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted July 11, 2005 Report Share Posted July 11, 2005 Neither of which will happen. But your scenario, Seb, is a lot more convoluted. Too complex for the IOC minds if they didn't think of it first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuigiVercotti Posted July 11, 2005 Report Share Posted July 11, 2005 Neither of which will happen. But your scenario, Seb, is a lot more convoluted. Too complex for the IOC minds if they didn't think of it first. I know it wont happen...there are too many vested interests within the IOC to have the membership deny themselves their last best assest (i.e. voting rights). As for convoluted, it's no harder to understand than the board of a publicly listed company, or for that matter the executive level of a political party. I recall Kevan Gosper and Jacque Rogge had some interest in an executive board model, however I think it was very much a case of 'don't mention the war'...if the idea got any prominence the rank and file members would revolt (and they are a revolting batch). I can certainly see how the problem of uninformed or biased members will give us a host city election that is neither fair nor informed; the problem is how can the model of allowing visist guarantee that it will become an ethical and informed vote? I'm sure the good burghers of Salt Lake City would have some excellent suggestions there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted July 11, 2005 Report Share Posted July 11, 2005 It doesn't become a bribe until the other part accepts the offer. So, as I said, it's too bad the IOC is stuffed with weak and very temptable individuals. So, obviously, the self-appointed m.o. of naming new members is also very faulty. The thing is, how can I buy a piece of land if I don't see it first? That's the whole point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjmac Posted July 12, 2005 Report Share Posted July 12, 2005 I disagree with the idea of IOC members actually visiting the candidate cities (outside of the Evaluation Committee) You don't need to go to the city to get an idea of what that city can do if it is awarded the Olympic Games. The whole idea of ALL of the presentations leading up to the actual vote give the cities plenty of time and FORUMS to show the IOC members what everything would look like if their city is awarded the games. This is called technology.....get use to it and use it to your advantage. I don't need to go to Paris, New York or any other bidding city to see the actual land that the Olympic site is going to be on. The Evaluation Committee does give a very accurate idea of what each bid city had to offer. It shows their strengths and weakness. There may be some members of the IOC that don't look at the report. However, I think that this number is very small. These are also the same people who's mind wouldn't be changed if they visited a bid city anyway. Going to a bid city isn't the problem here at all. It was in the past and that's why it was stopped. You can't expect all the voting members to be available to attend a viewing of a city at one specific time either. This would be unacceptable. These people have lives and families too..... this is why the Evaluation Committee was established in the first place. Whatever the IOC decides on how bidding cities will be viewed and chosen will always be second guessed. But, hey, they are the ones that set up the rules and we cannot make them change their procedures. I think that they have certainly cleaned up their act to a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.