Jump to content

Ioc And Voting


Recommended Posts

If you are relying on Obama to win it for you, you are going to lose. Lula has just as much charisma and is a far more approachable person then Obama.

And you forget, if the evaluation report comes out and its better then expected for Rio that will boost them far more then very good reports for any of the other cities. If the IOC gets an assurance that Rio can host and comfortably do so it will make it a lot easier to vote for Rio and you won't have the anyone but.. voting going on like in 1996 and 2000.

I think you are under-estimating the gaffs the Chicago bid team and the USOC have made. Many IOC members will hold on any reason to not vote for an American bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1. If you are relying on Obama to win it for you, you are going to lose. Lula has just as much charisma and is a far more approachable person then Obama.

2. And you forget, if the evaluation report comes out and its better then expected for Rio that will boost them far more then very good reports for any of the other cities. If the IOC gets an assurance that Rio can host and comfortably do so it will make it a lot easier to vote for Rio and you won't have the anyone but.. voting going on like in 1996 and 2000.

3. I think you are under-estimating the gaffs the Chicago bid team and the USOC have made. Many IOC members will hold on any reason to not vote for an American bid.

1. How do you know? DO you have any quantitative methods?

2. Well, the report isn't out yet.

3. I disagree. I don't think the gaffes are fatal. Where was the permanent damage done to the Olympic movement? (What the IOC wanted to protect was NBC; that was all. It was purely an internal US affair. Why should it impact other NOCs?)

It ain't over until the fat lady sings. You don't know what last-minute surprises each of the candidates will be pulling out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This time around there was/is no "clear" favorite, unlike 2012 which was Paris, & look what happened to them. Sounds like you're just trying to rewrite Olympic history.

Paris was the favourite but it was a tight race and many people a month out thought any of Madrid, London or Paris could have won.

Now its coming out that Tokyo and Chicago have to put in a lot of work to get caught up to the clear favourite right now, which is Rio.

And this whole favourite losing nonsense is just that nonsense. 2002, 2004, 2008 and 2010 the favourite won, 2006, 2012 and 2014 the favourite lost. Its relatively even.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with saying Rio is the favorite (in fact I am somewhat happy they are). What I do have a problem with saying is that this race is sealed, and Rio will win.

I doubt Rio will have 10 votes or more than Chicago in the first round. The only somewhat recent SOG races that saw it that far (10 or more votes) were Beijing, Barcelona and Seoul (Seoul and Barcelona were primarily against 3rd tier cities, and Beijing was already a foregone conclusion).

The 2nd and 3rd rounds are where Chicago needs to secure the most votes. Their bid should be fighting hard on getting those votes, as those members wouldn't have their heart strings wrapped around Rio as much as maybe the first round voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some IOC members claim it was Blair's lobbying which pushed London over the line. "If he hadn't come here, Paris would have been the winners," said IOC member Pat Hickey of Ireland. Obama could do the same for the US and I personally wouldn't bet against it. If Blair, a PM unpopular in his own country and in Europe because of Iraq, was able to lobby well enough for London to win, then Obama, a man who many in Europe revere and see as everything Bush wasn't, can certainly do the same.

And, as I've said, two to three months before the vote London was having to recover from its own "gaff" whilst Paris was sailing merrily along as the favourite:

Own goal and red faces: is London bid falling down?

London's bid leaders were last night trying to salvage their damaged hopes of winning the 2012 Games after deciding to withdraw the controversial package of incentives which brought them into conflict with the International Oympic Committee.

The surprise move was designed to pre-empt any possible sanction by the IOC ethics commission, who had been investigating whether London had broken the rules by offering free, flexible flights, train travel, phone calls and other "freebies" worth £15m to all 10,500 competitors.

Several influential IOC members are known to have been angered by London's faux pas

So, there's plenty of time yet for a Chicago recovery. The USOC's decision to postpone their TV channel is akin to London's climb down. It looks like a bit of a mess now, and it looks like there's a rival bid making none of the same mistakes, but that doesn't mean the situation is not recoverable.

And lastly, the noises coming out of the IOC, and what transpires in a secret ballot are not always the same. Of course, when pressed IOC members are going to say they want the Games to go to continents it's not been to before. But didn't the noises prior to the 2005 vote suggest a bid with temporary and existing venues would be favoured? Besides which, even if the noises coming from the IOC are a good indicator of what will happen, I'm not convinced I've heard enough to suggest Rio are runaway favourites.

It's brave of you to stick your neck out so early and call this race Faster, but I think it's actually closer to call than 2012 was, so I won't be doing the same. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ I will admit though that the USOC TV Network was a big gaffe, even bigger than London in some respects, because London took care of it within hours of their announcement.

The USOC announced this over a month ago, and it is just until recently that they have retreated. It brought back fresh feelings about the impending broadcasting rights negotiations, and it hurt Chicago's bid deeply. In saying that, I don't feel that it was a deal breaker.

I know this is a little contrary to some thoughts, but wouldn't a Chicago victory make U.S. broadcast rights negotiations a little easier? Wouldn't the USOC be in a better position to loosen their grip if they had more money to work with from a Chicago victory? Some IOC members even liked the idea of an Olympic TV network in the U.S., but they still had questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing is resolved at this point. The only thing known (which I believe) is that it will be harder for Tokyo and Madrid to win 2016 vs. Chicago and Rio.

The Tv gaffe is so overblown. Were any of the other IOC members or their NOCs hurt by it? I don't see how they can take offense at that incident.

I think there's still plenty of time for any of the bids to fall into a new gaffe that would blow up any single chance. We are just entering the most interesting time of the race, so anything can happen from now on. I predict that Tokyo has still something suprising to say...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do people expect Chicago's votes to come from in the second/third round? Rio is surely the second favourite bid of most people supporting any of the three other cities.

I'm not sure how the first round of voting will go - although I'm sure Rio and Chicago will survive. Even if a poll is taken on GamesBids - most people's second choice is likely to be Rio, not Chicago. Any votes for Tokyo or Madrid in the first two rounds are, i believe, far more likely to go to Rio than Chicago. The lure of the first Games in South America are far stronger than anything Chicago has to offer - Obama might not even be President in 2016 .... it could be another Bush!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the member and here is their geopolitical most likely vote. So enough of voting blocs and other nonsense

Price Nawaf Faisal Fahd Abdulaziz - Saudi Arabia - Chicago

Tamas Ajan - Hungary - Chicago

Prince Ahmad Al-Fahad Al-Sabah - Kuwait - Chicago

Princess Haya Bint Al Hussein - UAE - Tokyo

Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad Al Thani - Qatar - Chicago

Prince Albert II - Monaco - Rio de Janeiro

Shahid Ali - Pakistan - Chicago

Beatrice Allen - Gambia - Chicago

Thomas Bach - Germany - Rio de Janeiro

Patrick Baumann - Switzerland - Rio de Janeiro

Fernando Bello - Portugal - Rio de Janeiro

Sepp Blatter - Switzerland - Rio de Janeiro

Claudia Bokel - Germany - Rio de Janeiro

Valeri Borzov - Ukraine - Rio de Janeiro

Andres Botero Philippsbourne - Colombia - Chicago

Els van Breda Vriesman - Netherlands - Rio de Janeiro

Ukraine - Sergey bubka - Rio de Janeiro

Franco Carraro - Italy - Rio de Janeiro

Richard Carrion - Puerto Rico - Chicago

Patrick Chamunda - Zambia - Chicago

Chang Ung - Korea DPR - Madrid

Ottavio Cinguanta - Italy - Madrid

John Bowling Coastes - Australia - Rio de Janeiro

Philip Coles - Australia - Rio de Janeiro

Sir Philip Craven - Great Britain - Chicago

Manuela Di Centa - Italy - Rio de Janeiro

Lamine Diack - Senegal - Madrid

Alpha Ibrahim Diallo - Madrid

Ivan Dibos - Peru - Rio de Janeiro

Guy Drut - France - Madrid

Hicham El Guerrouj - Morocco - Madrid

Nawal El Moutawakei - Morocco - Rio de Janeiro

Fransisco Elizalde - Philippines - Chicago

Rania Elwani - Egypt - Chicago

Ugur Erdener - Turkey - Rio de Janeiro

Rene Fasel - Switzerland - Madrid

Timothy Fok - Hong Kong - Tokyo

Frankie Fredericks - Namibia - Chicago

Anton Geesink - Netherlands - Rio de Janeiro

Alex Gilady - Israel - Chicago

Reynaldo Gonzalez Lopez - Cuba - Rio de Janeiro

Kevan Gosper - Australia - Chicago

Issa Hayatou - Cameroon - Chicago

Ke Zhenliang - PR China - Rio de Janeiro

Gerhard Heiberg - Norway - Madrid

Henri, Grad Duke of Luxembourg - Luxembourgh - Madrid

Patrick Hickey - Ireland (the real one) - Chicago

Nicole L.M. Hoevertsz - Aruba - Chicago

Prince Tunku Imran - Malaysia - Tokyo

Willi Kaltschmitt Lujan - Guatemala - Rio de Janeiro

Gian-Franco Kasper - Switzerland - Rio de Janeiro

Nat Indrapana - Thailand - Tokyo

Kipchoge Keino - Kenya - Chicago

Toni Khoury - Lebanon - Tokyo

Jean-Calude Killy - France - Madrid

Saku Koivu - Finland - Chicago

Mustapha Larfaoui - Algeria - Rio de Janeiro

Lee Jun-Hee - Korea Republic - Madrid

Princess Nora - Liechtenstein - Madrid

Gunulla Lindberg - Sweden - Rio de Janeiro

Arne Ljungqvist - Sweden - Madrid

Julio Cesar Maglione - Rio de Janeiro

Robin Mitchell - Fiji - Tokyo

Dae Sung Moon - Kore Republic - Rio de Janeiro

Samin Moudallal - Syria - Rio de Janeiro

Mohammed Mzali - Tunisia - Rio de Janeiro

Ng Ser Miang - Singapore - Tokyo

Lambis Nikolau - Greece - Chicago

Francis Nyangweso - Uganda - Chicago

Will-Alexander, Prince of Orange - Netherlands - Madrid

Denis Oswald - Switzerland - Madrid

Lassana Palenfo - Cote d'Ivoire - Chicago

Mario Pescante - Italy - Madrid

Aleksandr Popov - Russia - Rio de Janeiro

Dick Pound - Canada - Tokyo

Sam Ramsamy - South Africa - Chicago

Sir Craig Reedie - Great Britain - Chicago

Francesco Ricci Bitti - Italy - Rio de Janeiro

Anne, Princess Royal - Great Britain - Chicago

Yumilka Ruiz Luaces - Cuba - Rio de Janeiro

Mounir Sabet - Egypt - Rio de Janeiro

Meliton Sanchez Rivas - Panama - Chicago

Pal Schmitt - Hungary - Madrid

Rebecca Scott - Canada - Chicago

Austin Sealy - Barbados - Chicago

Randhir Signh - India - Tokyo

Vitali Smirnov - Russia - Madrid

Rita Subowo - Indonesia - Tokyo

Irena Szewinska - Poland - Rio de Janeiro

Peter Taliberg - Finland - Madrid

Shamil Tarpishchev - Russia - Rio de Janeiro

Walther Troger - Germany - Rio de Janeiro

Mario Vazques Rana - Mexico - Madrid

Olegario Vazquez Rana - Mexico - Madrid

Antun Vrdoljak - Croatia - Rio de Janeiro

Leo Wallner - Austria - Rio de Janeiro

Pernilla Wiberg - Sweden - Rio de Janeiro

Wu Ching-Kou - Chinese Taipei - Tokyo

yu Zaiqing - PR China - Rio de Janeiro

Kan Zelezny - Czech Republic - Rio de Janeiro

So after Round One

Rio de Janeiro - 39

Chicago - 29

Madrid - 21

Tokyo - 11

I used geopolitics, the IOC member themselves, the date they joined the IOC, whether they were a former athlete and guess work to assign a city. I am actually interested in seeing how close my first round is to the actual first round. I am guessing it will be spot on on the order.

well it is quite the quess work there but i would have to question about Prince Albert siding with Rio considering he is really Half America will his mother being from a rich Philadelphia Family and her being an american actress. The African voters look interesting voting for Chicago . Ng Ser Miang - Singapore would he have an quid pro quo going on for the frits Yuoth Games being held in his Nation City ?

You can't tell what the motivations of IOc members are unless you can point to a history of statements. If you have members who come and say they believe they should got to south America soon whats to say they believe Rio should be the place to premeire the games for south america ?

Beyond that it is good quess work .

Jim jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that this race is not as close as one might have thought, but I actually think it tighten up from here. The evaluation reports have not even come out yet, so I think your zealousness for Rio is a bit premature. But if Obama shows up in Copenhagen, all gloves are off between Rio and Chicago (it will be a fight).

Just think. This will be the ONLY opportunity the world has to vote for Obama. He drew 200,000 people in Germany. What other world leader has done that in recent memory?

Now, I don't want to put too much stock in Obama, but Chicago does have a very nice bid, and that should not be overlooked.

I think frankly Obama cannot pull Chicago out of the fire HA Ha Ha . I just made a joke.

Obama as American president is probably the lightning rod for many of these people losing on Investments due to the Mess of the Global economy . The US is pretty much the largest culprit.

Obama is likable but the USOC Olympic Channel Move was a bridge to far for many in the IOc I am sure. Then you have the spector of citizen groups in the Chicago gaining clout trying to end the bid hiring consultants to examine the Bid Finances and if they are sound. The membership does not have that in Rio , Tokyo or Madrid.

Jim jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, Pound will vote for Chicago as he had close relations with the USOC.

Or Rio for a quid pro quo from Brazil for the Toronto 2015 Pan Am Games. Do not the two IOC members from Brazil have votes in that contest a month Later ? Two votes for the Pan am games in Toronto for one for Rio 2016 from Canada and possibly a block with the other Canadian vote going to Rio 2016 if Dick convinces his canuck IOc member.

Jim jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with saying Rio is the favorite (in fact I am somewhat happy they are). What I do have a problem with saying is that this race is sealed, and Rio will win.

I doubt Rio will have 10 votes or more than Chicago in the first round. The only somewhat recent SOG races that saw it that far (10 or more votes) were Beijing, Barcelona and Seoul (Seoul and Barcelona were primarily against 3rd tier cities, and Beijing was already a foregone conclusion).

The 2nd and 3rd rounds are where Chicago needs to secure the most votes. Their bid should be fighting hard on getting those votes, as those members wouldn't have their heart strings wrapped around Rio as much as maybe the first round voters.

well i know it is diffrent times and different members but Think of where Chicago ended up in the 1950s for votes . out in the first round. Then you go to the 1970s with LA . LA finished behind Moscow and Montreal in BOTH votes. We are talking a World wide Media centre in California losing to Montreal and being booted in the first round for Moscow and Montreal. Then we have New york out in the Second round for 2012. A US city is handicapped right off the bat whether it is the 1920s or the 2000 teens. I don't think there will be a 10 vote margin either and I don't think it is sealed for Rio.

Jim jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some IOC members claim it was Blair's lobbying which pushed London over the line. "If he hadn't come here, Paris would have been the winners," said IOC member Pat Hickey of Ireland. Obama could do the same for the US and I personally wouldn't bet against it. If Blair, a PM unpopular in his own country and in Europe because of Iraq, was able to lobby well enough for London to win, then Obama, a man who many in Europe revere and see as everything Bush wasn't, can certainly do the same.

And, as I've said, two to three months before the vote London was having to recover from its own "gaff" whilst Paris was sailing merrily along as the favourite:

So, there's plenty of time yet for a Chicago recovery. The USOC's decision to postpone their TV channel is akin to London's climb down. It looks like a bit of a mess now, and it looks like there's a rival bid making none of the same mistakes, but that doesn't mean the situation is not recoverable.

And lastly, the noises coming out of the IOC, and what transpires in a secret ballot are not always the same. Of course, when pressed IOC members are going to say they want the Games to go to continents it's not been to before. But didn't the noises prior to the 2005 vote suggest a bid with temporary and existing venues would be favoured? Besides which, even if the noises coming from the IOC are a good indicator of what will happen, I'm not convinced I've heard enough to suggest Rio are runaway favourites.

It's brave of you to stick your neck out so early and call this race Faster, but I think it's actually closer to call than 2012 was, so I won't be doing the same. :D

but take the inverse of that Rob . What if George Bush had of done the same ? do you think New york would have won ?

Of course not . It is also the Nation olympic committee behind the bid as well. David Beckham certainly helped as well no doubt.

with American bids you seem to get Video tapes of Sports stars supporting the bids not the real article like we have seen with London 2012 with Beckham or rio 2016 with Pele.

I think if Jordan, Tiger Woods or the William sisters showed up it would be much more postive then an american president even Obama. This is the same government that threated to bring a huge light on the IOc during the Salt lake city scandal .

Jim jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ I will admit though that the USOC TV Network was a big gaffe, even bigger than London in some respects, because London took care of it within hours of their announcement.

The USOC announced this over a month ago, and it is just until recently that they have retreated. It brought back fresh feelings about the impending broadcasting rights negotiations, and it hurt Chicago's bid deeply. In saying that, I don't feel that it was a deal breaker.

I know this is a little contrary to some thoughts, but wouldn't a Chicago victory make U.S. broadcast rights negotiations a little easier? Wouldn't the USOC be in a better position to loosen their grip if they had more money to work with from a Chicago victory? Some IOC members even liked the idea of an Olympic TV network in the U.S., but they still had questions.

the entire problem is jeopardizing a billion dollar contract for a Cable tv provider out of Philadelphia with absolutely little in Broadcasting clout. It would be different if they said Hey NBC Universal is in partnership with this. The USOC went well outside the scope of what would be considered good for the IOC. If it was going to be Fox sports or Espn / disney Cap city then you would atleast have something the Rest of the world could relate to.

BUt Comcast ? who would the hosts be Wayne and Garth from their Basement in Aurora ?

Jim Jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well i know it is diffrent times and different members but Think of where Chicago ended up in the 1950s for votes . out in the first round. Then you go to the 1970s with LA . LA finished behind Moscow and Montreal in BOTH votes. We are talking a World wide Media centre in California losing to Montreal and being booted in the first round for Moscow and Montreal. Then we have New york out in the Second round for 2012. A US city is handicapped right off the bat whether it is the 1920s or the 2000 teens. I don't think there will be a 10 vote margin either and I don't think it is sealed for Rio.

Jim jones

JJ, your comparisons are pathetic. The 1950's, are you serious?????

One can't clearly judge LA in the 1970's as I know nothing of their bids, but Lake Placid surely had something to do with the IOC choosing Moscow over LA for 1980. Now on to NY, it is amazing 19 IOC members chose this city in the first round considering all of the negatives - stadium collapse, USOC infighting, Bush's unpopularity, America starting a war in Iraq, possible concerns of terrorism in NY, the vote being just three years from SLC, Vancouver 2010, the list goes on...

Stu, if Rio is soooooo compelling, then why don't the IOC members choose it in the first round? I would expect that some would have reservations for choosing Rio and to suggest that Chicago has nothing to offer clearly shows that you don't know much about their bid. All of this Rio will win, Rio will win is starting to become a bit comical.

There is still five weeks left, and final presentations to be made. London sealed its victory in just hours before the vote, and this will remain a tight race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but he is a Harvard grad; has business connections with the US; and is probably getting too old to do commutes between the Philippines and Spain.
could be, but you can't discount it. i'll still stay he'll go for either tokyo or madrid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...And this whole favourite losing nonsense is just that nonsense. 2002, 2004, 2008 and 2010 the favourite won, 2006, 2012 and 2014 the favourite lost. Its relatively even.

Not really. For 2004 the favorite was Rome, not Athens, & for 2010 the 'favorite' wasn't really all that clear.

Since after 1984, the "favorite" has lost more often than not: 1988- Nagoya, 1992- Paris, 1996- Athens, 2000- Beijing, 2004- Rome & 2012- Paris. The only favorite that won in that interval was Beijing 2008.

For the winter Games it's a little more fuzzy, but there the favorite has lost more often than not, too: 1992- Sofia, 1994- Ostersund, (1998 not really clear), 2006- Sion, (2010 not all that clear) & 2014- Pyeongchang. Only clear favorite winner in that series was Salt Lake 2002.

So no, it's not relatively even & not really all that much 'nonsense' when you really look at 'all' the rounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...