Jump to content

Ioc And Voting


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Faster, are you rsol (a slightly unfortunate username) over on SSC?

Nope, never been to whatever SSC is.

Soaring - your just mad because right now the writing is on the wall that Rio is the winner.

And if you look at 2004's vote 9 votes seperated Athens and Rome, so ten is not out of the question.

Rio's bid is more appealing to many IOC members that will initially vote for Madrid to save face with Samaranch. Those votes will most likely shift behind Rio who will already have a very strong base from the European and Latin American votes. Chicago can really only count on African and Asian votes and those do not account for much and would not overcome even 70% of the European votes going to Rio.

I don't think any bid is dead in the water and if the Evaluation Report is particularly damning of Rio's bid, then Tokyo will likely raise and Rio will fall. Chicago is probably gonna get a good evaluation report and Tokyo will get an excellent one. So that is the only hurdle Rio still faces, if the evaluation report is particularly flattering to Rio, it will be unlikely that anyone can over come Rio. So it depends on the evaluation report, if good for Rio it will make it far more easy for the IOC to go to Rio despite some reservations.

I don't support Rio, nor do I want them to get the games. I have supported Tokyo since the inception of this race. But I know they aren't going to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE: "the 'lure' of the first Games in South America are far stronger than anything Chicago has to offer. Obama may not even be president by 2016, it could be another Bush!" UNQUOTE

If the lure of the first Games in South America is so strong, the IOC would've gone there by now. Obviously something is holding them back. The IOC has had a couple of chances b4 & has passed them up on those times. In 1997 Buenos Aires was in a better position to host 2004 (despite their economic chaos a few years later) than Rio is now for 2016, but the IOC said no. Rio is at this stage in the campaign by the hair on their chiny, chin, chin. Rio barely straddle the benchmark & was given a chance at the expense of Doha which scored higher in the preliminaries.

The world economy is highly unstable at this point & who knows what the future might bring, particularly for developing economies like Brazil. Yes, the excitement is there to finally bring the Olympics for the first time to South America & I for one am an advocate for that, but the question remains, is it the practical time. The Evaluation Report will reveal moreso the answer to that question in a couple of weeks.

The Achelles heel for Rio's bid remains; is Brazil prepared & able to handle TWO mega international events back-to-back, especially nowadays & was the IOC Evalution Commission convinced that they are. So this isn't a done deal like some of the people on here are making it out to be. And like others here have also mentioned, London closed the deal just hours b4 the final vote, despite their shortfalls. So as they say, it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings!

And so what if Obama ain't president in 2016. Blair isn't PM anymore, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE: "the 'lure' of the first Games in South America are far stronger than anything Chicago has to offer. Obama may not even be president by 2016, it could be another Bush!" UNQUOTE

If the lure of the first Games in South America is so strong, the IOC would've gone there by now. Obviously something is holding them back. The IOC has had a couple of chances b4 & has passed them up on those times. In 1997 Buenos Aires was in a better position to host 2004 (despite their economic chaos a few years later) than Rio is now for 2016, but the IOC said no. Rio is at this stage in the campaign by the hair on their chiny, chin, chin. Rio barely straddle the benchmark & was given a chance at the expense of Doha which scored higher in the preliminaries.

The world economy is highly unstable at this point & who knows what the future might bring, particularly for developing economies like Brazil. Yes, the excitement is there to finally bring the Olympics for the first time to South America & I for one am an advocate for that, but the question remains, is it the practical time. The Evaluation Report will reveal moreso the answer to that question in a couple of weeks.

The Achelles heel for Rio's bid remains; is Brazil prepared & able to handle TWO mega international events back-to-back, especially nowadays & was the IOC Evalution Commission convinced that they are. So this isn't a done deal like some of the people on here are making it out to be. And like others here have also mentioned, London closed the deal just hours b4 the final vote, despite their shortfalls. So as they say, it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings!

And so what if Obama ain't president in 2016. Blair isn't PM anymore, either.

Using 2004 is questionable, that was a two horse race all the way. Buenos Aires had no chance with that competition.

I agree that there is still a lot of questions surrounding Rio, but the winds are definately blowing in their favour. The winds can change, and at a moments notice, but right now Rio is looking like the city Rogge will announce.

Also the IOC has given two games in resent times to countries that weren't ready. Athens and Beijing, Beijing spent through the nose to be ready and Rio looks like its prepared to do the same.

And look who won in 2014, a bid with nothing on the ground. Go figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

be another Bush!" UNQUOTE

If the lure of the first Games in South America is so strong, the IOC would've gone there by now. Obviously something is holding them back. The IOC has had a couple of chances b4 & has passed them up on those times. In 1997 Buenos Aires was in a better position to host 2004 (despite their economic chaos a few years later) than Rio is now for 2016, but the IOC said no. Rio is at this stage in the campaign by the hair on their chiny, chin, chin. Rio barely straddle the benchmark & was given a chance at the expense of Doha which scored higher in the preliminaries.

Good point. I was about to say that. But as I also posted on another thread, Rio can put out all the snazziest videos and pound the emotional drums louder then ever, but it doesn't change the distances between their 4 clusters and which has always been their biggest impediment. 5,000 athletes (of PanAm) and visitors and press of what 1/3rd the size of the Olympic crowds won't compare to the Olympic numbers and will really make it a challenge for the topography of Rio to handle those logistics.

And then of course, now, they have added two other sports. I am wondering if the Evaluation reports will take that into account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with your assessment. However, with Brazil preparing to host the 2014 World Cup, I'm not so sure. Resources could be spread too thin & conflicts of interest arising (not to mention the Pan Am's there a couple of years ago didn't get raving reviews either). Things that Athens, Beijing & Sochi didn't/won't have to deal with.

If this was strictly a campaign for Brazil's only major world event, then yes, I would totally agree, Rio could very well walk away with this. The Evaluation Report should shed some more light on how concerned (if at all) the IOC Evaluation Commission was with these issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point. I was about to say that. But as I also posted on another thread, Rio can put out all the snazziest videos and pound the emotional drums louder then ever, but it doesn't change the distances between their 4 clusters and which has always been their biggest impediment. 5,000 athletes (of PanAm) and visitors and press of what 1/3rd the size of the Olympic crowds won't compare to the Olympic numbers and will really make it a challenge for the topography of Rio to handle those logistics.

And then of course, now, they have added two other sports. I am wondering if the Evaluation reports will take that into account.

Baron you should know better. All 4 cities have the required golf course already within reasonable distance from the city center and rugby is played in the main stadiums/soccer stadiums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baron you should know better. All 4 cities have the required golf course already within reasonable distance from the city center and rugby is played in the main stadiums/soccer stadiums.

I understand but for Rio (and Tokyo with their limited access to their islands configuration) adding two more sports which I don't think were looked at when the Eval Commission made their onsite visits earlier this year...because who knew which 2 sports those would be, I would think it complicates matters a bit because of all 4, they have the most challenging topography to deal with. But if the IOC wants to overlook that, then that is their choice. But there will probably be chaos and gridlock on certain days as what realists fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand but for Rio (and Tokyo with their limited access to their islands configuration) adding two more sports which I don't think were looked at when the Eval Commission made their onsite visits earlier this year...because who knew which 2 sports those would be, I would think it complicates matters a bit because of all 4, they have the most challenging topography to deal with. But if the IOC wants to overlook that, then that is their choice. But there will probably be chaos and gridlock on certain days as what realists fear.

I was unaware that there was a golf course in central Tokyo.

Hosting Rugby is no different then soccer and the golf courses will be side venues outside the cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the "lure" of South America IS there. And South America has never hosted before because South American cities have only faced the IOC voters 3 times, all Buenos Aires bids: 1956 (lost by one vote), 1968 (awarded to a Latin American rival) and 2004 (when Athens got its second chance). The two times Rio tried and got cut (2004 and 2012) were in races with a lot of competition. I'm not saying that this is a lock for Rio, but certainly, if China can claim the "you can't ignore 1/6th of the world's population" argument and Greece can claim "the Olympics need to come home" argument, then Rio has a right to the "you can't reward the USA, Spain, and Japan again at the cost of South America" claim. And the IOC seems to sway back and forth between commerce, sense, and sentiment.

That said, I really have no idea who will win. Rio is certainly an exciting and photogenic city. The TV cameras will love it. Brazil is a big country with an emerging economy. And of the four in this group, Rio has the most to gain from hosting (the IOC seems to enjoy its transformative powers). But it does come with more risk than Chicago, Tokyo and Madrid.

And if Rio does lose, I think 2020 will shape up to be a "New Frontiers" battle...Cape Town, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro. All could be in the running.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that is one of the factors working clearly working against Rio. I mean, not only is there the competition for sponsors, construction, money...but there's also world interest. "Oh, sports from Brazil on the telly again? Pity." Olympic and World Cup viewership probably differs, but it must also have a lot of crossover.

But World Cup 2014 would in turn be a major boon to Rio 2020. Experience in hosting and organizing another major international sporting event. It is quite possible to get a number of people who worked for PanAms 2007 working for World Cup 2014 and Olympics 2020. Invaluable experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that is one of the factors working clearly working against Rio. I mean, not only is there the competition for sponsors, construction, money...but there's also world interest. "Oh, sports from Brazil on the telly again? Pity." Olympic and World Cup viewership probably differs, but it must also have a lot of crossover.

But World Cup 2014 would in turn be a major boon to Rio 2020. Experience in hosting and organizing another major international sporting event. It is quite possible to get a number of people who worked for PanAms 2007 working for World Cup 2014 and Olympics 2020. Invaluable experience.

The problem is that the vote will be in 2013, a year before the world cup, so unless the construction is a la Athens for the stadiums then it probably won't make a difference here or there since the IOC would not have the full picture. And preparing for a world cup is totally different then preparing for an Olympics. One is spread over 12 cities, the other in 1. The intensification is significant on that one city, so a country can pull off minor upgrades and one venue building over 12 cities but can't handle the 35+ venue preparations, transportation upgrades etc that would be concentrated on one city.

And honestly I doubt Buenos Aires will be in the race. There has been no rumblings out of Argentina since 1997.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if Rio does lose, I think 2020 will shape up to be a "New Frontiers" battle...Cape Town, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro. All could be in the running.

At this exact moment, Argentina, economically speaking, can't bid even for a dice competition...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree that 2020 should be the perfect year for Rio... More than 2016 (because World Cup)...

But for some Rio 2020, Chicago must lose this race... And if Rio won't get 2016 (probably Chicago wins in the scenario), it will be hard to IOC to grant two consecutives SOG to Americas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree that 2020 should be the perfect year for Rio... More than 2016 (because World Cup)...

But for some Rio 2020, Chicago must lose this race... And if Rio won't get 2016 (probably Chicago wins in the scenario), it will be hard to IOC to grant two consecutives SOG to Americas.

That's why if Rio drops out early you better be hoping like hell its Tokyo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, this is indeed the best chance Rio will have for a while. They're looking like they've got the momentum, they're arguably favourites (though I'm not sure this field is easy to split), and Chicago has, until recently been tripping over its own feet a little bit. Europe has little chance and IOC members may feel a little too "bloated" by Beijing 08 to award the Games to Tokyo.

Faster's right, if Rio goes out early, a Tokyo win is the least damaging 2016 win for the Brazilians' 2020 chances. A Madrid win wouldn't be a disaster, though there are cultural similarities. A Chicago win would really damage Rio though, even if the 2014 World Cup is a massive success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This voting factor made me think that there will be some hocus focus in terms of politicking, money, etc.

Again, if the technical aspect will have bearing (which the rsult will coming out soon). I would rather change the mechanics of choosing the winner to have 2 criteria rather than voting only.

65% = Techhincal Score

35% = IOC members Voting

add the 2 = WINNER

Make sense i think and will be more fair.

ELSE WHY THERE ARE STILL INSPECTION and TECHNICAL SCORE and at the end the VOTING (lobbying, emotional aspect, politicking, etc) will be the 100% factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This voting factor made me think that there will be some hocus focus in terms of politicking, money, etc.

Again, if the technical aspect will have bearing (which the rsult will coming out soon). I would rather change the mechanics of choosing the winner to have 2 criteria rather than voting only.

Yeah, let invent ridiculous rules to avoid any city outside North America and Europe to host the games...

Why can we transform the olympic games in Northern Hemisphere games?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technical score is pointless.

A candidate city is a city the IOC believes can successfully stage the Games. Whatever happens after that is up to the voters.

Its like Miss Universe. Trump makes sure that each girl in the top 15 good enough to win...hence the european-heavy top 15.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This voting factor made me think that there will be some hocus focus in terms of politicking, money, etc.

Again, if the technical aspect will have bearing (which the rsult will coming out soon). I would rather change the mechanics of choosing the winner to have 2 criteria rather than voting only.

65% = Techhincal Score

35% = IOC members Voting

add the 2 = WINNER

Make sense i think and will be more fair.

ELSE WHY THERE ARE STILL INSPECTION and TECHNICAL SCORE and at the end the VOTING (lobbying, emotional aspect, politicking, etc) will be the 100% factor.

This would be putting the decision on the hands of just a few people. It's nonsense.

The technical evaluation is not meant to chose the best, but to assess if a bid fits the basic needs. It's basically a stam over the bid book saying "Approved". Of course, a good grade might help clear up the doubts if you are undecided, but that's it.

It doesn't matter that much if the athletes are going to take 15 or 20 minutes to travel from OV to their venues. As long as it doesn't take a few hours, it doesn't make a big difference.

Be realistic!!! It's more about selling the huge product called the Summer Olympic Games. That's it. To make that, the IOC must maintain the interest of frontier hosts and rich country hosts. They are, respectively, their fastest growing market and their biggest market.

That's why the decision is between Chicago and Rio. Madrid is out because it would be 3 games out of 4 in Europe!!! Tokyo is not a strong bid (Beijing 2008, economy in trouble), but it might win. Rio and Chicago make a good TV time for the US (as JJ poits out) and the Americas don't get the SOG since 96.

Now is novelty against financial power. They could host in this thriving exotic scene or in the heart of the World's largest economic power house.

By the way, I have lived in Rio for 30 years and went to Chicago 4 times. By looking at both plans, I wouldn't say, for sure, like many here, that Chicago's plan is that much better. Chicago Lake Shore is not served by the L-Train (except for Grant Park). Many venues, including the OV, are in the Chicago South Side, which is far from being a safe place.

Of course, Chicago project will get a better grade than Rio, after all the same assumptions that I see posted here will be in their minds. At the end of the day, it's pure prejudice, but I don't expect the IOC voters to know better. Fortunately, the technical analysis should not be critical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...