Jump to content

What Next, Usa?


Recommended Posts

Whether the leaders are at the presentation or not doesn't seem to have any bearing. Blair, whilst he spent a couple of days in Singapore prior to London's final presentation, was not at London's presentation because he was hosting the G8 in 2005. On the other hand, Chirac did what Obama did; flew in especially to speak during Paris' final presenataion. Well, that didn't work out at all well; his demeanour was that of someone rather uninterested and in the end he was upstaged by a video in London's presentation of Blair speaking French to the IOC.

World leaders do seem to have an impact, but it seems that they do their best work behind closed doors like Blair and Lula, and not in a one-off speech like Chirac and Obama.

I totally agree with you. The IOC will consider leaders who are involved, not the ones who show their face to give a ten-minute speech.

By the way, the fact that Obama was the American president with the most involvement doesn't help. After all, he was not in a competition with former US presidents, he was participating in a competition with cities from different countries. So, comparing his involvement with Lula's or Blair's, it was negligible.

Again, I am not judging if it would be appropriate for him to be deeply involved, I am just assessing how the IOC seems to have reacted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 680
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I don't even know if it made that much of a difference this time around to be honest. In 2005 it may well have done (a 2 vote swing away from London would see Paris hosting 2012), but Rio had such a lead over the other cities in the end that it's debatable how much impact the leaders really had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't even know if it made that much of a difference this time around to be honest. In 2005 it may well have done (a 2 vote swing away from London would see Paris hosting 2012), but Rio had such a lead over the other cities in the end that it's debatable how much impact the leaders really had.

It is difficult to assess because Chicago went out in the first round. Had Chicago beaten at least Tokyo, the story might have been different in terms of results. With Chicago out, continental rotation was too much in Rio's favor. I don't think the landslide would have been that big if Chicago had stayed around for the second round. I would dare to say that the 4 votes that Madrid collected after the first round were more a rejection of Rio than a decision for Madrid.

However, the rejection on the first round was a proof of complete disconnection of the Chicago bid team with the IOC. They have seriously miscounted their votes and they might have seriously misunderstood Obama's role in the bid. The defeat shows a bad jog on the BOCOG side.

On the other hand, in 2005, London had a big mountain to climb to beat Paris, which was the favorite. Blair's involvement is widely considered to have made a difference and Lula is known for having been advised by Blair. Lula probably thought that inviting Obama to go in the G-20 meeting was a nice play. He probably knew at that stage that Obama's appearance might not be effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh? What did BOCOG (Beijing Org) have to do with Chicago's loss? I don't recall that they had any connections.

Sorry too many O's like in the Chicago bid team: Obama (Mr and Mrs), Oprah, ... I meant BCOG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...