How Chi Got Snookered

[baron-pierreIV]

Here's how I think Chicago Got Snookered.

Obviously, all 4 ciites went into the vote thinking they had at least 22 or 23 commited votes for the first round. For Chicago, 4 or 5 of those were 'spoiler' votes from the start (i.e., meant to deceive...Yes, we will vote for you...but all along, they knew they were going to vote for someone else); or a few simply changed their mind come the voting moment. Why else was Chicago/USOC 'furious' afterwards?

I tend to believe it might've been a combination of both. From the smug looks of Rio and Madrid, I think 2 or 3 votes were in on the plot. Why else was Lula's prediction so close? It was all part of a deeply organized master plan; but all it took were 3 or 4 votes. They were probably told from the start to appear in Chi's corner, but all along their hearts were with either of the Latin cities. And of course, one or two shifty ones simply changed their minds at the last minute.

Shifty? Skullduggery? Legitimate? Absolutely. But it's all part of the game. And with a 'secret' ballot, there's no way to tell except looking them straight in the eye. I think Chicago and the USOC would know who those might be...but for diplomacy's sake, it will be kept secret for sometime.

It also could've happened to any of the other 3...but as Dick Pound said: the Europeans and the Asians are good at this, i.e., doublespeak, two-faced.

I believe that's what happened.

[OneTimeOnly]

Here's how I think Chicago Got Snookered.

Obviously, all 4 ciites went into the vote thinking they had at least 22 or 23 commited votes for the first round. For Chicago, 4 or 5 of those were 'spoiler' votes from the start (i.e., meant to deceive...Yes, we will vote for you...but all along, they knew they were going to vote for someone else); or a few simply changed their mind come the voting moment. Why else was Chicago/USOC 'furious' afterwards?

I tend to believe it might've been a combination of both. From the smug looks of Rio and Madrid, I think 2 or 3 votes were in on the plot. Why else was Lula's prediction so close? It was all part of a deeply organized master plan; but all it took were 3 or 4 votes. They were probably told from the start to appear in Chi's corner, but all along their hearts were with either of the Latin cities. And of course, one or two shifty ones simply changed their minds at the last minute.

Shifty? Skullduggery? Legitimate? Absolutely. But it's all part of the game. And with a 'secret' ballot, there's no way to tell except looking them straight in the eye. I think Chicago and the USOC would know who those might be...but for diplomacy's sake, it will be kept secret for sometime.

It also could've happened to any of the other 3...but as Dick Pound said: the Europeans and the Asians are good at this, i.e., doublespeak, two-faced.

I believe that's what happened.

The ballots should probably not be secret anymore.

[olympikfan]

The ballots should probably not be secret anymore.

Do the Olympics always have to go to the US. Their is a world outside the USA last time I looked at the map.

[Mangle]

Do the Olympics always have to go to the US. Their is a world outside the USA last time I looked at the map.

The Olympics usually do not go to the US or North America.

And I think secret ballots do more harm than good. Prevents intimidation and retribution against the voters.

[OneTimeOnly]

Making the votes open and not secret will force IOC members to vote for who they want in reality every time, rather than playing these little shifty games.

[Mainad]

I believe Chicago got 'Samaranched'.If old JAS had not shamelessly played on his 'I'm old,I'm dying so please make your old boss happy one last time by giving these Games to Madrid' speech then some of the delegates intending to vote for Chicago in the 1st round might not have been persuaded to 'do one more for El Gipper'.How else to explain why Madrid garnered the most votes in the 1st ballot and then got swamped by Rio in the 2nd and 3rd? They may have miscalculated that Chicago would get enough votes to survive the 1st round anyway.A fatal miscalculation!

But we can speculate on this from here to kingdom come (and no doubt will do so) but we'll never get a definitive answer unless more IOC members are willing to talk about who voted for whom and why.The fact that they won't (or are not allowed?) to do this,for obvious reasons,is why the vote will probably always remain secret!

In any case,tactical voting is a legitimate aspect of pretty nearly all electoral processes whether the ballot is open or secret!

[aluz]

Baron,

I would not think that this was the case. I guess all cities had those fake pledged votes, the question was why some got the numbers right and others didn't?

For me, it was a matter of intimacy with the IOC. Statements from IOC members were clear on the accounts that the Americans didn't have a good relationship with most IOC members. I think Chicago could not read between the lines and really tell who was really pledged and who was just playing nice.

As I said, the IOC members are like any other group of people. So, some people will be the kind that likes to please everyone and say that they support their projects. Others are going to refuse to agree to reveal their vote, but may give indications to their leaning.

So, at the end of the day, Rio and Madrid had Samaranch and Havelange who are in the group for a long time and knew how to read those people. I think it was not a question of a plot, but of really in the experience of the lobbying process.

As two examples, JH stated before that he had 20 pledged votes. That means that he probably got more positive answers, but he had 20 that he knew that they were not going to back down. Samaranch Jr. said that he had between 25% to 50% of the votes, which means that he also received extra votes committed, but he new that he could count only with 25%, the rest would not be fully committed.

I guess that the Chicago team could never read which ones were really committed to them, causing the result that we have seen.

[aluz]

Why else was Lula's prediction so close?

It was not Lula's prediction, it was Nuzman's. And frankly, I think it was JH's, probably with Nuzman helping as an aprentice.

[baron-pierreIV]

Baron,

I would not think that this was the case. I guess all cities had those fake pledged votes, the question was why some got the numbers right and others didn't?

For me, it was a matter of intimacy with the IOC. Statements from IOC members were clear on the accounts that the Americans didn't have a good relationship with most IOC members. I think Chicago could not read between the lines and really tell who was really pledged and who was just playing nice.

As I said, the IOC members are like any other group of people. So, some people will be the kind that likes to please everyone and say that they support their projects. Others are going to refuse to agree to reveal their vote, but may give indications to their leaning.

So, at the end of the day, Rio and Madrid had Samaranch and Havelange who are in the group for a long time and knew how to read those people. I think it was not a question of a plot, but of really in the experience of the lobbying process.

As two examples, JH stated before that he had 20 pledged votes. That means that he probably got more positive answers, but he had 20 that he knew that they were not going to back down. Samaranch Jr. said that he had between 25% to 50% of the votes, which means that he also received extra votes committed, but he new that he could count only with 25%, the rest would not be fully committed.

I guess that the Chicago team could never read which ones were really committed to them, causing the result that we have seen.

Yes. That is true. Also, it's NOT just reading a prospective voter but also how much they want to reveal: is their signal clear (either way), is it muddled, is it a maybe? Is it "I'll think more about it"?

So I think it's a combination of all of the above. But I am sure there was a little deceit involved...since it is part of human behavior.

[baron-pierreIV]

It was not Lula's prediction, it was Nuzman's. And frankly, I think it was JH's, probably with Nuzman helping as an aprentice.

Oh, OK...anyway, someone from the Rio delegation. I mean, minor point.

[lucas_leobas]

I think it's no way Rio could have "lent" some votes to Tokyo in order to eliminate Chicago. Nuzman might say he had got those maths right, but I doubt he would have put his money on it. It would be far too dangerous. They did know they couldn't count their chickens before they were hatched. Imagine if Rio get's eliminated because of this rookie mistake, Nuzman career would be over!

However, if it actually happened, kudos. He might me an avid Survivor watcher.

[aluz]

Oh, OK...anyway, someone from the Rio delegation. I mean, minor point.

I just wanted to emphasize that the prediction came from an actual IOC member, an insider.

[baron-pierreIV]

I just wanted to emphasize that the prediction came from an actual IOC member, an insider.

Of course, 2 long-standing IOC members who know their colleagues more than probably Easton and deFranatz of the US. Yeah, Brazil, Spain and Japan had better placed people inside the IOC hierarchy working their bids. But that's really like beating a dead horse.

[baron-pierreIV]

Post-mortem from Bob Cvrtlik:

"The beauty of a secret ballot is we will never have all the answers," said Bob Ctvrtlik, a former U.S. Olympic Committee official who led Chicago's efforts to analyze IOC support. "Many, many people who committed to us in the first round all can't be telling the truth."

Exactly what I thought...quite a few were liars or deceitful.

[Stu]

Post-mortem from Bob Cvrtlik:

Exactly what I thought...quite a few were liars or deceitful.

....or maybe they just changed their minds. Not everything is a conspiracy - the fact that it was mentioned that the United States had hosted the Olympics 8 times and Brazil never would be enough emotional pull away from Chicago.

[aluz]

One day before the voting, a Brazilian journalist covering the IOC congress commented on the behaviour of the IOC members in their hotel. He met with representatives from 3 bids and they all had the same dialogue:

Bid team member: - Hello, how are you doing? We are counting on your vote tomorrow?

IOC member: - Of course!

So he actually gave an evasive answer to all of them. It takes people who know the hidden language of the IOC to get this done. Apparently, the Chicago bid team lacked those. The US had 2 IOC members and apparently either they are not very influential or their feedback was neglected by the bid team.

The fact that the American press was so overconfident also shows that they were probably relying on sources from the USOC and the bid team for their reports, which apparently led to a big mistake.

In the final two days, there were many reports of Madrid's bid gaining momentum. These were the pledged votes that brought them to the third round. The same journalist mentioned the respect that King Juan Carlos had with the royalty from the IOC. He also mentioned the respect inspired by old JS (similar to the old JH).

[baron-pierreIV]

One day before the voting, a Brazilian journalist covering the IOC congress commented on the behaviour of the IOC members in their hotel. He met with representatives from 3 bids and they all had the same dialogue:

Bid team member: - Hello, how are you doing? We are counting on your vote tomorrow?

IOC member: - Of course!

So he actually gave an evasive answer to all of them. It takes people who know the hidden language of the IOC to get this done. Apparently, the Chicago bid team lacked those. The US had 2 IOC members and apparently either they are not very influential or their feedback was neglected by the bid team.

The fact that the American press was so overconfident also shows that they were probably relying on sources from the USOC and the bid team for their reports, which apparently led to a big mistake.

In the final two days, there were many reports of Madrid's bid gaining momentum. These were the pledged votes that brought them to the third round. The same journalist mentioned the respect that King Juan Carlos had with the royalty from the IOC. He also mentioned the respect inspired by old JS (similar to the old JH).

Yes, all that may be true..but I am sure out of a test group of any 105 people, faced with the same circumstances as that of the last few weeks and days, a handful (maybe 3-4%) will be evasive and deceitful -- that is just part of human nature. After all, who do they have to account to if they went back on their so-called 'outside' word? No one but their conscience and self-integrity. Yes..I know it's all politesse and diplo-speak. But you cannot deny there is a certain tinge of chicanery involved -- and I guess it's all part of the game. Obviously, the USOC did not give themselves enough 'margin of error' room.

Anyway, I think we've narrowed it down.

[jim jones]

....or maybe they just changed their minds. Not everything is a conspiracy - the fact that it was mentioned that the United States had hosted the Olympics 8 times and Brazil never would be enough emotional pull away from Chicago.

I agree with Stu simply because you can have a good promise in the spring of 2009 for Chicago 2016 by an IOc member and then he or she can change their minds simply on what has happened with regards to the Bid. These people probably all knew about the Chicago Tribune poll that said 45 percent of the people were against Chicago 2016 in that city and 75 percent did not believe taxpayers money should be spent at all on the games . For some members that went thru Denver 1976 they could have buyers remorse over their promise to Chicago 2016. I think Rio's historic bid for the margin over another final rounder was Lets make this the best we can for NBC and the US Top Sponsors.

Madrid winning would have been probably reversed the commerical gains the IOc has had since 1996 to a degree. One thing is for sure Murdock is out of bidding on the Us tv rights for 2014 or 2016 . He stated Fox is only interested in Chicago 2016 being a hosting reality.

Jim jones

[jim jones]

Yes, all that may be true..but I am sure out of a test group of any 105 people, faced with the same circumstances as that of the last few weeks and days, a handful (maybe 3-4%) will be evasive and deceitful -- that is just part of human nature. After all, who do they have to account to if they went back on their so-called 'outside' word? No one but their conscience and self-integrity. Yes..I know it's all politesse and diplo-speak. But you cannot deny there is a certain tinge of chicanery involved -- and I guess it's all part of the game. Obviously, the USOC did not give themselves enough 'margin of error' room.

Anyway, I think we've narrowed it down.

Baron the US has been treated in this way before Tv rights and Top sponsorship revenues were ever even thought of. Rarely has a bid from the Us gotten beyond the basement.

US taxpayers are not going to bend over to have their annual colon examination by the IOC.

Jim jones

[baron-pierreIV]

Baron the US has been treated in this way before Tv rights and Top sponsorship revenues were ever even thought of. Rarely has a bid from the Us gotten beyond the basement.

US taxpayers are not going to bend over to have their annual colon examination by the IOC.

Jim jones

Tell me something I don't already know, jj.

[FYI]

I believe Chicago got 'Samaranched'.If old JAS had not shamelessly played on his 'I'm old,I'm dying so please make your old boss happy one last time by giving these Games to Madrid' speech then some of the delegates intending to vote for Chicago in the 1st round might not have been persuaded to 'do one more for El Gipper'.How else to explain why Madrid garnered the most votes in the 1st ballot and then got swamped by Rio in the 2nd and 3rd? They may have miscalculated that Chicago would get enough votes to survive the 1st round anyway.A fatal miscalculation!

But we can speculate on this from here to kingdom come (and no doubt will do so) but we'll never get a definitive answer unless more IOC members are willing to talk about who voted for whom and why.The fact that they won't (or are not allowed?) to do this,for obvious reasons,is why the vote will probably always remain secret!

In any case,tactical voting is a legitimate aspect of pretty nearly all electoral processes whether the ballot is open or secret!

I definitely concur with this, too! Definitely one of the many other reasons. I never really thought anyway in either direction for the man (like some on here have some complete disdain for the man for some time), but after last Friday, that old fart is starting to irritate me!

I mean the man was IOC president for 20 years, & the IOC gave him his Hometown Olympics years ago, & they also gave him his Beijing dream. Wtf more does this old fart want?! Time to draw the curtains on this old fool already. He's playing too many of the IOC strings still, & it's time to finally pull the plug on this old fascist before he fu@ks up anymore elections with his gluttoness & stupidity.

[Kenadian]

Another reason for Chicago's failure can be found in a conversation held 6 years ago over beers in Whistler: A Federal Government Guarantee?

[baron-pierreIV]

/\ /\ Well, they found their new suckas in Lula and Nuzman.

[aluz]

Another reason for Chicago's failure can be found in a conversation held 6 years ago over beers in Whistler: A Federal Government Guarantee?

I avoided to get in this discussion during the bid process, but for me it looks clear why the IOC wants a Federal Government guarantee. Municipalities cannot print money, so their guarantees are not good enough except if they have some reserves. A Federal Government guarantee makes sure that all costs will be paid.

You can see my previous posts on the Obama decision to go. I said that if he is not there ready to sign a check, his visit would be pointless, as it was.