baron-pierreIV Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 The Associated Press reports that former International Olympic Committee (IOC) President Juan Antonio Samaranch told the German agency DPA Monday that Madrid was handicapped by an impressive Rio de Janeiro bid and by the Summer Games going to London in 2012. He said, "I gave my opinion at the time but when the majority wanted to go for it in '16, all I could do was help as much as I could". When asked if he would back Madrid bidding for the 2020 Summer Games Samaranch said, "I won't be in this world". Samaranch added, "what hurt Madrid the most was the repeat of the continent. Secondly, a lot of Europeans didn't vote for Madrid because they were already thinking about presenting in '20 or '24". I mean...what was the Madrid gov't thinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinderella Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 Ironic you agree somehow with JAS, Baron Anyway, he's right. We've stated it plenty of times: it was not the time for Europe. Anyway, Ruiz-Gallardon was so insisting about the right messages received by the IOC that somehow he made us believe that he had an ace up in the sleeve. The best they can do is take a rest and breathe until 2024. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 Ironic you agree somehow with JAS, Baron Anyway, he's right. We've stated it plenty of times: it was not the time for Europe. Anyway, Ruiz-Gallardon was so insisting about the right messages received by the IOC that somehow he made us believe that he had an ace up in the sleeve. The best they can do is take a rest and breathe until 2024. Or really assess that a 2nd Games for Spain in 30 years is a little unrealistic and OVERLY ambitious. I mean Russia, postwar Germany, Japan haven't HAD a 2nd SOG. France is going on 80 years without one. Africa's hasn't had one. China's just had one; So American/Brazil's just got one...so in the total scheme of things, how can Spain (or Madrid) really see that perhaps the #6 European country is due for ANOTHER Summer Games??? I mean the Madrilenos should really take an honest look in an honest mirror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stir.ts Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 "I gave my opinion at the time but when the majority wanted to go for it in '16, all I could do was help as much as I could". - what a douche. Fun fact! During his tenure as IOC president, Samaranch insisted that he be addressed with the title of "Excellency", a title used for heads of state Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pure facts Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 Fun fact!During his tenure as IOC president, Samaranch insisted that he be addressed with the title of "Excellency", a title used for heads of state Fun...lie. Samaranch didn't insisted on being addressed as His Excellency, title that he owns as a former ambassador of Spain in USSR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinderella Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 Or really assess that a 2nd Games for Spain in 30 years is a little unrealistic and OVERLY ambitious. I mean Russia, postwar Germany, Japan haven't HAD a 2nd SOG. France is going on 80 years without one. Africa's hasn't had one. China's just had one; So American/Brazil's just got one...so in the total scheme of things, how can Spain (or Madrid) really see that perhaps the #6 European country is due for ANOTHER Summer Games??? I mean the Madrilenos should really take an honest look in an honest mirror. I don't think it is Spain's issue if the others doesn't offer bids strong enough to get another games. Germany got wrong offering Leipzig and they had Munich'72. Moscow's bid for 2012 was quite crappy. Africa hasn't had until now a bid strong enough. You should agree that China was not in the 70/80's what it is right now... and so on. There are plenty of arguments for Spain not being awarded, but this can't be one. If the country offers a bid strong enough and the others don't, why shouldn't it be awarded? It is ambitious indeed, but not overly. Madrid will be awarded not later than 2032, and this will be 40 years. By the way, let me say that I'm pretty sure that you've heard from NO ONE from Madrid bid that Spain is due for another games. Brazil actually did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 By the way, let me say that I'm pretty sure that you've heard from NO ONE from Madrid bid that Spain is due for another games. Brazil actually did. One doesn't have to say it though, C. The fact that you have bid 2x in a row, really means, to me, that you feel "...you are due for a 2nd Games"...however one wants to phrase one's pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 I mean...what was the Madrid gov't thinking? You could ask the same about Chicago ...... their campaigns both ended the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 You could ask the same about Chicago ...... their campaigns both ended the same way. No; but Chicago was right in that 2016 would go the America's way. It just went south. Madrid was TOLD by Mr. IOC himself; why didn't they listen?? In fact, I think Madrid had it more painful...plus they've been thru the wringer 2x. The Chicago folks only suffered once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aluz Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 That would explain why all votes went to Rio after Chicago was out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 You could ask the same about Chicago ...... their campaigns both ended the same way. Really? Last time I checked there wasn't a Canadian nor Mexican city scheduled to host the 2012 Olympics. And speaking of, that comment coming from someone who lives in a city that's going to be hosting the Olympics for a THIRD time is quite disingenuous, to say the least. Certainly Paris deserved to host a third Games before London did, since Paris last hosted wayyyy before London last did, if you know, we wanna be "fair". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!VamosSochi! Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Moscow's bid for 2012 was quite crappy. Sounds like you are not very knowledgeable or overexcited. Moscow had a decent EvCom report and 15 votes in the first round (vs Madrid's 20, Paris's 21 and London's 22). Any facts to prove your pov? And speaking of, that comment coming from someone who lives in a city that's going to be hosting the Olympics for a THIRD time is quite disingenuous, to say the least. Certainly Paris deserved to host a third Games before London did, since Paris last hosted wayyyy before London last did, if you know, we wanna be "fair". Time since previous Games is obviously not the only measure of fairness here, especially regarding the events 0.5-1 centuries away. If I'm not mistaken, this third London Games is actually the first time the city asked for it, on the two previous occasions the IOC asked London to host. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Time since previous Games is obviously not the only measure of fairness here, especially regarding the events 0.5-1 centuries away.ounds like you If I'm not mistaken, this third London Games is actually the first time the city asked for it, on the two previous occasions the IOC asked London to host. Both of those points are really moot. People make time an issue: "the U.S. has hosted too much, it's too 'soon' for the U.S., yada, yada". And what is your point, really, if London has only 'asked once' for the Games? What difference does that make? The point is London has hosted twice already. If that's the logic you want to use, then Los Angeles should have no problems whatsoever in hosting a third Games, since the 2 times Los Angeles got the Games, nobody else wanted them. So unless the IOC wanted to cancel those Games, they had no other options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Madrid is starting to become like Detroit. Bidding for the Games and it comes out short. It is either in third or second place in the voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Madrid is starting to become like Detroit. Bidding for the Games and it comes out short. It is either in third or second place in the voting. However, Madrid is gaining a substantial number of votes each time - in both the 2012 and 2016 it has been leading in a round once the votes had been counted. Detroit never got ore than a couple of votes. Although I would much prefer Rome or Berlin, and especially Paris to be the next European host, Madrid's continued popularity within the IOC and the extremely high quality of their bids make them strong contenders - Detroit was never a strong contender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!VamosSochi! Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 People make time an issue: "the U.S. has hosted too much, it's too 'soon' for the U.S., yada, yada". If you look at it carefully, you will notice that I wrote about "time since previous Games" not "number of times" - these are certainly different things and the IOC cares more about the former. And what is your point, really, if London has only 'asked once' for the Games? What difference does that make? The very point that makes the difference and that you seem to be missing is relationship. If I'm not mistaken, even though LA agreed to host in 1984, their relationships with the IOC were very strained. On the contrary, London was quite enthusiastic about helping the IOC out (and that was only 3 years after the WWII). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 If I'm not mistaken, even though LA agreed to host in 1984, their relationships with the IOC were very strained. Here's the deal with the IOC and LA'84 during the final negotiation phase of 1977-78. So the IOC put LA through the hopper 3x (1969 for 1976; 1973 for 1980), and come 1977 finally, the IOC had nobody else to pander to them but LA. Still the IOC played the hard-to-get games, and the SCCOG (NOT the USOC) put up another $200,000 deposit to "sort of" bid for the Games --as if there were others. Mayor Bradley was getting tired of the IOC's 'pretend' Games; Lord Killanin was getting sick and wanted out; and that biggest b*tch in IOC history, Monique Berlioux was ACTUALLY running the IOC's day-to-day business. And then waiting in the wings to pounce was of course Samaranch. It was all a matter of who was going to blink first. Which is why the SCCOG and LAOOC picked a very hard bargainer in Peter Ueberroth to head the committee. And when Killanin left and Samaranch came in, the 'turf' battle within the IOC became even more intense between new jefe and the old queen, Berlioux. I would say there was even more tension within the IOC ranks...and if you read in between the lines of Ueberroth's bio, "Made in America," one can glean that Sammy actually let Uebe battle it out with Berlioux to the point of one instance where Ueberroth smashed a chair out of sheer disgust at Berlioux's even more imperial ways. All this helped in Sammy's master plan to ease Berlioux out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakydoky Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Here's the deal with the IOC and LA'84 during the final negotiation phase of 1977-78. So the IOC put LA through the hopper 3x (1969 for 1976; 1973 for 1980), and come 1977 finally, the IOC had nobody else to pander to them but LA. Still the IOC played the hard-to-get games, and the SCCOG (NOT the USOC) put up another $200,000 deposit to "sort of" bid for the Games --as if there were others. Mayor Bradley was getting tired of the IOC's 'pretend' Games; Lord Killanin was getting sick and wanted out; and that biggest b*tch in IOC history, Monique Berlioux was ACTUALLY running the IOC's day-to-day business. And then waiting in the wings to pounce was of course Samaranch. It was all a matter of who was going to blink first. Which is why the SCCOG and LAOOC picked a very hard bargainer in Peter Ueberroth to head the committee. And when Killanin left and Samaranch came in, the 'turf' battle within the IOC became even more intense between new jefe and the old queen, Berlioux. I would say there was even more tension within the IOC ranks...and if you read in between the lines of Ueberroth's bio, "Made in America," one can glean that Sammy actually let Uebe battle it out with Berlioux to the point of one instance where Ueberroth smashed a chair out of sheer disgust at Berlioux's even more imperial ways. All this helped in Sammy's master plan to ease Berlioux out. Samaranch is a grade A hustler - a true sly fox! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 BTW, here's a very interesting artcile on Mme. Berlioux's years with the IOC...and of course, how it all came to a head in the famous Barcelona'92-Paris'92 face-off. http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrar...n3/JOHv4n3f.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainad Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 BTW, here's a very interesting artcile on Mme. Berlioux's years with the IOC...and of course, how it all came to a head in the famous Barcelona'92-Paris'92 face-off. http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrar...n3/JOHv4n3f.pdf Interesting stuff.I wonder that Berlioux didn't make a play for the presidency itself after Killanin retired.Or maybe she thought she already had all the power she needed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 She couldn't run for President as she was never a member of the IOC. She was their administrative Director. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainad Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 She couldn't run for President as she was never a member of the IOC. She was their administrative Director. Again,interesting....didn't think it was possible to hold such a powerful executive position within the IOC and not actually be a member! Wonder why she never sought election as she had impeccable sports credentials (Olympic swimmer for France etc.)? I guess it would be impossible to imagine someone today wielding such power and influence over the IOC who was not an IOC member! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Again,interesting....didn't think it was possible to hold such a powerful executive position within the IOC and not actually be a member! Wonder why she never sought election as she had impeccable sports credentials (Olympic swimmer for France etc.)? I guess it would be impossible to imagine someone today wielding such power and influence over the IOC who was not an IOC member! She came at a time when the IOC was on the cusp of professionalising and coming into ALL that money. It did say the IOC staff jumped from 6 to like 35 (or whatever those figures were) during Berlioux's term. So in a way, she really established the whole administrative structure of the IOC until Sammy moved in, removed her, and restructured the IOC secretariat for his totally autonomous control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainad Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 She came at a time when the IOC was on the cusp of professionalising and coming into ALL that money. It did say the IOC staff jumped from 6 to like 35 (or whatever those figures were) during Berlioux's term. So in a way, she really established the whole administrative structure of the IOC until Sammy moved in, removed her, and restructured the IOC secretariat for his totally autonomous control. Of course things seemed to work out fine so long as the IOC president stayed mostly away from Lausanne as Brundage and Killanin did.But once JAS decided to move in permanently,I guess IOC headquarters just weren't big enough to house both of their egos! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 She came at a time when the IOC was on the cusp of professionalising and coming into ALL that money. It did say the IOC staff jumped from 6 to like 35 (or whatever those figures were) during Berlioux's term. So in a way, she really established the whole administrative structure of the IOC until Sammy moved in, removed her, and restructured the IOC secretariat for his totally autonomous control. And Sammy then xpanded it further. It sure was a way different organisation in those days. I remember on my first trip to Europe in 1984 (I suppose at the time El Jefe was still settling in, and Berlioux was reaching the end of her time of influence), I found myself in Lausanne and figured I'd visit the IOC HQ - it was open to visitors and had a tiny museum display, but it was in a very small, old, even dingy and run-down office building in central Lausanne. A far cry from today's marble palaces on the lake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.