Frenchy Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 I'm surprised how little response there has been on this MB. http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/other_news/1216134794.html Pound's response is interesting... http://www.thestar.com/sports/olympics/art...et-for-olympics ...and the comments on "Inside The Games" http://insidethegames.biz/index.php?option...d=1:latest-news I wonder if any worms will be crawling out of the wood after 2012 over how Paris got shafted again in Singapore in 2005? I always thought that Rogge had shown himself quite lenient towards the outrageous way London had gone about bidding for the games. But then again, being French, it can only be a case of "arrogance", "sour grapes" and "paranoia"! N'est-ce pas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pure facts Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 What's new here? It was obvious that they would be a quid-pro-quo between the 2008 Host City and IOC President elections and that it was really unlikely that the Games and IOC Presidency would go to the same continent. With Samaranch favouring both Beijing and Rogge, with Athens hosting 2004 and many European cities already preparing bids for 2012, can any one be really surprised by that. Honnestly that's a non-event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchy Posted October 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 What's new here?It was obvious that they would be a quid-pro-quo between the 2008 Host City and IOC President elections and that it was really unlikely that the Games and IOC Presidency would go to the same continent. With Samaranch favouring both Beijing and Rogge, with Athens hosting 2004 and many European cities already preparing bids for 2012, can any one be really surprised by that. Honnestly that's a non-event. Riiiiiight! So that's OK then? We can all go home and keep on applauding the IOC and kissing its backside...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Paris never got shafted in 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aluz Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 The numbers that Beijing and Rogge had do not support such a conspiracy theory. Beijing was a slam dunk back then. Nobody believed in the possibility of the Chinese losing that one. By the way, with an Asian contender in the election, the deal might have happened but it would only be justifiable if China could force a split on the Asian votes. Anyway, it is still unclear what China would get from that deal. Probably, Rogge went there to lobby some votes and gave them the typical IOC double talk. Paris and Istanbul had no chance anyway. So this whole story seems unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafa Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 "and the french, nobody likes the french..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchy Posted October 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 "and the french, nobody likes the french..." ...and even less like the Boers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox334 Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Beside, Paris had no chance in 2008. There was no way the IOC would give two SOG to Europe (and three Olympics in a row). If anyone got ripped off votes by this "scheme", its Toronto and Osaka. Seriously, can someone even explain to me why Paris bid in 2008? I mean, its the exact same position that Madrid was in 2016: you may have an awesome bid, but whit geopolitics so stack against you you will NOT win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchy Posted October 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Beside, Paris had no chance in 2008. There was no way the IOC would give two SOG to Europe (and three Olympics in a row). If anyone got ripped off votes by this "scheme", its Toronto and Osaka. Seriously, can someone even explain to me why Paris bid in 2008? I mean, its the exact same position that Madrid was in 2016: you may have an awesome bid, but whit geopolitics so stack against you you will NOT win. Agreed. It was downright stupid. Chirac went ahead nevertheless because his "good friend" jas had privately told him that Paris was the only city with any chance [in "Malheureux Aux Jeux", Issert & Luzenfichter, 2006, Editions Prolongation] Scheming b***ard! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pure facts Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Riiiiiight!So that's OK then? We can all go home and keep on applauding the IOC and kissing its backside...... Never said it was OK. What I said is: - only clueless people can discover that now, - whining about it on a forum won't make any difference, - you either try to change the IOC prior to the bid or you bid following both the written and unwritten rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchy Posted October 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Never said it was OK.What I said is: - only clueless people can discover that now, So you knew all the time about the Rogge/Beijing deal and said nothing? Wow! You're sure to be in line for the next Pulitzer prize... - whining about it on a forum won't make any difference, Who said anything about whining? I was just stating a fact. - you either try to change the IOC prior to the bid or you bid following both the written and unwritten rule. Does that include backhanders? If so, no wonder Paris lost three times..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafa Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 ...and even less like the Boers. its from a movie...*sigh* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchy Posted October 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 its from a movie...*sigh* Should've said.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pure facts Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 So you knew all the time about the Rogge/Beijing deal and said nothing?Wow! You're sure to be in line for the next Pulitzer prize... Hardly, as almots every newspapers (including L'Equipe for example) reported since early 2000 that: - it was very unlikely that the same continent would get both IOC Presidency and the 2008 Olympics and that, therefore, Rogge was in competition with Paris, Kim with Beijing and Pound with Toronto (and also Montreal which was at the time running for WADA headquarters), - Samaranch was favouring Rogge and Beijing And in the week leading to the 2001 Session, Kim was all praise about Toronto while Gosper (openly backing Pound) was quoted several times stating that 2008 was time for China... You don't have to be a Pulitzer prize winner to read between the lines. Does that include backhanders?If so, no wonder Paris lost three times..... Sure, Paris didn't try anything... Hmm, let's see: - Paris 2008 put a continuous emphasis on how France was the "Pays des droits de l'homme", wonder who was targeted there - Paris had the support of dozens of international athletes who are professionnal at selling their support to the highest bidder... Paris bid knew the IOC, knew Samaranch: they have trusted Samaranch, their mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainad Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 I'm surprised how little response there has been on this MB.http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/other_news/1216134794.html "Beijing, a heavy favourite, went on to win its bid for the 2008 Summer Olympics in a landslide with 59 votes compared to Toronto's 22 on the second ballot in 2001." I always find that a bit of a misleading statement.On the 2nd ballot,there were a total of 49 votes,almost half the IOC,distributed between Toronto (22) Paris (18) and Istanbul (9) so that Beijing's overall majority was actually by only 7 votes. I wonder if any worms will be crawling out of the wood after 2012 over how Paris got shafted again in Singapore in 2005? Lol....I love how you immediately turn a thread you started about Paris 2008 into one about Paris 2012! I always thought that Rogge had shown himself quite lenient towards the outrageous way London had gone about bidding for the games. So what do you suppose Rogge was getting in return this time?? But then again, being French, it can only be a case of "arrogance", "sour grapes" and "paranoia"!N'est-ce pas? In your case....précisement!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchy Posted October 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 In your case....précisement!! Well at least I've got that in common with Dick Pound..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Beside, Paris had no chance in 2008. There was no way the IOC would give two SOG to Europe (and three Olympics in a row). If anyone got ripped off votes by this "scheme", its Toronto and Osaka. Seriously, can someone even explain to me why Paris bid in 2008? I mean, its the exact same position that Madrid was in 2016: you may have an awesome bid, but whit geopolitics so stack against you you will NOT win. I somewhat disagree. Paris was the complete opposite of Madrid. They deny it, but the 2008 bid set Paris up for the 2012 bid, which they lost by a mere 4 votes. Paris wasn't going to win 2008 - the Beijing and Athens factors were against it. Even if Beijing didn't submit a bid, the IOC might have given a bit more credence to Osaka or Toronto over Paris because of the Athens factor, but that's not relevant: Beijing was there. And Paris could have won 2012. A kinder position toward a handful of Madrid supporters would have given them the Games. But Paris didn't walk into 2012 unaided. Madrid 2012 didn't set Madrid up for anything but failure for 2016. If anything, Madrid 2016 only helped ensure the early death of Chicago 2016 and the sweeping last ballot landslide victory of Rio de Janeiro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 I always find that a bit of a misleading statement.On the 2nd ballot,there were a total of 49 votes,almost half the IOC,distributed between Toronto (22) Paris (18) and Istanbul (9) so that Beijing's overall majority was actually by only 7 votes. I don't think it's that misleading. In the 2nd round, 56 IOC members wanted Beijing, & the other 49 wanted other *multiple* places. In other words, *over half* of the members wanted Beijing, only 1/5th wanted Toronto, another less than 1/5th wanted Paris, & a mere 1/10th wanted Istanbul. So in that respect, I'd say yeah, Beijing got it by a landslide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainad Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 I don't think it's that misleading. In the 2nd round, 56 IOC members wanted Beijing, & the other 49 wanted other *multiple* places. In other words, *over half* of the members wanted Beijing, only 1/5th wanted Toronto, another less than 1/5th wanted Paris, & a mere 1/10th wanted Istanbul. So in that respect, I'd say yeah, Beijing got it by a landslide. Well,I'm just not sure I can agree that 53.3% of the votes cast constitutes a landslide! A respectable majority,yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Well, if further voting rounds were required, hypothetically, I can see Istanbul's 9 votes going to Beijing, & all of Paris' 18 votes going to Toronto (assuming the ones that initially voted for Paris voted for them for the technical aspect of their bid {& for the sake of argument}). Then you would have France's 2 votes & Turkey's 1 being able to vote then cause their cities were eliminated. I can see those 3 votes going to Beijing. So in the end, hypothetically, the final tally could've been somewhere around the 65-45 range, in favor of Beijing, beating Toronto by 20-25 votes (even with all of Paris' 18 votes). I still think that if it took all the voting rounds, Beijing would've still won by a very large margin. It's inevitable that the IOC was bound & determined to go to China in 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 In the system of IOC voting, I'd say that Beijing had a landslide. The combined total of 3 other candidates doesn't make much of a difference when you have one candidate running away with over 50% of the votes. Equal distribution would have the votes at around 26 each. Beijing had twice that and more. With an elimination form of voting, if you've picked up a majority with only eliminating one competitor and still having three others to face...well, if that isn't a decisive landslide, I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Just to point out: It is known that the COC traded support from China (African votes) for Vancouver for support from Canada for the Shanghai world's fair. This kind of voting swapping is also rampant in the CWG bidding process and others. I am sure that something was worked out between the Canadian IOC members and the Brazilians to ensure Brazilian support for Toronto 2015. It happens, its part of doing business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aluz Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Well, if further voting rounds were required, hypothetically, I can see Istanbul's 9 votes going to Beijing, & all of Paris' 18 votes going to Toronto (assuming the ones that initially voted for Paris voted for them for the technical aspect of their bid {& for the sake of argument}). Then you would have France's 2 votes & Turkey's 1 being able to vote then cause their cities were eliminated. I can see those 3 votes going to Beijing. So in the end, hypothetically, the final tally could've been somewhere around the 65-45 range, in favor of Beijing, beating Toronto by 20-25 votes (even with all of Paris' 18 votes). I still think that if it took all the voting rounds, Beijing would've still won by a very large margin. It's inevitable that the IOC was bound & determined to go to China in 2008. I totally agree and we can draw a parallel with this years a election. The only difference was that Madrid came so strong in the first round that their performance took them straight to the final round. Rio was 2 votes short of a second round win. Since a final round was needed, then we got the huge margin with Rio taking more than 2/3 of the votes. I would expect something similar to have happened if a final round was needed in 2001 and I expect a similar result when an African city runs unopposed for the first games in the continent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympian2004 Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 It happens, its part of doing business. Exactly. It was the same when France retracted its bid for the FIFA Women's World Cup in 2011 (in support of Germany's bid), while Germany in exchange promised to support the French bid for the UEFA Euro 2016. No one made a scandal out of this either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aluz Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 All this political ties are a little bit unpleasant, but they end up promoting democratic decisions and some kind of stability for the Olympic Movement. The IOC is a very diverse group. The IOC members are backed by organizations that represent the people who are involved in the Olympic Games: athletes, federations and NOC. It's naïve to believe that each IOC member votes based on their personal choice. Most of them vote both with the personal reasons and with the needs of the group they represent. Since all those groups have different agendas, which may be independent, conflicting or synergistic, the voting decision will be done according to agreements done to promote these agendas. Conflicting and synergistic agendas tend to induce the vote, while independent agendas can generate any kind of agreement one can think of. That's why the exchange of favours and the alliances make such a big impact in this processes. In the end of the day, this process allows for many NOCs, IFs and athletes' organizations to carry on with their plans by influencing in the IOC voting process. It also creates some kind of balance that keeps from political bickering to be in the way of the Olympic Movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.