Jump to content

How Paris Got Shafted In 2001 By Rogge...


Frenchy

Recommended Posts

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.

I'm sorry to say this aluz but that is absolute b****hit!

How you can say that back-patting, exchanging favours and "renvois d'ascenseur" in some way induces stability and independence in the IOC while all the time furthering the interestsof NOCs is quite beyond my comprehension!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry to say this aluz but that is absolute b****hit!

How you can say that back-patting, exchanging favours and "renvois d'ascenseur" in some way induces stability and independence in the IOC while all the time furthering the interestsof NOCs is quite beyond my comprehension!!

It's clear that this subject is beyond your comprehension. Do some research on how big deals are closed in major companies or how laws are passed in a Parliament. The process is very similar.

Currently, you are just being a sore loser. You cannot accept after such a long time that Paris lost the 2012 SOG. So, you are trying to find someone to blame for it, instead of trying to understand what Paris did wrong and London did right.

But I'll give you some examples...

NOCs in Africa and Latin America have a lot of trouble finding a good place to train their athletes. Usually, they have to ask for a lot of money to be able to pay for a world class training facility in Europe or North America to run trainin camps for their Olympic teams. Most of the times, they can't get the money and end up sending poorly prepared teams. It turns out that the BOC has commit itself to allow African and Latin American Olympic teams to use the facilities of the Olympic park to do so.

CAF (African Football Confederation) has been working close to FIFA since the Havelange era. By supporting him, they have increased their participation in the WC from 2 teams in 1990 to 6 in 2010. CAF could also bring the WC Finals to Africa for the first time. In exchange, CAF gave both political support for Havelange and Blatter and provided several football stars who play in Europe and lend their skills and technique to promoting football around the world. Do you really think that, if Africa had not done that, the European teams would be looking at African countries when hiring players? Before Cameroon 1990, there were hardly any African players in 1st tier European teams. Now, there are a bunch of them. Well, since Havelange was one of the leaders of Rio's bid, I don't have to tell you for which city Blatter and the president of CAF voted. The latter would not risk his alliance since it has been so good for African football.

It seems a little bit twisted, but it actually works. That's only human. It helps stability because no alliances are unbreakable or are in play for every decision. So these negotiations allows every participant to take its share in the long term. If it was not like this, the IOC would be divided in small parties that would fight each other with no results.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Currently, you are just being a sore loser. You cannot accept after such a long time that Paris lost the 2012 SOG. So, you are trying to find someone to blame for it, instead of trying to understand what Paris did wrong and London did right.

Perhaps you'll be good enough to stick to explanations instead of resorting to cheap character assassination.

I've already answered that accusation elsewhere and will not bother going into it again......

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's clear that this subject is beyond your comprehension. Do some research on how big deals are closed in major companies or how laws are passed in a Parliament. The process is very similar.

Currently, you are just being a sore loser. You cannot accept after such a long time that Paris lost the 2012 SOG. So, you are trying to find someone to blame for it, instead of trying to understand what Paris did wrong and London did right.

But I'll give you some examples...

NOCs in Africa and Latin America have a lot of trouble finding a good place to train their athletes. Usually, they have to ask for a lot of money to be able to pay for a world class training facility in Europe or North America to run trainin camps for their Olympic teams. Most of the times, they can't get the money and end up sending poorly prepared teams. It turns out that the BOC has commit itself to allow African and Latin American Olympic teams to use the facilities of the Olympic park to do so.

CAF (African Football Confederation) has been working close to FIFA since the Havelange era. By supporting him, they have increased their participation in the WC from 2 teams in 1990 to 6 in 2010. CAF could also bring the WC Finals to Africa for the first time. In exchange, CAF gave both political support for Havelange and Blatter and provided several football stars who play in Europe and lend their skills and technique to promoting football around the world. Do you really think that, if Africa had not done that, the European teams would be looking at African countries when hiring players? Before Cameroon 1990, there were hardly any African players in 1st tier European teams. Now, there are a bunch of them. Well, since Havelange was one of the leaders of Rio's bid, I don't have to tell you for which city Blatter and the president of CAF voted. The latter would not risk his alliance since it has been so good for African football.

It seems a little bit twisted, but it actually works. That's only human. It helps stability because no alliances are unbreakable or are in play for every decision. So these negotiations allows every participant to take its share in the long term. If it was not like this, the IOC would be divided in small parties that would fight each other with no results.

CAF (African Football Confederation) has been working close to FIFA since the Havelange era. By supporting him, they have increased their participation in the WC from 2 teams in 1990 to 6 in 2010. CAF could also bring the WC Finals to Africa for the first time. In exchange, CAF gave both political support for Havelange and Blatter and provided several football stars who play in Europe and lend their skills and technique to promoting football around the world. Do you really think that, if Africa had not done that, the European teams would be looking at African countries when hiring players? Before Cameroon 1990, there were hardly any African players in 1st tier European teams. Now, there are a bunch of them. Well, since Havelange was one of the leaders of Rio's bid, I don't have to tell you for which city Blatter and the president of CAF voted. The latter would not risk his alliance since it has been so good for African football.

It seems a little bit twisted, but it actually works. That's only human. It helps stability because no alliances are unbreakable or are in play for every decision. So these negotiations allows every participant to take its share in the long term. If it was not like this, the IOC would be divided in small parties that would fight each other with no results.

That's rich quoting Havelange in view of the accusation of corruption that hang over him!!

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/archive/globa...nningsmain.html

http://www.camfoot.com/Joao-Havelange-accuse-de.html

Ever heard of Andrew Jennings?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jennings

No, I didn't think you would....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frenchy. It's politics.

The IOC is a political organisation. It's impossible for it not to be, and there's no reason for it not to be, or any reason that it's particularly negative for it to be so. It's about balancing the desires, hopes and agendas of multiple nations, NOCs, federations, continental groups, individuals, commercial partners etc etc.

Like the United Nations, any democratic parliament/senate, any public, or indeed private organisation, it's about reaching decisions by negotiations, concessions, deals, promises, agendas, discussions, seeking balance and, ultimately, through votes, by consensus. It's how the world works.

Any city that bids for the Olympics goes in with its eyes open and a general idea of its chances. Paris came sooooo close in 2012. Chance as likely as much as the lobbying poilitical process playd a part in that decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...