Pound, On How The Games Are Awarded.

[Frenchy]

Link

(...)

Pound also gave a unique insight into how Games are awarded, saying that the 2016 Games were given to Brazil because it was time to hold the event in South America, which has never hosted an Olympics.

He confirmed long understood rules of engagement for getting the Games where politics play an even larger role than merit in winning.

Politics also lay behind Sochi's 2014 win for the next Winter Games and Beijing's 2008 Summer Games.

"It was time to go to China," said Pound.

"They are the worlds largest country and they have never had the Games."

Of the candidate voting procedure Pound said: "It is a brutal process."

"Years of work by all the candidate cities are rewarded by either a win or a loss. Close doesn't count.

"I'm often asked what is the IOC like and I say, 'well if you can picture the College of Cardinals it is pretty close.' But it is really the College of Cardinals with knives.

"The candidates all think the voting is about them but in fact it is not. The real strategic issue in (awarding 2010) was not 2010 but the Summer Games in 2012.

"There was a feeling among my colleagues that the 2012 Summer Games ought to be in Europe."

Toronto was also planning to bid on the 2012 Games and the best way to eliminate that city from the competition was to award the Winter Games to Vancouver.

That also helped eliminate U.S. prospects as well.

(...)

Is he trying to kick Rogge in the backside I ask myself?

[thatsnotmypuppy]

Dick Pound and Princess Anne are the most reliable and honest IOC members out of the mob.

If this is what Dick says is the IOC's mindset - I'd take it as the truth. I've met the man - he is a real straight shooter.

[Citius Altius Fortius]

I agree TNMP,

his remarks sound to me very trustful or even stronger they sound very true...

I talked with memorabilia in another thread about 2018 and I had the impression that we both believed that the decision will show which will be the winner of 2020 and which city will be the frontrunner in Europe for the next Summer Olympics...

[Fox334]

Well, having followed Olympic bidding for a couple of years now he pretty much summed up my opinion on the matter. Bids are NOT won on merit, although merit does play a factor. Anyone that says that Rio had the best bid is delusional; Rio had the RIGHT bid for the right time for the right organization, but the best bid? Nope.

[Frenchy]

Dick Pound and Princess Anne are the most reliable and honest IOC members out of the mob.

(...)

Apparently she once said, speaking of the IOC "I know where the bodies are buried"!

[memorabilia]

I agree TNMP,

his remarks sound to me very trustful or even stronger they sound very true...

I talked with memorabilia in another thread about 2018 and I had the impression that we both believed that the decision will show which will be the winner of 2020 and which city will be the frontrunner in Europe for the next Summer Olympics...

I like those kind of interviews... It makes me be believing that I start to understand how those IOC members works !!!

I confirm CAF...

The winter 2018 election will have in backstage the discussion (and trading...) about the following summer games and which European city could win in 2020 or 2024.

Paris & Berlin are in a lot of heads potential good host cities, even if none of them have actually showing any official interest for that... So it would impact Annecy or Munich for 2018.

It shows also the low interest in WOG, that still serve as "bargaining chip" for other big momen of the Olympic Movement : the SOG, but also i think the presidential election... (Thomas Bach in 2013 vs Munich in 2018 !!!)

And regarding Pound, he is probably still one of the leaders of IOC... He was totally backing the London 2012 bid and the Rio 2016's bids !!!

[Citius Altius Fortius]

It shows also the low interest in WOG, that still serve as "bargaining chip" for other big momen of the Olympic Movement : the SOG, but also i think the presidential election... (Thomas Bach in 2013 vs Munich in 2018 !!!)

I agree - Munich's 2018 bid resp. its performance at July 6th, 2011 in Durban is a kind of litmus test for "Thomas Bach 2013" resp. for "Berlin 2020/Berlin 2024"

[Sir Rols]

That's why I've always admired Pound foremost amongst the IOC membership. His straight talking meant he could never bee IOC prez, but what he says is worth paying attention to.

His chapter on bidding in "Inside The Olympics" is the primer and should be required reading for any city considering a bid (not to mention anyone interested in bidding dynamics).

[Rafa]

Even Bach may be too spicy for the IOC.

I saw they are priming Nawal for the diplomatic role of the presidency.

oh and the best renders win! 2012,2014,2016.

alternatively hire Mike Lee.

[Sir Rols]

Even Bach may be too spicy for the IOC.

I saw they are priming Nawal for the diplomatic role of the presidency.

Not a bad point. I guess it depends on how the IOC sees itself doing in 2013 - either cruising along nicely and better going for a diplomat at the helm, or in need of another dose of autocracy a la JAS or Brundage.

[Faster]

No, what the IOC needs is a true consensus builder and that is Nawal. They will kill two sets of critics with one stone (female, Non-European leader and a Muslim too bout). Politically and as a PR it would be unwise to not elect Nawal as the president in 2013 unless she does something incredibly stupid from now until then. Also she is an Olympic champion and having an athlete that was a champion govern the IOC would go along way to get rid of the autocracy picture the group currently has.

[Sir Rols]

No, what the IOC needs is a true consensus builder and that is Nawal. They will kill two sets of critics with one stone (female, Non-European leader and a Muslim too bout). Politically and as a PR it would be unwise to not elect Nawal as the president in 2013 unless she does something incredibly stupid from now until then. Also she is an Olympic champion and having an athlete that was a champion govern the IOC would go along way to get rid of the autocracy picture the group currently has.

Oh I agree. The Olympic Movement is swimming along quite well at the moment. No need for an autocrat to shake things up. Nawal would be a great move.

[Rafa]

and she even smiles twice a year. Rogge sticks to once a year.

[Citius Altius Fortius]

That's why I've always admired Pound foremost amongst the IOC membership. His straight talking meant he could never bee IOC prez, but what he says is worth paying attention to.

His chapter on bidding in "Inside The Olympics" is the primer and should be required reading for any city considering a bid (not to mention anyone interested in bidding dynamics).

... I just looked after the book on amazon.de and I can order it there - the seller is in the USA - do you think that it is worth to read it?

[FYI]

No new revelations here. These are things that most of us here who have followed this stuff for so long, have already known. It's lip-service Rogge that's trying to put a delusional spin on things.

And another interesting point that Pound mentioned, how the Winter Games a lot of times are just awarded for strategically placing the next Summer bid in a much better position. An issue that some of us here have disagreed/debated with, but it looks like that theory holds a lot, a lot of water, since it's basically coming right from the horse's mouth.

[Sir Rols]

And another interesting point that Pound mentioned, how the Winter Games a lot of times are just awarded for strategically placing the next Summer bid in a much better position. An issue that some of us here have disagreed/debated with, but it looks like that theory holds a lot, a lot of water, since it's basically coming right from the horse's mouth.

Actually, in his book he even goes further and says how the Winter Games votes are always more unpredictable abd likely to produce upsets and weird results than the Summers, because of the huge bloc of voters from the warmer and tropical climes who have no iea, or interest, in winter sports.

Citius Altius Fortius Posted Yesterday, 07:59 PM

... I just looked after the book on amazon.de and I can order it there - the seller is in the USA - do you think that it is worth to read it?

Absolutely. Pound describes the IOC inside as he sees it. Bidding only covers one o two chapters, but he gives an inside view of so many things and how they are worked out within the IOC. A lot of wit in i as well (especially his often wry barbs at Samaranch).

[Citius Altius Fortius]

Absolutely. Pound describes the IOC inside as he sees it. Bidding only covers one o two chapters, but he gives an inside view of so many things and how they are worked out within the IOC. A lot of wit in i as well (especially his often wry barbs at Samaranch).

mhh - I will think about it - it might be interesting in interrelation with Munich's 2018 bid...

[Kenadian]

Those points help to explain how Salzburg got tossed under the rails twice. Three of the four last Winter Games votes did go to the right candidate - Salt Lake, Torino, and Vancouver - but Sochi was clearly politics and tiny fledgeling Pyeongchang's near wins likely benefited from "tropical" voters.

[Rafa]

Salzburg got tossed because they were boring. Winter or Summer, makes no difference.

Phase 2 of bidding is lobbying, marketing, pretty renders, bribes.

Sydney-Athens-Beijing-London-Rio...

I really don't even think we'll see another "atlanta" type win in the future.

[Faster]

Those points help to explain how Salzburg got tossed under the rails twice. Three of the four last Winter Games votes did go to the right candidate - Salt Lake, Torino, and Vancouver - but Sochi was clearly politics and tiny fledgeling Pyeongchang's near wins likely benefited from "tropical" voters.

Except for SLC, Torino and Vancouver were all political choices as well.

SLC - bribes, payback and Athens for 2004

Torino - screwing the Swiss over for their nerve for upsetting the existing balance, plus Rome payback

Vancouver - payback for the screw-job on Toronto, and preparing for a European 2012

[stir.ts]

...oh never mind.

[olympian]

Pound should've the IOC president and not that Samaranch puppet Rogge.

[FYI]

I really don't even think we'll see another "atlanta" type win in the future.

Shhhh, don't let those silly & delusional Tulsans & Minneapolans hear you say that.

[ChiTown16]

I really don't even think we'll see another "atlanta" type win in the future.

Depends on what you mean by "atlanta" type win - the reviews of Atlanta (very long bus rides that arrived hours late, inadequate transportation, long distances between venues, heavy new construction, unpredictable crime, etc.) - were not much different than another recent bid city's Pan Am Games. Not that the resemblance was lost on the IOC voters but it certainly wouldn't have warranted a "highest merit" assessment.

Of course, though, the true Atlanta 1996 replay for 2020 has already been defined by the city itself -

Tulsa 2020!!!

CHItown '16

[Kenadian]

Except for SLC, Torino and Vancouver were all political choices as well.

SLC - bribes, payback and Athens for 2004

Torino - screwing the Swiss over for their nerve for upsetting the existing balance, plus Rome payback

Vancouver - payback for the screw-job on Toronto, and preparing for a European 2012

I disagree.

Salt Lake delivered an exceptional Games and their bid was against three others that each had one glaring problem - distance for Ostersund, size for Sion, and mountain height for Quebec.

Torino delivered a good games. Sion is small and no longer fits the reality of a Winter Games. None of the other rejected bids had the size and infrastructure to match.

Vancouver 2010 was a strong bid. The IOC is about to receive one of their best Olympics ever.

Politics plays a part, but you need to have what it takes to make a bid into an Olympic Games. Much of that is resources, but a big part of that is trust from the IOC.

After living through the experience of Vancouver 2010 and seeing what is needed to organize the Olympic Winter Games in the modern world, I just don't see how we can ever go back to any community with a population under 200,000 residents, with anything 500,000 and above being more ideal.